Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-19 – The beginning of the great conversation between G-d and Moshe

Shemot (Exodus) 33:12-34:10 record an amazing conversation between G-d and Moshe. This conversation can be divided into three (or more) parts, 33:12-23, 34:1-4 and 34:5-10. In this discussion we will focus on the conversation that is recorded in 33:12-19, and try to do our best to understand the flow of the conversation, which is not obvious. The discussion on the blog “As close as it gets,” focuses on the end of the first part of the conversation and the second part of the conversation, 33:18-34:7.

The conversation begins with Moshe speaking to G-d, and saying, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me. And you have said, I know you by name, and you have found favor in My eyes,” 33:12, Alter translation, 2004, p. 504. The phrase in the first half of 33:12, “yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” was Moshe referring to G-d's statement in 33:1-3, that after the sin of the golden calf, G-d agreed to send a malakh to accompany the people to the land of Israel, but G-d and/ or the glory of G-d would not accompany the malakh and the people.  This statement by G-d is the background to the conversation in 33:12-19.

What was the point of the first half of 33:12, “You say to me, bring up this people, yet You have not made known to me whom You will send with me” or why did Moshe start the conversation by stating that G-d had not made known to him whom G-d would send? My guess is that Moshe was pointing out that since G-d had not told him who was to be the malakh who would accompany the people, this indicated that the decision recorded in 33:1-3 to send a malakh “without G-d” was not final. Accordingly, Moshe could then make an effort to rescind the decision since Moshe wanted G-d’s glory to accompany the people in their travels in the desert, as he stated in the end of the conversation in 34:9.

In the second half of 33:12, Moshe recalled that G-d told him, G-d’s name, which is recorded in 3:14 and 6:3, and that G-d had stated that Moshe had found favor in G-d’s eyes. This last statement is never recorded prior to this conversation, but was a reasonable assumption by Moshe since G-d had chosen Moshe to be His messenger and Moshe had gone up to Mount Sinai to speak to G-d.

33:13 then records that Moshe continued to speak and said, “And now, if, pray, I have found favor in Your eyes (the end of 33:12), let me know, pray, your ways, that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your eyes. And see, for this nation is Your people,” Alter translation, 2004, p. 504.

In 33:13, Moshe began by stating that if his assumption in 33:12, that he had found favor in G-d’s eyes, was correct, then he asked to know G-d’s ways since knowledge of G-d’s ways would lead him to know G-d, and knowing G-d could cause G-d to look favorably on him and/ or the people. It is interesting that Moshe did not just think that G-d would look favorably on a person based on a person following the laws, but rather Moshe thought that for G-d to look favorably on a person, something extra was needed and that was to “know” G-d in some way. Thus, the Rambam (Moreh 1:54) quotes this verse to argue that the crucial aspect of religion is knowledge of G-d and not praying and fasting. Also, Moshe seems to have been asking for some knowledge of G-d that he did not learn when he was on Mount Sinai for forty days.

One question concerning 33:13 is what are G-d’s ways? I have found six different suggestions to what Moshe meant by the phrase G-d’s ways.

One explanation is from Talmud (Berakhot 7a) is that Moshe was asking about the theodicy question. This is such a basic question in religion that maybe knowing the answer to this question would lead people to have a better knowledge of G-d.

Rashi (on 33:13) varies the approach in the Talmud and suggests that Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways was that Moshe was asking what is the reward of a person who finds favor in G-d? This request is less significant of a question than the theodicy question, and it is unclear why Moshe would want to know about the rewards for the righteous, unless Rashi understood that Moshe was asking about the rewards in the next life. Maybe Rashi thought that Moshe thought that if a person knew the rewards for fulfilling the mitzvot, then more people would follow the Torah.

Rashbam (on 33:13) suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to show him the (best?) way to get to the land of Israel. This approach continues Moshe’s statement in 33:12 that G-d had not told him who was to accompany him, and now, according to the Rashbam, Moshe was saying whoever would accompany the people, still Moshe wanted G-d to tell him the way to the land of Israel. Or, maybe Moshe was asking G-d to accompany the people and not a malakh. This request was partially fulfilled in the second half of 33:14. This approach makes Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways limited to the circumstances of the people living in the desert, and it is unclear how it relates to the remainder of 33:13.

A fourth approach, which I believe is the most popular approach to 33:13, is from the Bekhor Shor (on 33:12, Hizkuni on 33:12 quoting the Bekhor Shor, also Rambam, Moreh I:54) who explains that G-d’s ways is the thirteen middot, attributes of G-d recorded in 34:6,7. With this understanding, Moshe’s request was fulfilled in 34:6,7, and the idea would be that by knowing these attributes a person would have a better knowledge of G-d. Furthermore, the Ran (derashot 4) suggests that Moshe wanted to know G-d’s ways (the 13 middot) in order that Moshe would be able to pray more effectively for the people if they sinned, and then if G-d’s glory would accompany the people, and the people sinned, the Glory would not necessarily kill all the people. Accordingly, with this approach, the ability to pray more effectively would then allow G-d’s glory to be within the malakh who would accompany the people

A fifth suggestion is from the Ibn Ezra (in his introduction to the Decalogue on 20:1) that knowing G-d’s way is to understand astronomy or maybe all of science. The idea here is that by knowing science, then this would lead to a knowledge of G-d.

Seforno (on 33:13) offers a sixth suggestions that it is not the knowledge of science which leads to a knowledge of G-d but a knowledge of philosophical question concerning G-d. For example, Soforno suggests that Moshe was asking G-d to explain how G-d can know the future and yet there still be free will.

With regard to the first, second, fifth and sixth suggestions, it is not recorded that G-d answered Moshe’s request. According to these suggestions, one would have to say that the conversation moved on to other issues.

My guess is that the phrase G-d’s ways refer to how G-d decides to forgive or to punish people, which varies suggestions one and four, and is referred to in the second half of 33:19. Maybe the reason why Moshe was asking this question at this time was because previously in 32:32 Moshe had asked G-d to forgive the people for the sin of the golden calf and G-d had rejected his plea, 32:33,34. Thus, in 33:13, Moshe was asking G-d’s ways to know how and when G-d will forgive the people or punish people. Also, similar to the Ran’s idea with regard to Moshe’s request to learn the 13 middot, Moshe thought that if he had this knowledge of when G-d would forgive or punish the people, then this would lead G-d to returning the glory of G-d to be with the people. Note, this suggestion differs from suggestion four since one does not have to assume that Moshe had known before his question that there existed some specific attributes of G-d as the fourth approach seems to imply.

A second question concerning 33:13 is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe requested to find favor in G-d (Your eyes), but this request seems superfluous after Moshe had already stated in the end of 33:12 that he knew that G-d had found favor with him. Maybe Moshe was asking that if G-d taught Moshe G-d’s ways, then Moshe would be able to find more favor in G-d’s eyes? Maybe in 33:13, Moshe was asking to find ways to find favor in G-d in the future. Maybe, the answer is that in the second half of 33:13, Moshe was trying to learn about G-d’s way to enable other people to find favor in G-d’s eyes, and this is why in the end of the verse Moshe recalls that the Jewish people are G-d’s people. Also, in 33:16, Moshe refers to the people wanting to be able to ascertain that they had found favor in G-d’s eyes.

If in 33:13, Moshe was requesting that G-d look favorably on the people, then maybe the request was to have the covenant renewed based on the idea that the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant. I am not sure if the sin of the golden calf led to the breaking of the covenant, and even if it did, already by 32:14, it seems that G-d had agreed to re-new the covenant. 

Other possibilities, independent of whether the covenant had been renewed or not, are that maybe the request by Moshe for G-d to look favorably on the people was an attempt to renew or improve the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people after the sin of the golden calf or to compensate for G-d not being with the people on their way to the land of Israel? Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d would look favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would return G-d's glory to be within the malakh who was to lead the people in the desert. Or, maybe Moshe thought that if G-d looked favorably upon him or the people, then G-d would help him or the people in their march to the land of Israel? With this last possibility, the goal was to replace in some way the loss of G-d’s glory who would not be within the malakh that was to lead the people.

G-d responded to Moshe, and said, “My face will go and I will grant you rest,” 33:14 (variation of Alter, 2004, p. 504 translation). What does the term G-d’s face mean? In 33:18, Moshe asked to see G-d’s glory and G-d said that no person can see His face, 33:20. It seems that G-d’s face is referring to G-d’s glory and this is Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon’s (on 33:14) explanation of the term. With this idea, we understand that in 33:12,13, Moshe was asking, in an indirect manner, for G-d’s glory to go with the people.

Is this statement “My face (or glory) will go” a positive or negative response? I believe that many people understand it in a positive manner.  The Ran (see middle of derashot haRan 4) explains that G-d’s response was partially positive that G-d was saying that He would not go with the people in the desert but He would join them in the land of Israel.  I think from Moshe’s statement in the beginning of 33:15, “If your face does not go,” we see that G-d’s statement in 33:14 was not a positive response since G-d was not agreeing to allow His glory to be within the people. Furthermore, from Moshe’s request in 34:9, that G-d should “walk” with the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to accompany the people.

The second half (the last two words) of 33:14 records “I (G-d) will grant you rest, va-ha-neechoti.” What do these words mean? One approach is that this phrase can be understood as “I (G-d) will lighten your burden” (JPS translation, in Sarna, 1991, p. 213).  Tigay (2004, p. 188) varies this and writes that the phrase means “I (G-d) will deliver you to safety.” 

What then is the meaning of 33:14? My guess is that G-d was saying that G-d’s glory would go in the front of the people to help guide the people to the land of Israel which would ease Moshe’s concern in 33:12,13 that G-d was only sending a malakh and not G-d’s glory to help take the people to the land of Israel. This answer would be addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways according to the Rashbam’s understanding of the phrase, but according to the other opinions in 33:13, in 33:14, G-d was not addressing Moshe’s request to know G-d’s ways, but responded to Moshe’s underlying concern of the need for assistance to bring the people to the land of Israel.

33:15,16 record Moshe’s response to G-d statement in 33:14. The verses state, “And he (Moshe) said to G-d: If your face does not go, do not take us up from here. And how then, will it be known that I have found favor in Your eyes, I and your people. Will it not be by Your going with us, that I and Your people may be distinguished from every other people that is on the face of the earth?” variation of Alter translation, 2004, pp. 504,505. 

In this response, Moshe does not seem to be referring to his request from 33:13 to know G-d’s ways, but instead Moshe is responding to G-d’s statement in 33:14 that G-d’s glory would be present, albeit in front of the people. In 33:15,16, Moshe was not happy with G-d’s offer. Moshe wanted the glory of G-d to return and be with the malakh and the people, and not in front and separate from the people.

Why did Moshe want G-d's glory to accompany the people if the glory of G-d was so dangerous and could wipe out the people, as recorded in 33:3,5? The answer is from 33:16 where Moshe gave two reasons for desiring the glory of G-d. One reason is that the glory of G-d would enable the people to know that G-d had found favor with them. Presumably this would occur by the people seeing the glory of G-d and the glory of G-d not destroying them, as for example in 40:34. Two, its appearance would make the people distinct from all other people. Apparently, Moshe though that these reasons were worth the risk that G-d’s glory could destroy the people.

33:17 records G-d’s response that “G-d said to Moshe, this thing too, which you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in My eyes, and I have known you by name,” variation of Alter translation, 2004, p. 505.  What did G-d agree to? Also, this agreement is referred to as being a second agreement, the word too, what was G-d’s first agreement? My guess is that G-d's previous agreement to Moshe's request was for G-d not to kill all the people for the sin of the golden calf, 32:14. What is the second agreement here?

One possibility could be that G-d agreed to Moshe’s request in 33:15,16, to have G-d’s glory be within the people, but from Moshe's request in 34:9 for G-d to accompany the people, we see that G-d had not agreed to Moshe's request for the glory of G-d to return, as otherwise Moshe would not have had to ask another time. Furthermore, if G-d had agreed to have G-d’s glory within the people, why would Moshe need to ask to see G-d glory in 33:18?

A second possibility to what was G-d’s agreement, following the Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Ralbag (all on 33:17), is that in 33:17, G-d was acceding to Moshe’s request in 33:13, to show Moshe His ways, and these commentators follow the approach that G-d’s ways are the attributes of G-d. 

Rashbam suggests that in 33:17, G-d was agreeing to Moshe’s request in 33:16 to make the people distinguished. This approach connects G-d’s response to Moshe’s most recent request in 33:16 and not to a request from four verses beforehand (33:13). This agreement, according to this approach, is referred to again in 34:10, and was fulfilled when Moshe’s face radiated, 34:29,30. With this idea, in 33:17 G-d agreed to Moshe’s request to make the people special but changed how they were to be distinguished. Moshe intended for the glory of G-d be with the people to signal that the people were distinguished, while G-d was going to do a special miracle with Moshe. Yet, as Moshe’s face was changed due to Moshe’s partial ability to see G-d’s glory in 34:6, then the people also got to see G-d’s glory in a very, very indirect way.

33:18 records that Moshe then asked to see G-d's glory. Maybe once G-d had not agreed to Moshe’s request for G-d’s glory to be within the people, then Moshe was asking at least to let him see G-d’s glory. This might have been a personal appeal since in the end of 33:17, G-d had acknowledged that G-d had found favor in Moshe and that Moshe had a special status since he knew G-d’s name (mentioned in 33:12, the beginning of the conversation). The Rashbam (on 33:18) adds that this request for a personal vision of G-d’s glory also relates to the renewal or re-affirmation of the covenant after the sin of the golden calf. Maybe that just like by the first covenant, Moshe had experienced an unbelievable revelation from G-d (Shemot 24:10,11), so then Moshe thought that a new revelation would signify the renewal of the covenant.

The beginning of 33:19 records that G-d partially agreed to Moshe's request to see G-d's glory, and the end of 33:19 records that “I (G-d) will grant favor to those I grant favor to, and I will have compassion to those I have compassion to.” The second half of 33:19 is not in response to Moshe’s request in 33:18, but to Moshe’s request in 33:13 for G-d to tell him G-d’s ways. In the end of 33:19, G-d is stating that G-d alone will determine who he is to be granted favor and compassion, and G-d would elaborate on this idea in 34:6,7. This reading of the second half of 33:19 means that G-d rejected Moshe’s request to teach him G-d’s ways.

To summarize, it appears that there are two issues being discussed in 33:12-19, whether G-d’s glory would accompany the people in the desert and whether G-d would share with Moshe, G-d’s ways, which I understand to be how to know when G-d will punish or forgive people who sinned. These issues are interrelated since Moshe thought that knowing G-d’s ways would lead to G-d’s glory being with the people. As of 33:19, G-d had not agreed to send the glory of G-d with the people, and G-d told Moshe that there was no set formula for when G-d would forgive sinners. In this conversation, G-d only agreed to do something which would show that the people were special, and this would be to make Moshe’s face radiate, and to partially show His glory to Moshe.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 2004, Introduction and annotations to Exodus, in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102-202.

Shemot (Exodus) 14:1-8, 17 – Pharaoh's heart (brain) at Yam Suf: The true colors of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by Yam Suf

Shemot 14:1-3 record that G-d had the Jewish people travel in a circuitous course when they left Egypt to make Pharaoh think that the Jews were lost in the desert. 14:4 then records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden Pharaoh's heart in order that the Egyptians would chase after the Jewish people. Afterwards, 14:5-7 record that once Pharaoh heard that the Jewish people had run away, he immediately wanted to enslave them again. Pharaoh gathered his army and began to chase the Jewish people. 14:8 then records that G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart that Pharaoh chased after the Jewish people. Similarly, Shemot 14:17 records that G-d told Moshe that He would harden the hearts of the Egyptian forces to chase the Jewish people. Note that this hardening of the heart is a little different than by the plagues since there the hardening of the heart was not to let the Jews leave, while here the hardening was to chase the Jewish people to make them slaves again.

These verses raise two somewhat contradictory questions. One, once G-d was going to harden Pharaoh's heart to have him chase the Jewish people, why did the people have to march in a circuitous course? Two, why did G-d have to harden Pharaoh and the Egyptian forces heart since 14:5-7 record that they went to chase after the Jewish people before G-d hardened their hearts (in 14:8)?

Maybe the circuitous route was to show Pharaoh's true colors, when his heart was not yet hardened, that he was evil, even after experiencing the ten plagues. Even though 14:5-7 do not relate Pharaoh’s decision to chase after the Jewish people to the people getting lost in the desert, undoubtedly, he learned this information (see 14:3) and then he thought that G-d had only helped the Jewish people temporarily with the plagues, so he thought he had a chance to enslave the people again. We see that his request for G-d to bless him, 12:32, was a lie.

Why then did G-d harden Pharaoh’s heart after Pharoah was already chasing the Jewish people? The answer is that Pharaoh's desire to chase the Jews and enslave them was his intuitive response to hearing that the Jewish people were trapped (system one of the thinking process of the brain). However, after experiencing the ten plagues, a little more thinking (system two of the thinking process of the brain) would have made Pharaoh realize that he should just let the Jewish people go. Thus, 14:4 tells us that G-d would harden Pharaoh heart and 14:8 tells us that G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart that his thoughtful second system did not overcome his intuition response to chase down the Jewish people, see our discussion on Shemot 9:34,35 "A hard heart: System one and system two."

With regard to Pharaoh's soldiers, their hearts were initially not hardened to show, like Pharaoh, their cruelty that they wanted to attack a defenseless innocent people. This explains why their deaths at Yam Suf were just. When these soldiers saw that G-d split the Yam Suf, their intuitive response (like most soldiers) was to continue chasing the people. However, if they had thought a little bit more, their thoughtful second system of thinking, then they should have been sufficiently awed of the waters being split, that they would have stopped chasing and trying to kill the Jewish people. Accordingly, G-d hardened their hearts to chase the Jewish people into the middle of Yam Suf, and did not allow their second system of thinking to overcome their intuitive response. These soldiers died at Yam Suf, 14:17, 28, and they were no longer a threat to the Jewish people when the people were in the desert.

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42; 42:8; 45:1,12 – The importance of Yosef’s revid ha-zahav - The golden half mask

Bereshit (Genesis) 41:42 records that Pharaoh gave Yosef linen clothes and a revid ha-zahav to put around his neck. The special clothing re-calls the special coat, ketonet pasim, that Yaakov gave to Yosef in the beginning of the story, 37:3, but what is the revid ha-zahav and is it crucial to the story?

Alter (2004, p. 235) notes that while many people translate the revid ha-zahav as being a gold chain, it should be translated as a golden collar, and from Egyptian bas-reliefs, it would have covered parts of a person’s shoulders, the upper chest and the neck. My guess is that the golden collar also covered Yosef’s cheeks, and if this is true, this would give a new perspective for several verses in the story of Yosef. (Note all of the points below are still possible if Yosef wore a mask even if the revid ha-zahav was not the mask.)

One, 42:8 records that the brothers did not recognize Yosef. This is slightly surprising since there were ten brothers and not one of them recognized Yosef. Rashi (on 42:8) suggests that maybe Yosef had a beard at this point, while when he left them, he was a still a youngster who was not yet able to grow a beard. It is also possible that they did not recognize Yosef since they never would have expected Yosef to be ruling Egypt. Another possibility based on the idea that the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, is that the brothers did not recognize Yosef since they only saw his upper face.

Two, the end of 45:1 records that Yosef made himself known to his brothers, be-hitvada, but the verse does not record Yosef as saying anything. What did Yosef do to make himself known to his brothers?

I believe the standard explanation for 45:1 is that when the verse states that Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, this is an introduction to the ensuing verses, as 45:3 records that Yosef told his brothers, “I am Yosef.” Yet, there is a break of a verse, 45:2, which records how Yosef cried and that the Egyptians heard him crying, and only afterwards did he say that he was Yosef, 45:3. However, if the revid ha-zahav covered Yosef’s cheeks, then 45:1 could be understood simply that Yosef took off the revid ha-zahav, and then the brothers could recognize him. With this idea, he cried after taking off his half-mask, 45:2. After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Eliyahu Navon suggested that a proof for this idea is that in 45:3, the Torah specifies that the brothers were frightened from his face, panav, but does not record from him, mimenu, to stress that the crucial issue was that they saw his face, which was something new, since only at this point did Yosef remove his half-mask. With this idea, in 45:3 Yosef said that he was Yosef as the introduction to his question about Yaakov, or to remove any lingering doubts his brothers might have had about his identity.

Three, 45:12 records that Yosef told the brothers "Here, your eyes see, as well as my brother Binyamin's eyes, that it is my mouth that speaks to you," (Fox, 1995, translation, p. 215). The verse is within a section where Yosef was telling his brothers to tell Yaakov to come to Egypt, 45:9-13, and the concluding verse in this section, 45:13 records that Yosef told his brothers to tell Yaakov what they saw in Egypt. This seeing in 45:13 seems to refer to the seeing mentioned in 45:12, but what can it mean that the brothers saw that Yosef’s mouth was speaking to them?

Many commentators (see for Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 45:12) explain that the reference to seeing Yosef’s mouth in 45:12 refers to Yosef speaking to the brothers in Hebrew. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 45:12) this is not a strong proof that he was Yosef since many people could have known Hebrew. In addition, if the proof of Yosef that the brothers were to supposed to tell Yaakov was that Yosef spoke Hebrew, then 45:12,13 should have referred to the brothers hearing Yosef, but the verse refers to something that the brothers saw, Yosef’ mouth.

Ramban (on 45:12) suggests that Yosef wanted the brothers to tell Yaakov the great honors that they saw that Yosef had in Egypt, but 45:13 records that Yosef told the brothers both to tell Yaakov about the great honors and what they saw. This means that the seeing is separate from the great honors.

Rashi (on 45:4,12, based on Bereshit Rabbah 93:8) also suggests that the seeing referred to in 45:12 was that Yosef showed his brothers that he was circumcised. This is quite bizarre that the brothers really checked this and even if they did maybe other people also circumcised themselves. Also, this seeing would not be related to Yosef’s mouth.

A simple explanation of 45:12 is that once Yosef had removed the revid ha-zahav (as I believe occurred in 45:1), then the brothers could see Yosef’s mouth without his cheeks being covered up. Thus, Yosef was telling his brothers that they should tell Yaakov how they saw his mouth and could then verify that it was Yosef. Interestingly, 45:26,27 record that Yaakov did not believe his sons when they returned from Egypt, and it was only when he saw the wagons did Yaakov believe his sons about Yosef. These wagons were authorized by the mouth of Pharaoh, 45:21, and hence in the end it was the mouth of Pharaoh and not the mouth of Yosef which convinced Yaakov to go to Egypt.

(After speaking on this idea in my synagogue, Shmuel Klang noted that the Ramban in his comments on 46:29 suggests that when Yaakov met Yosef in Egypt, Yosef had some type of head covering, mitznefet, which initially delayed Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef in conjunction with the Ramban’s assumption that Yaakov’s vision was already deteriorating at that point. It seems that the Ramban was referring to a hat and not a mask since the Ramban writes that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was only momentarily delayed. Note in 46:29, there is no hint in the Torah that Yaakov’s recognition of Yosef was not immediate.)

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20-55 – The last meeting between Yaakov and Lavan: On neutral ground

Bereshit (Genesis) 31:20 records that Yaakov “stole” Lavan’s heart since he fled from Lavan’s house in Haran without telling Lavan that he was leaving. The following verse, 31:21, then records that in this flight Yaakov crossed the river, which is commonly understood to mean the Euphrates. Why did Yaakov not inform Lavan that he was leaving? This seems to be acting in a sneaky manner. If Yaakov had really changed his character during his stay in Lavan, then he should not have been sneaky, but should have left in an open manner. Also, why do we need to know that Yaakov crossed the Euphrates?

Afterwards, 31:22 records that after three days Lavan learned that Yaakov had fled. Lavan then chased down Yaakov and caught up to Yaakov by the hills of Gilead, 31:23. This led to the final encounter between Lavan and Yaakov, 31:26-55, which began by Lavan questioning Yaakov, why had he fled without telling him, 31:26-28.

Yaakov’s answer to Lavan was that he was worried that had he informed Lavan that he was leaving, Lavan would have stolen his wives, i.e. forced Rahel and Lea, Lavan’s daughters, to remain in Haran, 31:31. We see later on that Lavan did claim “ownership” of Yaakov’s wives, 31:43, but why was Yaakov not worried that Lavan would steal his wives on the hills of Gilead? Did Yaakov think that Lavan would not have chased him down? Or, did Yaakov think that he could get to the land of Israel before Lavan chased him down? Was Yaakov surprised by the sight of Lavan?

Seforno (on 31:31) suggests that in Haran, Lavan had many supporters, and hence he could have forced Rahel and Lea to stay in Haran, but on the hills of Gilead, Lavan did have enough men to impose his will on Yaakov. This approach seems to be based on the idea that Yaakov was not sure that G-d would physically protect him from Lavan in Haran, which I doubt. Also, most likely, Lavan had taken enough men with him on the hills of Gilead to impose his will, just that he was stopped by G-d’s intervention, 31:24, as could have happened in Haran.

My guess is that Yaakov was pretty sure that Lavan would chase him down, because the Torah records, from the perspective of the narrator, that Yaakov had stolen Lavan’s heart by running away, 31:19, and there is no reason to believe that Yaakov was unaware of this reaction. If this is true, then Yaakov could not really have hidden from Lavan. Even had he gotten to the land of Canaan, Lavan would still have tracked his down. It is even possible that Yaakov waited for Lavan on the hills of Gilead. The logic would be that Yaakov was not worried about Lavan since G-d had already assured him that He would be with him, 31:3, and for Yaakov it was better to finish with Lavan before having to deal with Esav. How then did Yaakov gain by meeting Lavan on the hills of Gilead instead of being in Haran?

My thought is that had Yaakov stayed in Haran he would have been subject to the laws of Haran, and then legally Lavan would have been able to keep Rahel and Lea in Haran. We see the importance of the local jurisdiction of Haran after Lavan switched Rahel and Lea on the marriage night, 29:23. It was clear that Yaakov had been working for Rahel, but still Lavan said the law in this place (Haran) was that Yaakov had to marry Lea first, 29:26. Even on the hills of Gilead, Lavan claimed that everything that Yaakov had, including Yaakov’s wives, really belonged to him, 31:43.  Lavan was making this claim since he was applying the laws of Haran despite the fact that he was outside of Haran. Thus, Yaakov wanted to leave Haran’s jurisdiction, which is the importance of 31:21 that he passed over the Euphrates, which meant leaving Haran’s jurisdiction, and then Rahel and Lea would legally stay with their husband, Yaakov, instead of their father, Lavan.

Bereshit (Genesis)18:24-32, 19:4 – Avraham’s request to save the city of Sodom (Sedom): The numbers: 50, 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10

Bereshit (Genesis) 18:20,21 records that G-d told Avraham that the people of Sodom (Sedom) and Gomorrah (Amora) were evil, and G-d implied that he was going to destroy the cities. 18:22 then records that the “people” who had been with Avraham, went to the Sodom, and then 18:23 records that Avraham began to plead with G-d not to kill the righteous/ innocent with the guilty.

18:24-32 record the details of Avraham’s request from G-d. 18:24,25 begin that Avraham requested for G-d to spare the city (Sodom) if there were fifty righteous people living in the city. God agreed to this request, 18:26. However, Avraham continued pleading, and he asked G-d to spare Sodom, if there were fewer righteous people, 45 people, 18:27,28. G-d again agreed to Avraham’s second request, 18:28. Yet, Avraham continued pleading with G-d, lowering the needed righteous people to 40, 30, 20 and finally 10. G-d agreed to all of Avraham's requests, but then Avraham stopped whittling down the numbers, 18:27:32.

Why did Avraham start his request with fifty righteous/ innocent people and why did he stop at ten people? Why did he not ask for G-d to spare Sodom if there was one righteous/ innocent person in the area?

Rashi (on 18:24,28,29,32) suggests that the basic principle was that ten righteous people could save an area, and the number fifty was based on ten righteous people saving five different places. The number forty-five was based on the idea of nine people in each place and adding G-d to the number in each place. The number forty was for ten righteous people in four cities to save four cities, and then the declining numbers would correspond to saving fewer and fewer areas. Finally, Rashi suggests that Avraham did not request less than ten righteous/ innocent people since he had learned from his request of 45, i.e., nine for each city, that nine righteous/ innocent people were insufficient to save a city.

Ramban (on 18:24) questions Rashi's logic. If ten righteous people were sufficient to save a place, then the Ramban wonders, why on each occasion that Avraham reduced the number of righteous people, Avraham began his request by asking for G-d's mercy. If the reduction in the number of righteous people matched the reduction in the number of places, then the request did not involve any more mercy on G-d's part since it was the same ratio as the first request of fifty righteous people. Also, the Ramban does not understand, why Avraham should not have requested for nine people for one place since this was not the same as requesting for G-d to spare five places for 45 people since maybe in one place there were nine righteous people but not nine righteous people in five different places? The Ramban concludes that he cannot understand how Rashi came to his explanation and he thinks that Avraham was always praying for five cities. Yet, the Ramban leaves the numbers of people unexplained.

Firstly, it seems that Avraham was only praying for the people of Sodom either because he knew them from chapter 14 (he saved them) or because of Lot, as in the conversation between G-d and Avraham, the Torah only refers to one city and the entire focus of the story is on Sodom. However, why the different numbers?

My guess is that basis for the numbers of people that Avraham suggested was because Sodom was a small city, more like a village than a city. Accordingly, the first number of fifty might have been because fifty people were a small majority of the number of families. For example, there might have been 90 families living in Sodom, and then fifty righteous people would be a majority per family. The next number 45, the only non-zero ending number, might have been since that was very close to being half the population. Afterwards, Avraham reduced the number since he was basing himself on having a meaningful minority which could save the city.

It could also be that initially Avraham might have thought that G-d would respond to his first request by agreeing to a higher number, say 150 people, and then they would have compromised at 100. However, G-d surprised Avraham by agreeing to 50 righteous/ innocent people as being enough to save Sodom, which indicated to Avraham that there did not have to be a large majority of righteous people to save the city. This might have prompted Avraham to continue even with having a meaningful minority of people.

Why did Avraham stop at ten? Wenham (1994) notes that, "the tone of G-d's replies conveys the feeling that He cannot be pushed much further." Or, maybe Avraham was very confident that there were ten righteous/ innocent people in Sodom. Or, maybe Avraham thought that less than ten righteous people were too small a minority to save Sodom.

A possible proof that Sodom was not very large is from the battle between Avraham and the four kings in chapter 14. 14:14 records that Avraham attacked the four kings with 318 men, which implies that the force of the four kings was around the same size or smaller since he would not have attacked a much large force. Furthermore, if the army of the four kings was around 300-500 soldiers, then this indicates that Sodom and his allies were not able to gather a much larger force since the four kings would surely have taken enough soldiers from Mesopotamia for them to be confident of winning in all of their battles against the five “cities,” 14:8,9. Finally, in olden time, when there was a war, every adult able-bodied man went out to fight, which implies that Sodom (and each of its allies) would have an army and a male adult population of around 80-100 men or less.

Note, after Lot leaves Sodom, he pleads to go to Tzo’ar, and he bases his request on the fact that it was a tiny place, 19:20. This means that Tzo’ar was even smaller than Sodom.

After discussing this idea in my synagogue, a friend, Oded Walk, suggested another proof that Sodom was a small place. 19:4 records that the whole population, old and young, surrounded Lot's house, but how can there have been enough room if the population was very large? Due to this problem, Rashi (on 19:4, see Siftei Chachamim on Rashi's comments) suggested that 19:4 does not mean literally that the entire population of the city surrounded the house, but that no one in Sodom protested the people’s treatment of Lot. It is much simpler to understand 19:4 that the population of Sodom was small, and then everybody or a majority of people (50 people?) could have surrounded Lot’s house.

The idea that Sodom was a dinky place might answer the archeological question that no cities have been unearthed that accord with the period of Avraham's approximate lifetime, 1800 BCE. A friend, Aaron Israel, suggested to me that due to the great upheaval that occurred after the conversation between G-d and Avraham, one would not expect to find any archeological remains, but people have searched. The sites that have been suggested, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria (on the southeastern present-day Jordanian side of the Dead Sea), seemed to have been destroyed around 2300 BCE, see Rast 1987. Closer to Avraham’s likely time is that Harris and Beardow (1995) suggest that the cities were situated on the peninsula (El Lisan) which divides the two basins of the Dead Sea and the destruction occurred around 1900 BCE. On the other hand, if Sodom was just a dinky village, then one would not expect to find any remnants of large buildings that would have indicated a city in ancient times. Who knows?

Bibliography:

Rast, Walter, E., 1987, Bronze Age cities along the Dead Sea, Archaeology, 40:1, pp. 42-49.

Harris, G. M. and A. P. Beardow, 1995, The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: a geotechnical perspective, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 28:4, pp. 349–362.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1994, Genesis, Waco: Word Books.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10 – Hakhel, shemitta, and Sukkot

   דברים לא:י - ויצו משה אותם לאמר מקץ שבע שנים במעד שנת השמיטה בחג הסוכות.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 31:10,11 record that Moshe commanded the people meketz seven years, be-moed (time of) the shemitta year in the holiday of Sukkot, to hear the Torah being read in the chosen place. This law is called hakhel and the reference to the chosen place connects this law to the laws of chapter 12, which begin the large section of laws of the book of Devarim with laws relating to the chosen place.

There is much confusion about the timing of hakhel. The word meketz means the end (see Rashi on Bereshit 41:1), which means that hakhel should be at the end of seven years, but Sukkot is in the beginning of the year. One answer is the Ibn Ezra's opinion (on 31:9, 15:1 and 9:11) that the word meketz really means the beginning of a time period, and then, according to this idea, hakhel is to be done in the beginning of the shemitta year. A second answer is that Chazal (see Rambam, Laws of Chagiga 3:3) understand that meketz means the end of a time period, its usual meaning, but that hakhel is to be observed in the Sukkot of the eighth year of the shemitta cycle or the first year of the new cycle, when it is no longer shemitta. Rashi (on Devarim 31:10) follows this idea and explains that 31:10 refers to this year as being the time (moed) of shemitta since some laws of shemitta still applied. This approach is difficult since the eighth year is not the shemitta year even if some of the laws of shemitta are still relevant.

A third possibility is that really the year begins in Nisan (Shemot 12:2 and Rabbi Yehoshua, Bavli, Rosh Hashanah 11a, see our discussion, “When is the Jewish New Year?”), and then the holiday of Sukkot in the shemitta year, while not at the end of year, can be considered the end of the seven-year cycle, the language of 31:10, since there are just six months to go in the seven-year or eighty four month cycle.

Why should the hakhel ceremony take place during the festival of Sukkot? Sukkot is a pilgrimage festival, but why is hakhel not on Shavuot or chag ha-Matzot? Abarbanel (1999, pp. 492,493) suggests two reasons why Sukkot is the most propitious time for the hakhel ceremony. One (see also Tigay, 1996, p. 291), is that as Sukkot occurs after the harvest, the people could relax and concentrate on hearing the Torah being read. Abarbanel’s second rationale is that since on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur people re-dedicate themselves to G-d, then people will be more likely take to heart the Torah reading that they would hear during the hakhel ceremony.

A third question is what is the connection between shemitta and hakhel? Maybe there is no connection between hakhel and shemitta, but the shemitta year was a way for the people to mark which year hakhel was to be observed.

Also, why does hakhel only take place once every seven years? A possible answer is that had the ceremony occurred every year it would lose its effect of increasing the people's fear of G-d, 31:12,13 (diminishing marginal utility).

Menachem Kasdan (1969) suggests an appealing reason both for why hakhel is related to Sukkot and to the shemitta year. He notes, as do many (see our discussion on 31:7-23, "Passing the baton from Moshe to Yehoshua"), that based on the Rambam (Laws of Chagiga 3:6) that hakhel is a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah. In addition, he points out that the shemitta year corresponds to the conditions of the people in the desert who received the Torah at Mount Sinai. He writes (p. 79), “Only a nation whose faith permits it to dwell in the unhospitable desert or observe shemitta is worthy of receiving the Torah.” Furthermore, he notes, following the timing of hakhel according to Chazel, that by the holiday of Sukkot in the eighth year of the shemitta cycle after the shemitta year, there were no celebrations of crops being harvested. Thus, he suggests that in Sukkot of that year, the people were again showing their trust in G-d, and this made them worthy of re-receiving the Torah by the law of hakhel.

Kasdan’s idea is interesting and can be slightly varied. Maybe celebrating hakhel during Sukkot of the shemitta year was to have the people be as close as possible to the conditions of the generation that actually heard the Decalogue. The obligation to live in sukkot during the festival of Sukkot is an approximate re-creation of the conditions of the people who lived in the desert, see Vayikra 23:43, and in the shemitta year the people were living off the produce of the land that grew naturally somewhat similar to the mahn that the people lived on during their time in the desert.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (Abarbanel), Yitzhak (1437-1508), 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.

Kasdan, Menachem, 1969, Hakhel, Gesher, 4:1, pp. 70-80.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

 

Devarim 20:10 -15 – Are optional wars permitted in the Torah?

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of kings, 5:1) writes that there are two types of wars in Jewish law, a war that fulfills a mitzvah, milchmet mitzvah, and an optional war, milchmet reshut. The Rambam gives three examples of a war that is a mitzvah to fight: To fight the seven nations who lived in the land of Canaan, to fight Amalek and to defend the Jewish people from enemies who attack the Jewish people. There is support for each of these examples from the Torah. For example, Devarim 7:1,2 refers to fighting the seven nations, Devarim 25:17-19 refers to fighting Amalek and Bemidbar 10:9 refers to fighting a nation that attacks the Jewish people. Note, the wars with Arad (Bemidbar 21:1-3), Og (Bemidbar 21:33-35) and the war with Midyan (Bemidbar 25:17,18; 31:1-8, see our discussion on Bemidbar 25:14-18, “The battle with Midyan: Kozbi”) also were wars to stop these nations from attacking the Jewish people. Also, Avraham’s war with the four kings to save Lot (Bereshit 14) would fall into this category of being a war that is a mitzvah. On the other hand, the war with Sihon (Bemidbar 21:21-31) was under the category of a war with the seven nations, the Amori, but since the war was fought outside the land of Israel, Moshe was able to offer Sihon peace, which he refused, see Nachshoni 1987, pp. 657, 659.

The Rambam then gives two examples of an optional war, to increase the boundaries of the nation and to add prestige to the king. These wars do not seem to have any source in the Torah.

The Mishnah (Sotah 8:7, Talmud Sotah 44b) takes it as a given that there is a concept of an optional war, and in the discussion about the types of war, the Talmud quotes Rava that for sure an optional war was the wars fought by David to expand the borders of his kingdom. (Shmuel Rubinstein, 1975, p. 374, in his notes on Rambam 5:1, explains that the wars by David was when he fought with Aram Tzova, which I think is the reference to the wars recorded in Shmuel II chapter 10. Could it also refer to the war mentioned in Shmuel II 7:3-5 or is this the same war as in chapter 10? Other optional wars by David could be his war with Moav, Shmuel II 7:2, and/ or his wars before he was a king, Shmuel I 27:8,9.)

One possible source in the Torah for an optional war is the laws of warfare recorded in 20:10-15, as Rashi (on 20:10) writes that the laws in these verses are applicable to optional wars. Yet, as noted by Luzzatto (on 20:11), the Torah does not give any explanation for the source of the war referred to in 20:10-15. Luzzatto suggests that the context of the war in 20:10-15 can be known from the beginning of chapter 20, 20:1, which refers to the people going to fight an enemy, and Luzzatto argues that an enemy is a nation that harmed the Jewish people either by trying to conquer the land of the people to take possessions of the people. Accordingly, Luzzatto argues that the war referred to in 20:10-15 was not an optional war, but one to defend the people, the third example of the Rambam’s example of obligatory wars.  One could add to his argument by noting that the last law in the section on wars, the law of the captive women, also begins with the phrase when you fight your enemy, 21:10. Thus, both the beginning and the ending of the section on war refer to fighting an enemy and not some peaceful nation, and then all the laws within the section, which includes 20:10-15, are also referring to fighting an enemy. Note Shimon and Levi’s massacre of the people of Shekhem (Bereshit 34) was a case where they were “fighting” a war with a peaceful “nation” since the people of Shekhem made a deal with the family of Yaakov and this can explain why Yaakov was so furious with them, see our discussion on Bereshit 34:25-35:5, “The brothers of Dina go amok.”

If there is no source for an optional war, then participating in such a war should be forbidden since a person is killing other people for money or prestige. This “right” to fight such a war was the common understanding until the 20th century, but should people be allowed to kill for material gain or glory? My guess is that this concept in Judaism either derives from the culture and mind set of ancient times or to defend the actions of King David, as occurs in his actions with Uriah and Bat Sheva (see Shabbat 56a), but has no basis in the Torah.

Bibliography

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parashot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Rubinstein, Shmuel, 1975, Commentary on Rambam’s Mishnah Torah, Rambam La’am, Vol. 17, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Introduction to four kinot relating to the massacre of the Jews in Germany by the Crusaders

On Tisha B'av there are four kinot which re-call the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz (all in Germany along the Rhine River) by the Crusaders in 1096. These kinot are Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim, Amarti sheu meni and Evel aorer. The kinot also describe how the Jews refused to become Christians and instead killed themselves, and even their children.

On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, the Pope Urban II made an appeal that Christians in the West should go help the Christians in the East and this led to a series of Crusades by people in Western Europe to capture land in the Middle East and specifically the land of Israel. One group of at least 15,000 people from apparently Northern France responded to the Pope’s call, and started to walk to the land of Israel in the spring of 1096. However, these people were not willing to wait to fight until they got to the land of Israel, but they started to attack Jewish communities almost from the get go. Sperber (1990, p. 109) writes that it seems that the first Jewish community that they attacked was in Rouen in northwest France. Afterwards, they travelled eastwards towards Germany, and they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer on May 9, 1096 (8th of Iyar). Note, the kinah Mi yeten roshi mayim gives the dates for the attacks on the Jews of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. Also, note that since the Crusader mob travelled eastwards from France to Germany, north of Paris, they did not encounter the Jewish communities south of Paris where Rashi lived, and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 431) writes that this enabled the Torah shebe’al peh to continue since there was no destruction of Torah scholarship in France in 1096.

From Speyer, the Crusader mob went north along the Rhine to kill the Jews in Worms (around 50 kilometers north of Speyer) on the 23rd of Iyar and Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 24 and May 31, 1096) and then they continued north again to Mainz (another 50 kilometers north of Worms) to kill the Jews in Mainz on the third of Sivan (June 2, 1096). Afterwards they continued marching northwards, 165 kilometers, to the city of Cologne and they killed the Jews there on Shavuot (June 5, 1096). This last pogrom is not mentioned in the kinot, but is mentioned by Sperber (1990, p. 108). The fact that Crusaders marched northwards, which was out of their way since they were supposed to be walking east or south to go to the land of Israel, shows their cruelty as they were just going to kill the Jews. According to one estimate, during these two months of May and June 1096 in Germany, “as many as 8,000 Jews were massacred or took their own lives,” (Haag, 2014, p. 106).

Most of the mob who attacked the Jewish communities died on their march to the land of Israel, but some joined with a Crusader force, which was led by various knights, and they conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 (17th of Tammuz). This led to more massacres of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and the burning of synagogues where Jews were hiding. These massacres are not mentioned in the kinot, but the entire period of the Crusaders was a terrible period for the Jewish people.

One oddity about the four kinot relating to the destruction of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Mainz and Worms is that they are not grouped together. Instead, in between the four kinot, there are kinot about the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash and the second Bet ha-Mikdash. I have never understood this disorder. People have suggested to me that this apparent disorder is to show that all the tragedies are related. I doubt this and think there could be some historical reasons, but I do not know of any particular reason.

Bibliography:

Haag, Michael, 2014, The tragedy of the Templars: The rise and fall of the Crusader States, London: Profile Books.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Devarim 1:37, 3:26 and 4:21 – Why was Moshe unable to go to the land of Israel?

Devarim 1:37 records within Moshe’s recollection of the sin of the spies and between two verses that state that Calev and Yehoshua would be able to go to the land of Israel, that Moshe told the people that G-d was angry at him because of them and this is why he was unable to go into the land of Israel. The inability of Moshe to go to the land of Israel is quite tragic for Moshe since this was the goal of his mission starting from the third chapter of the book of Shemot.

Yet, 1:37 is difficult to understand since the verse implies that the reason that Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel was due to the sin of the people by the spies since the context of the verse, if not the verse itself, was Moshe’s recollection of the people’s sin by the spies (Bemidbar 13,14). However, how did Moshe sin in that incident? Also, Bemidbar 20:12 (and see also Bemidbar 27:14) records that Moshe was punished that he could not go to the land of Israel for his actions when the people requested water by Mei Merivah (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:6-13, “Moshe’s sin?”), and not due to the sin of the people by the spies.

Subsequently, 3:26 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry (depending on how one explains the word va-yitaber) at him on their account and therefore G-d would not listen to his prayers to go to the land of Israel. This verse does not seem to be related to the sin of the spies or to the incident at Mei Merivah. Why should G-d be angry at Moshe due to the people?

Afterwards, 4:21 records that Moshe told the people again that G-d was angry with him, but this time it was due to the words of the people, and hence he could not go to the land of Israel. This verse is unrelated to the sin of the spies or Mei Merivah. Instead, the verse relates Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel to the words of the people, what words?

From all three verses, we see that in Moshe’s speeches to the people in Devarim, Moshe was ignoring the incident of Mei Merivah.

There are several answers as to why the books of Bemidbar and Devarim seem to give different reasons for why Moshe was unable to go to the land of Israel.

One possible answer is that had the people not sinned by the spies, Moshe would have gone to the land of Israel, and the events recorded in Bemidbar 20 concerning Mei Merivah would not have happened. Thus, maybe one could argue that the ultimate reason why Moshe was not able to go to the land of Israel was the sin of the spies. Yet, still it was not the people’s fault that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah, even if the people had sinned by the spies.

A second answer (see Y. Leibowitz, 1990, pp. 146-149) is that really Moshe was punished that he could not go into the land of Israel due to the sins of the people. This answer ignores the events in Bemidbar 20, unless one claims that Moshe’s actions there show that he was unable to lead the next generation and hence he had to suffer the punishment of the previous generation. Yet, Moshe seemed to have been a very effective leader of the people in several events after Mei Merivah, as for example in the battles with Sihon and Og, and the incident with the snakes, Bemidbar 21:4-9, 21-35. In addition, Bemidbar 20:27 and Bemidbar 27:14 indicate that Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah and his actions were not just a case of poor leadership.

A third idea (see Rashi on 3:26) is that in Devarim, Moshe was saying, admittedly not so explicitly, that he had sinned in Bemidbar 20 due to the people. It was not just that the people demanded water, but maybe Moshe and Aharon's sin by Mei Merivah was their re-action to the people's complaint for water that Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were trying to get water for the people, instead of telling the people to rely on the mahn (see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:2-5, 21:5, “Water in the desert”). Maybe in Devarim, Moshe was saying that G-d was angry with him for going to the ohel moed in Bemidbar 20:6 and for giving the impression that he was going to plead with G-d on behalf of the people. Devarim 3:26 would then mean that G-d was angry when I (Moshe) tried to help you (the people get water) that Moshe spoke to G-d for the people’s sake. Or, following this approach, maybe Moshe was saying that he hit the rock instead of waiting for the water to come out since the people were pressuring him to get the water from the rock. This approach negates any connection between Moshe’s inability to go to the land of Israel and the sin of the spies.

A fourth possibility is that really the sin of Moshe that determined that he would not be able to go to the land of Israel was when he doubted G-d’s ability to provide the people meat in Bemidbar 11:21-23. In our discussion on Bemidbar 11:10-29, “Moshe’s reaction to the people clamoring for meat,” we suggested that Moshe was not punished for this doubt since G-d had mercy on him since he was depressed at that time. A different reason could be that at that time, the people were just about to go into the land of Israel, and hence Moshe could not have been replaced then. This immunity ended when the people sinned by the spies, and in the aftermath of the sin of spies, the Torah never states that Moshe was to be able to go the land of Israel. Thus, according to this possibility, it was the sin of the spies that caused Moshe not to be able to enter the land of Israel. How then do the events at Mei Merivah relate to Moshe not being able to go to the land of Israel? While it seems that Moshe sinned in that incident, it hard to understand how this sin was so severe that he should be punished that he could not go to the land of Israel.  Accordingly, maybe one can understand that Moshe’s “major” sin was by Bemidbar 11:21-23, but once Moshe was not punished for this, then a “new” sin had to happen even it was not that severe. This new sin was either that he hit the rock or hit it twice or relayed the complaints of the people to G-d, but the sin was sufficient to allow the punishment of his actions in Bemidbar 11:21,22 to re-surface.

If this approach is correct, then in 1:37, Moshe stated that G-d was angry with him due to the sin of the spies since due to that sin, his immunity was removed, and G-d could then “display” his anger even due a minor sin. Afterwards, in 3:24, Moshe stated how he recognizes G-d’s great powers, and this was to rectify his sin from Bemidbar 11:21,22, but this was not sufficient as Moshe stated in 3:26. Finally in 4:21, Moshe refers to the sin of the people by their speaking and maybe this refers to their sin of stating that they wanted to appoint a person to take them back to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:4.

With this approach we can understand why Moshe told the people three times in Devarim that he was being punished because of them. He was being punished since they had sinned by not going into the land of Israel, and he did not want them to repeat this sin.

A fifth (and I think the best) way to understand why Moshe could not go to the land of Israel is that there are two separate issues in Bemidbar and Devarim. Bemidbar 20:12 states that because Moshe sinned by Mei Merivah he was unable to take the people into the land of Israel, which means that he was no longer going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel.  Similarly, Bemidbar 27:12-14 recalls the sin at Mei Merivah, and then Bemidbar 27:15-17 records Moshe’s request for G-d to appoint a new leader since the sin by Mei Merivah meant that he was not going to be the leader of the people to take them into the land of Israel.

On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe was not attempting to rescind G-d’s decision that he would not lead the people into the land of Israel, but he was asking G-d to be able to go into the land of Israel as a private citizen. This is clearly stated in 3:21-25. In 3:21, Moshe recalled that he had appointed Yehoshua to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel, and then 3:25 records that Moshe asked just to be able to walk through the land. Note the Talmud, Sotah 14a, records that Rav Simlai states that Moshe did not want to enter the land of Israel to eat its fruits, but to fulfill the commandments that are related to the land of Israel. However, the simple reading of 3:25 is that Moshe just wanted to walk and see the land that he been striving to get to for forty years.

Moshe’s request to just walk through the land of Israel did not contradict G-d’s decree in Bemidbar 20:12 since he was not asking to be the leader of the people to take the people into the land of Israel. Accordingly, in Devarim 1:46, 3:21-26 and 4:21, Moshe was referring to his desire to go to the land of Israel, but not to be the leader of the people.  Maybe Moshe thought he deserved his punishment not to continue being the leader of the people or maybe he had no desire to continue being the leader of the people.

With regard to 1:37, while the broader context of the verse is the recollection of the sin of the spies, the verse does not refer to the sin of the spies. Instead, the verse is between the verses stating that Calev (as a private citizen) and Yehoshua (as the people’s leader) would go to the land of Israel, and just as Calev and Yehoshua were not punished for the sin of the spies, so too Moshe was not punished for the sin of the spies. Instead, Moshe mentioned his inability to go into the land of Israel at that point as a way of boosting the people’s support for Yehoshua that Yehoshua was to lead the people and not him, see the following verse, 1:38.

Why then in 1:37 did Moshe state that G-d was angry at him because of the people? G-d’s anger refers to G-d’s refusal to allow Moshe to enter the land of Israel even as a private citizen and the phrase because of the people means that Moshe’s inability to enter the land of land as a private citizen was for the benefit of the people. This benefit was that even if Moshe went into the land officially as a private citizen, still his presence would impinge on Yehoshua’s ability to lead the people which would harm the people.

Why could Moshe not go to the land of Israel as a private citizen and just promise to keep quiet? The answer is that the people would not have allowed him to retire peacefully. They would have complained to him about Yehoshua, as they always complained. Accordingly, 3:26 records that G-d said that Moshe could not go into the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, G-d’s anger, but this was for the benefit of the people. Similarly, in 4:21, Moshe was saying that the people’s words made G-d angry with him. The people’s words were their common practice to complain, and again G-d’s anger is G-d’s refusal to let Moshe go to the land of Israel. Again, the idea is that because the people regularly complain (their words) this meant that if Moshe was in the land of Israel, even as a private citizen, the people would have complained to Moshe about Yehoshua’s leadership and these complaints would have reduced Yehoshua’s effectiveness as the leader of the people.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 1990, Notes and remarks on the weekly parashah, translated by Shmuel Himelstein, Brooklyn: Chemed Books.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 – Why was the korban pesach (Passover sacrifice) offered just once in the desert?

Bemidbar (Numbers) 9:1-5 record that the people offered the korban pesach, the Passover sacrifice, in the second year of their stay in the desert. (It should be noted that even though this offering is commonly called a korban, sacrifice, it lacked several aspects of the typical sacrifice.)

We never read that this sacrifice was offered again when the people were in the desert, which implies that it was offered just this one time. This is also the implication of Joshua 5:2-10, which records that the people circumcised themselves for the first time since leaving Egypt in order to offer the Passover sacrifice. (Ramban, on 9:1, and Malbim, derive (from the Sifrei?) this idea from the words, the Sinai desert, in 9:5, since only in that particular desert did the people offer the sacrifice.)

Tosafot (Yevamot 72a, meshoom) quotes R. Yitzhak that the people offered the sacrifice all the years they were in the desert, but only in the second year was it done completely correctly. We will follow the assumption that the Passover sacrifice was not offered in the remaining 38 years of the people's stay in the desert, and try to understand why the sacrifice was offered just once in the desert.

The Sifrei (Beha`alothekha, 67) quotes an argument as to why the Passover sacrifice was only brought once in the desert. The first anonymous opinion is that this was an embarrassment to the people since they really should have offered the sacrifice every year. The second opinion is that of R. Shimon b. Yochai that the Levites offered the sacrifice each year but not the remainder of the population. Why would only the Levites have offered the sacrifice? The answer is that the people worshipped the golden calf, while the Levites did not sin (or repented on their own) by the golden calf. Both of these answers are difficult since according to the first opinion the people sinned for 38 years when they were in the desert. As pointed out by the Ramban and Netziv (on 9:1), this would then mean that Moshe also sinned all those years, which seems very farfetched. The second opinion is also difficult since it is never stated that the Levites alone offered this sacrifice for 38 years. Also, if the sin of the golden calf was really an impediment to offering the sacrifice, why did the people offer it even once?

Ramban (on 9:1) explains the first opinion of the Sifrei that the reason nobody offered the sacrifice in the desert was because of the law that a person who is not circumcised or who has children or slaves who are not circumcised cannot offer the Passover sacrifice, Shemot 12:43 (see Rambam, Laws of Passover Sacrifice 5:5). The people circumcised themselves in Egypt (see Joshua 5:5, Rashi on Shemot 12:6, maybe from Shemot 12:50), but Joshua 5:5 states that the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert. Chazal (Yevamot 72a) explain that the people were unable to circumcise themselves in the desert because it was dangerous. Thus, even though the adults who left Egypt were circumcised, if the children were not circumcised, then the adults could not offer the korban pesach in the desert.

Why did the Sifrei consider not offering the sacrifice as an embarrassment if the people were unable to circumcise themselves? Ramban explains that the embarrassment was the sin of the spies that the people did not want to enter the land of Israel, and it was the effect of this sin that made circumcision dangerous in the desert. However, according to this approach, how could the people have offered the korban pesach in the second year if there were children born in the first year of the people's stay in the desert who had not been circumcised? The answer must be that in the first year the people did circumcise their children as Hizkuni (on 9:5) explains that they were able to do so since they did not travel that year. However, this answer is difficult since there were other years when the people did not travel in the desert, which then would have afforded them the opportunity to circumcise themselves.

Ramban offers a second approach for why the korban pesach was only brought once in the desert. He argues (see Mechilta Bo 12, also Tosafot, Kedushin 37b, Ho'il) that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only when the people would be in the land of Israel, and hence there was no obligation to offer the sacrifice in the desert. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Ramban answers that this was to remind the people of the miracles that G-d did when redeeming the people from Egypt. Yet, why was this lesson not applicable for the other years the people were in the desert? S. R. Hirsch (on 9:1) suggests that since the laws of the korban pesach for all time are different than the laws of the sacrifice in Egypt, the sacrifice was offered once in the desert to demonstrate these differences.

Malbim (1809-1879) suggests that the argument in the Sifrei is based on the two approaches mentioned by the Ramban. Malbim explains that the first opinion in the Sifrei follows the view that the obligation to offer the korban pesach was only in Israel, and then the embarrassment was the sin of the spies since this stopped the people from entering the land of Israel sooner (also quoted in Tosfot Kedushin 37b, ho'il). Note, the Malbim does not explain how this opinion explains the offering of the sacrifice one time in the desert. Malbim then suggests that R. Shimon b. Yochai's opinion in the Sifrei follows the viewpoint that people could not offer the korban pesach since they or their children were not circumcised, and R. Shimon b. Yochai claims that the Levites circumcised themselves in the desert.

The Netziv also attempts to explain the first opinion of the Sifrei. He argues that really the people could have offered the Passover even if their children and slaves were not circumcised. He quotes from Yevamot 71a (also mentioned in Tosafot Yevamot 72a, Meshoom) that this requirement only stops one from offering the korban pesach if one was able to perform the circumcision and did not do so. However, since in the desert it was not possible for the people to do circumcisions, the lack of circumcision would not have stopped a person from offering the korban pesach. Instead, the Netziv follows the viewpoint that really the obligation to offer the sacrifice was only applicable in the land of Israel based on Shemot 12:25. Why then did the people offer the sacrifice once in the desert? Netziv explains that the sacrifice shows the love between G-d and the Jewish people, and the people offered the sacrifice even when they were not obligated to do so in the second year. However, in the middle of the second year of the people’s stay in the desert, there was the sin of the spies, which caused the people to be removed from G-d, and hence they did not offer the sacrifice the remaining years of their stay in the desert.

According to this idea, the embarrassment mentioned by the first opinion of the Sifrei was again the sin of the spies, which caused this distance between G-d and the Jewish people. While this makes sense to me, the Netziv rejects this idea since he claims that it does not accord with the Sifrei. Instead, he argues that the embarrassment was that the people did not offer the korban pesach voluntarily. Yet, to me this seems more difficult because even if the sacrifice was voluntary, why did Moshe not have the people offer the sacrifice?

My thought is that the sin of the spies is the reason why the korban pesach was offered only once in the desert (the embarrassment mentioned in the Sifrei), but I would vary how this sin impacted on the korban pesach. The opinion that the people could not offer the sacrifice since their children and slaves were not circumcised is difficult even if this requirement was applicable in the desert. I doubt the people had slaves in the desert, and there must have been many families who did not have sons in the first years the people were in the desert. (Note there was no "baby boom" in the desert, as the population of the people in the desert declined slightly over the 40 years, 1:46 and 26:51.)

I also think that the korban pesach was to be offered in the desert since Shemot 12:24 records that the korban pesach always had to be brought.  Ramban quoted Shemot 12:25 as implying that the obligation was only in the future, but 12:25 only means that in the future the children will question the law, but not that the law was only applicable when the people came to the land of Israel. Ramban also quotes Shemot 13:5 as implying that the obligation is only when the people would come to Israel, but this verse is referring to the law of matzot and not to the korban pesach.

If the people were obligated to offer the sacrifice, then we understand why they offered it in the second year of their stay in the desert, but why did they stop offering the sacrifice all the other years they were in the desert? My guess is that the sin of the spies in the middle of the second year ended this obligation. The point of the initial korban pesach in Egypt was to show the people's faith in G-d and the sacrifice in the ensuing years is to demonstrate the continuance of this faith. However, the sin by the spies showed the people's lack of faith in G-d since the people were not willing to enter the land that G-d had promised them, Devarim 1:32.  Once the people sinned by the spies this showed their lack of faith in G-d, and then G-d did not tell them to offer the Passover sacrifice again since the sacrifice could no longer demonstrate their faith in G-d. 

Maybe this idea would also explain why they did not circumcise themselves in the desert, as again once they showed a lack of faith in G-d due to the sin of the spies, there was no point in circumcising themselves. If this approach is correct, then the people would have circumcised themselves in the first year when they were in the desert (as argued by Hizkuni on 9:5), and Joshua 5:5 would mean that for 39 years the people did not circumcise themselves in the desert and not literally 40 years. 

Once the people entered the land of Israel, which demonstrated their faith in G-d, then they were obligated both to circumcise themselves and to offer the korban pesach, which they did as recorded in Joshua 5.