Bemidbar 21:1-3 (Hukkat) - The battle with Arad: So close yet so far

Bemidbar 21:1 records that the King of Arad heard (learned) that the Jewish people were coming by the way of Atarim, and he attacked the Jewish people. (Was Atarim a road near his territory?) The people had just been at Mount Hor, which seemingly brought them close to the land of Israel and specifically to Arad, which was apparently situated on or near the southern border of the land of Israel. Arad is in the Negev, which is part of the modern state of Israel, but in the times of the Torah, it is not clear if it was considered part of the land of Israel. 

The ancient city of Arad, today called Tel Arad (a national park in Israel) is on the line from Beer-Sheva to the Dead Sea in the eastern Negev, approximately 32 kilometers from Beer-Sheva, and 28 kilometers from the Dead Sea. (Modern day Arad is 9 kilometers east of Tel Arad.) Tel Arad is located along the river bed known today as Nahal Beer-Sheva, which continues past Beer-Sheva, joins Nahal Besor and ends by the Mediterranean Sea in Gaza. Is this the Arad being referred to in Bemidbar 21:1-3?

Yohanon Aharoni (1976) notes that there are two other ancient cites on the river bed between Beer Sheva and Tel Arad, Tel Masos and Tel Malhata. He argues that Tel Masos is the place called Horma in 21:3 and Tel Malhata is the Arad referred to in 21:1, while Tel Arad is the Israelite Arad of a later period. Alternatively, Naaman (1983) suggests that Horma is in the western Negev, which would mean that it was not so close to Arad, which was in the eastern Negev. However, with all these possibilities, both Arad and Horma were situated on the southern border of the land of Israel. Thus, after the people attempted to enter the land of Israel on their own after they heard the punishment for not wanting to enter the land of Israel, they were thrown back to Horma, outside the southern border of the land of Israel, 14:40-45.

One problem with the archaeological findings is that there does not seem to be any evidence that either Tel Arad or Tel Malhata was populated in the years when it is believed that the Jewish people left Egypt, approximately 1400-1300 BCE. Aharoni writes that Tel Malhata was populated from 1800-1570 BCE and then again starting in the 1200s BCE. While new finds might refute this dating, if this is correct, then who was the king of Arad who fought the people in the desert if Arad was not populated?

Aharoni quotes N. Glueck that the king of Arad was a "Bedouin" type sheikh who controlled the area. According to this idea, even after the city Arad has been deserted, the name remained in the area. The tribes who lived in the area were referred to by the name Arad, even though they did not live in the city. This hypothesis correlates with Chazal's (see Rashi on 21:1) suggestion that Arad here refers to Amalek, as they were tribes that wondered in the Negev, and did not live in one fixed area. (Note if this approach is correct, this does not preclude the existence of other Amalek tribes, as for example the book of Joshua 12:14 records that Yehoshua again captured the area.)

Why did the king of Arad attack the Jewish people? Why was he not scared of the Jewish people after the miracles of the Exodus? Chazal (Rosh Hashanah 3a, Rashi on 21:1) explain that the king heard that the clouds of glory, which protected the people, disappeared, and hence it was possible to attack the people.

N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 255-259) notes that the Ramban and Ibn Ezra (based on the Targum) explain that the word Atarim refers to the spies who Moshe had sent in the 2nd year. She suggests that the people "had shown their lack of confidence and fear of the future by sending the spies…. The result was that the Canaanite inhabitants lost their dread of the Chosen People and attacked them at the first opportunity." I doubt this approach since sending spies is a perfectly acceptable course of action, especially from the point of view of the King of Arad, but I agree that this battle is related to the incident of the spies.

After the people heard that they were doomed to be in the desert for 40 years due to their acceptance of the spies' report, they had attempted to enter the land of Israel on their own, where they were roundly defeated by Amalek and the Canaanites, 14:40-45. Now, 38 years later, the march to Mount Hor, 20:22, brought the people close to the area where they had attempted to enter the land of Israel on their own 38 years earlier. The Jewish people were not going to enter the land of Israel from the south but were going to turn back after the digression to Mount Hor in order to enter Israel from the eastern side of the Jordan River, but the king of Arad did not know this information. Presumably he also did not know that the earlier invasion after the sin of the spies was against G-d's wishes. Instead, 21:1 records that he was informed that the Jewish people were traveling in an area close to him. The inhabitants of the land must have been suspicious that the Jewish people would attempt a new invasion after the first invasion had failed, and they would have been on alert when the Jewish people returned to the area. The king of Arad thought that the Jewish people were attempting to invade the land of Israel again, as they had endeavored 38 years earlier. Once he thought that he was going to be invaded, then his best defense was to attack. He was not afraid of the Jewish people since he and/ or his people had defeated them 38 years earlier.

The decision by the king of Arad to attack surprised the Jewish people and his army succeeded in taking some of the people captive. However, the Jewish people were able to re-group. 21:2 records that the people made a vow to G-d as a prayer for G-d to assist them. And, 21:3 records that G-d heard the people's prayer and the Jewish people defeated the Canaanites. What is the significance of this battle? Why is it recorded in the Torah?

The victory not only removed the stain of their previous defeat 38 years earlier, but more importantly the actions of the people give an indication as to why this new generation was worthy of entering the land of Israel, as opposed to the first generation. Initially, the king of Arad succeeded with his surprise attack, but the people did not whine or complain to Moshe. Instead, they made a vow to G-d, counter-attacked without knowing that G-d would perform any miracles for them, and fulfilled their vow. 

In addition, with their victory they had broken through the southern border of the land of Israel, and all they had to do was to march north to arrive at the land of Israel. However, G-d wanted the people to enter Israel from modern day Jordan, just as Avraham and Yaakov had done (Bereshit 12:6, 33:18), and hence the people had to retreat and cross back into Jordan. The people did this, 21:4, which shows how they listened to G-d. This marching up and down the Negev/ Arava was probably a test of the new generation to see if they would follow G-d’s commands. For the most part they passed this test, as they did not attempt to enter Israel the easy way against G-d’s commands. The second generation was not perfect (and who is?) as they still complained, 20:2 and 21:5, but their actions signaled their maturity that they were ready to go into the land of Israel.

Bibliography:
Aharoni, Yohanon (1919-1976), 1976, Nothing early and nothing late: Re-writing Israel's conquest, The Biblical Archaeologist, 39:2, pp. 55-76.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Naaman, Nadav, 1983, The Inheritance and Settlement of the Sons of Simeon in the South of Eretz Israel (Hebrew) in Isac Leo Seeligmann volume: Essays on the Bible and the ancient world, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Rofe and Yair Zakovitch Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, pp. 111-136.

Bemidbar 13:21,22 – How did the spies travel in the land of Israel and did they see giants?

Bemidbar 13:3 records that the spies left from the desert of Paran, and they "went up and scouted out the land, from the desert of Tzyn to Rehov, at Levo Hammat, 13:21." 13:21 is difficult from a geographic perspective because we do not know where are the deserts of Tzyn, Rehov and Levo-Hammat.

My understanding is that the desert of Tzyn is the Arava (the desert south of the Dead Sea), and the desert of Paran is the northern Sinai/ western Negev area. According to this, the spies did not start by traveling north through the Negev, but initially they went eastwards through the Negev until they reached the desert of Tzyn. This roundabout route would accord with the furtive nature of the mission. When they reached the Arava, they turned north, as even though we do not know where Rehov or Levo Hammat are located, they must be in the northern part of the country since Bemidbar 34:8 records that Levo Hammat was along the northern border of the land of Canaan.

I found two different suggestions as to the location of Levo Hammat. The most popular suggestion is that it is located approximately 75 miles north of Damascus, while Hertz (1960, p. 624) writes that it is located by Mount Hermon, south of Damascus. With the first suggestion, the spies would have traveled approximately 550 miles, an average of 14 miles a day if they walked on Shabbat, while following Hertz, they would have traveled approximately 360 miles, an average of 9 miles a day if they walked on Shabbat. Yet, these calculations only cover the north south directions, but the spies reported that they saw the Canaanites by the Jordan River and by the coast, 13:29, which means that they also had to travel in both the eastern (Jordan River) and western (coast) parts of the country.

The beginning of 13:22 records that the spies "went up into the Negev, and they came to Hevron." How does this verse relate to the previous verse that recorded that the spies traveled from the Negev to the north of the country? Hevron is north of the Negev, but it is located in the south of the country. The spies should have reached Hevron way before they got to Rehov, at Levo Hammat, which is recorded in 13:21.

Moskovitz (1988, on 13:21) writes that first the Torah gives an overall description of the route of the spies, 13:21, and then in 13:22-24, the Torah specifies some of the specific places where they visited. The Torah only mentions two specific places, Hevron and Wadi Eshkol, and then one would have to argue that these places were mentioned since they were important for the report of the spies. Hevron was important since this was where the spies saw giants (Hizkuni on 13:22), and Wadi Eshkol was important since this was where they found the grapes that they brought back to the Jewish people, 13:27.

While this idea is reasonable, the conveying of the grapes becomes problematic. According to this understanding, Hevron was the first place the spies journeyed, and Wadi Eshkol, whose exact location is unknown, is thought to be near Hevron since this was an area of vineyards. If this is true, then the spies carried the grapes almost their entire trip from the Hevron area up north and then back south again. This would not have been a simple matter because the grapes were so large that it required two people to carry them on a pole, 13:23.

A different possibility is that the spies traveled in a concentric circle. First, as recorded in 13:21, they traveled from the encampment of the people in the western Negev east to the Arava, and then they turned due north traveling along the Jordan River. Once they reached the northern most point, Rehov at Levo Hammat, then they turned west towards the coast. When they reached the coast, they turned south traveling along the coast until they reached the northern part of the Negev. They would then have been close to the encampment of the people, but then they turned northeast to tour the hilly section of Israel, 13:17. Accordingly, as recorded in 13:22-24, they then traveled northeast through the Negev, and entered the central hilly section coming to Hevron and Wadi Eshkol. On this "second" journey, the spies would not have ventured too far north due to the need to return, and hence they would have been in Wadi Eshkol at the end of their trip. This suggested itinerary also explains how the spies could report on four different geographic areas, the Negev, the hilly section, the Jordan River and the coast, 13:29.

The middle and end of 13:22 record that Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anakites (giants) lived in Hevron and that Hevron was built seven years before Zoan of Egypt. Why is this information concerning the age of Hevron recorded in the Torah? Rashbam (on 13:22 also see Rashi) explains that the people would have recognized Zoan as an important city, and hence by stating that Hevron was older that Zoan, the Torah was showing that Hevron was an even more important city. While this is possible, is seven years such a significant amount of time to increase a city's prestige, and in general it is unclear if a city's age necessarily makes a city more important.

Maybe the note about the age of Hevron is connected to the middle of the verse that the spies saw giants in Hevron. My understanding of the term giant is a big person (Shaquille O'Neal?), but not a mythical humongous figure. 

The ten bad spies referred to these "giants" as nephilim, 13:33, in order to dissuade the people from going to Israel. The only other occasion when the nephilim are referred to in the Torah is in Bereshit 6:4, which refers to some distinctive men as nephilim. The nephilim had acquired a legendary and even mythical status, that they were thought to be real giants. The ten bad spies claimed that the "giants" that they saw were from the nephilim, which heightened the people's fear of entering of the land of Israel.

Accordingly, maybe the note about the age of Hevron is to repudiate the claim of the spies concerning the "giants" of Hevron. The people knew about Zoan and they knew that the city was not that ancient, and hence by stating that Hevron was built seven years prior to Zoan, the people would know that Hevron was also not that ancient. This implies that the residents of the city were not the nephilim, ancient people. Thus, the information concerning when Hevron was founded was to inform the people that just as Zoan was a regular city, so was Hevron, and so too the inhabitants of Hevron were regular people.

Bibliography:

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Moskovitz, Yehiel Tzvi, 1988, Commentary on the book of Bemidbar, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.