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.

Bemidbar 11:4-34 - The clamoring of the Jewish people in the desert for meat: Be careful what you ask for

Bemidbar 11:4 (also 11:13) records that the Jewish people clamored for meat when they were in the desert. Bemidbar 11:18-20 records that in response to the people’s request for meat, G-d told Moshe that He would supply the people with meat for thirty days until it "comes out of their nostrils." G-d was angry with the people’s request, but Shemot 16:2,3 records that the people also asked for meat, and G-d did not seem to have been angry with the people at that time. (Maybe because the people were not punished in Shemot 16, the people believed they could complain here.) Why was G-d angry with the people here?

Nehama Leibowitz (1982, pp. 118,119) suggests that in Shemot the people had just come out of Egypt so these complaints could be expected while in Bemidbar the people had been living with the protection of G-d for more than a year. Also, she writes that the “second occasion was no longer the first offense, they had been warned (?) and they should have known better.”

In the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Freedman, 1992, topic: covenant), they explain that in Shemot, the people had not yet made a covenant with G-d, while in Bemidbar the people had made a covenant that made them responsible for their actions.

Another possibility is that after the sin of the golden calf, G-d was less forgiving. The idea being that really the people should have been wiped out for the sin of the golden calf (Shemot 32:10), but G-d accepted Moshe's prayers to let them live. However, now G-d's tolerance for their sins was much lower so when they complained after the sin of the golden calf they were punished. Maybe this is the idea of Shemot 32:34 that when the people would sin, then it will be considered as being more grievous due to the sin of the golden calf.  

A fourth possibility is that from Vayikra 17:3 it appears that the people had meat, and most likely the laws recorded in Vayikra 17 were told to Moshe just a month or so before the people are complaining for meat. Maybe the people’s complaint for meat was because Vayikra 17:5,6 required the people to bring their slaughtered animals to the mishkan/ ohel moed, and then the people would have had to give some of their meat to the priest. The meat was then no longer free, and maybe this was a reason for their complaints that they did not want to share their meat with the priests.  Following this approach, G-d was angry here since the people were complaining since they did not want to bring the meat as sacrifices in the mishkan/ ohel moed, though they had been willing to offer sacrifices to satyrs, Vayikra 17:7. According to this idea, their complaints for meat also showed a desire not to worship G-d.

A fifth answer is that in Shemot 16:3 they had yet received the mahn, and they honestly thought they were going to die of starvation, but here they had been receiving the mahn for a year, and they were not on the verge of starvation.

Regardless of why G-d was angry with the people's request, their request was apparently fulfilled. 11:31 records that a wind, ruah, came and brought copious quantities of birds, which fell/ landed outside the camp. 11:32 then records that the people went out and collected the birds for thirty-six hours (continuous?), day, night and day, and then they placed and the birds around the camp in order to cure the meat to last a month (see Milgrom, 1990, p. 92 and Alter, 2004, p. 740) or to store the birds in an orderly fashion.  However, then 11:33 records that the meat (birds) was in between their teeth and G-d killed the people.

Why were the people killed when they ate the birds? 11:18-20 records that G-d was upset with the people, but G-d did not say the people were going to die from eating meat, but that the people would loath the meat. 11:18-20 records that the people would eat meat for thirty days, but in the end, the people ate meat for less than one day. In addition, why would G-d provide huge quantities of birds if the people would barely eat the birds? If the request for meat was inappropriate, why did G-d agree to grant the meat?

The Ramban (on 11:19, also see Seforno on 11:33) suggests that there were two groups of people who desired to eat meat, but not everybody died. One group, the wicked, the asafsuf, died immediately, while the not as bad, ate the meat for a month until they became sick of it. This approach is problematic since 11:33,34 records that the people died, ha-am, and does not distinguish between the asafsuf, who are only mentioned in 11:4, and the rest of the nation.

Instead, the answer to all the questions is that G-d was going to give sufficient meat/ birds for the people to eat for a month, as stated in 11:18-20, and that is why such large quantities of birds fell outside the camp. However, the people sinned after the birds fell near the camp, and this is why they were killed. 11:32 records three actions by the people, which apparently caused G-d to punish them.

One action relates to the people’s response to G-d’s instructions to Moshe. When G-d responded to the people’s request, he told Moshe to tell the people that the people were to mekadesh the following day and eat meat, 11:18. This command to be mekadesh was presumably for people to separate from their spouses (see Shemot 19:10-15), which would show their ability to control their desires. We do not know if they did this, but we do know that the people did not follow G-d’s instructions with regard to the birds since they did not eat the birds the following day, but two days later.

After Moshe told the people G-d’s instruction in 11:18, the prophesizing of the seventy people outside of the camp occurred, 11:24-29, and only afterwards the birds descended by the camp. We know this since 11:30 records that Moshe, who had been outside the camp in his personal tent with the seventy people, went into the camp after being informed that Eldad and Medad were prophesying as he could not have remained outside the camp when the numerous birds were descending outside the camp.

Accordingly, at best, these birds began arriving in the afternoon after G-d had given the instructions to the people, or maybe they only came later at night, as by the first occurrence of the birds, Shemot 16:13 records that they came at night. Also, such large quantities of birds would have taken quite some time to descend. In addition, 11:32 records that the people got up, va-yakam, which would refer to the people getting up in the morning.  We see that the birds fell during the night after Moshe had told the people G-d’s instructions as recorded in 11:18.  Yet, the people did not eat the birds that day as 11:32 records that the people spent the entire day, the night and the following day gathering birds. It was only a day after the birds fell (two days after hearing G-d’s instructions) did the people start to eat the birds. Thus, the first possible sin of the people was that people did not follow G-d’s instructions after G-d had agreed to give them meat since they ate the meat two days after hearing G-d’s instructions, while they were supposed to have eaten the meat on the day after hearing the instructions.

The second possible sin was that the people had complained that they had such a craving for meat that they remembered Egypt in a positive manner, 11:4,5. Yet, when the meat came and they had a chance to eat the meat, they waited a full day, as we explained above, to eat the birds/ meat. What happened to their craving for meat? Just like they were able to hold back from eating meat for one day, they could have held back for a month or so until they got to the land of Israel. The people’s actions showed that the craving for meat was just a pretext for complaining about the Exodus from Egypt.

The third possible sin in 11:32 is that by gathering all the quantities of birds, the people were showing a lack of faith in G-d. G-d had told them that they would have meat for thirty days, which means that they only had to gather enough birds to eat that day, and then the next day they could go out to gather more birds. This would have been like the mahn as each day they went out to get the mahn, Shemot 16:16-21. Accordingly, by gathering the birds in such large quantities, this showed that the people did not believe that G-d would provide more birds if needed.

Note, the people died when the meat was still in the teeth which means that they did not swallow the food or have a chance to enjoy the taste of the birds. This would be a measure for measure punishment since the people had complained about the taste of the mahn, 11:6.

Did all the people eat the birds at the exact same time? Presumably no. What then happened to the people who were not the first people to eat the birds? Would they have eaten the birds after seeing that other people died had died immediately when eating the birds? I'm guessing no, who would take that chance? This means that some of the people who gathered the birds to eat, had to sit and stare at the birds. I doubt that that they were even willing to burn the birds since they would have been scared of what would happen to them. This group of people even knew that the birds were tasty since they had eaten them before in Shemot 16, but this just increased their punishment. For these people, G-d did not kill them and they suffered by having to stare and smell the meat for a month.

With this understanding, the phrase in 11:20 that the meat "would come out of their nostrils" is not referring to the meat itself but to the smell of the meat that either the meat smelled good or the meat became rancid, see Ibn Ezra on 11:20. In either event, the birds/ meat became loathsome to those people who had to hold back from eating the birds. Note, had the people not sinned, then the people would have eaten meat for a month, and eating so much meat would have made the meat loathsome to them (diminishing marginal utility).

In addition, 11:34 records that the people who had not eaten the birds had to bury the people who had begun to eat the birds, “the cravers.” Maybe this burying was also a punishment since the survivors would have realized that had they eaten first they would have died. Also, this burying might have been a way to remind the people what Egypt was really like, a place where they had to bury their male children who had been killed by the Egyptians.

Bibliography:

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

Freedman, David Noel, 1992, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

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

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bemidbar 8:1-4 - Two laws about the menorah in the book of Bemidbar

Bemidbar 8:1-4 (the beginning of parashat Beha`alothekha) record two laws relating to the menorah that was situated in the mishkan/ ohel moed. 8:1,2 record that G-d told Moshe to tell Aharon that when he would set up the lights (wicks?) on the menorah to light the menorah, he should set up the lights/ wicks in such a way that the light would illuminate the area in front of the menorah facing toward the table of bread, which was opposite the menorah in the mishkan/ ohel moed (see Rashbam and Hizkuni on 8:2). 8:3 records that Aharon fulfilled this command.

Why did the Torah have to tell us at this point in the Torah that Aharon set up the lights/ wicks on the menorah? This command seems to repeat Shemot 25:37, and Shemot 40:25 records that Moshe fulfilled this command of how to place the lights/ wicks in the menorah. Shemot 25:30 records that bread was to be placed on the table in the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the only time the Torah records that this instruction was fulfilled was also by Moshe in Shemot 40:23.

Why is there is a specific commandment to Aharon how to set up the lights/ wicks on the menorah and why does the Torah record that he fulfilled this command? The Torah does not record that Aharon brought the incense offering every day. Also, it is surprising that this information concerning Aharon’s role by the menorah is not recorded in the book of Vayikra which records the work of the priests. Various answers have been proposed to these questions, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban and Hizkuni all on 8:2.

My thought is that the importance of 8:1-3 is that the setting up of the lights/ wicks in the menorah was considered part of the building of the menorah, and this could be why the instructions how to place the lights/wicks were included within the instructions to build the menorah, Shemot 25:37, and not at the end of Shemot 25. With this idea, by Aharon placing the lights/ wicks in the menorah, he completed not only the building of the menorah, but also the construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed since this was the last item in the mishkan/ ohel moed to be built. Moshe had already placed the lights/ wicks in the menorah but the idea of 8:2,3 was for Aharon to set (re-set?) up the lights/ wicks on the menorah to make him the person to complete the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed. 8:2 is a new commandment for how the lights/ wicks were to be set up in the menorah separate from the instructions in Shemot 25:37, and 8:3 records the fulfillment of this new commandment.

The significance of Aharon fulfilling this command, which meant that Aharon completed the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, was that this act symbolized that Aharon, and the priests who he represented, were the “owners” of the mishkan/ ohel moed, and hence responsible for running the mishkan/ ohel moed. The act of placing the lights/ wicks in the menorah was recorded after the lengthy list of gifts and sacrifices of the tribal leaders in chapter seven to show that the priests were “taking control” of the mishkan/ ohel moed from the people. While the people were connected to the mishkan/ ohel moed though their gifts and sacrifices, they were not the “owners” of the mishkan/ ohel moed and they had no say in the running of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

After the Torah records that Aharon set up the lights/ wicks in the menorah, 8:4 records the law that the menorah was to be made from one piece of gold. Presumably this means that pieces of gold were to be combined (melted) to form a large slab of gold (via a mold), and then the slab of gold would have been chipped away/ hammered, mikshah, to form the menorah. Why was this information recorded here? This information is already recorded in Shemot 25:31-40 and Shemot 37:17-24. Also, 8:3 records that Aharon lit the menorah, so obviously it existed already. Why now was the Torah again recording how the menorah was to be constructed?

Maybe this particular law was recorded in the book of Bemidbar because the menorah with its flower designs was fragile, and this could have led to some of the petals and decorations chipping or even breaking, especially when it was being transported. 8:4 is then telling us that when the menorah needed to be fixed, one could not just add a part back to the menorah. Instead, the whole menorah was to be turned back into a slab of gold and then remade as one unit.

Note, this idea is not obvious. From the instructions in Shemot 25 with regard to the menorah, one might have thought that the menorah only had to be one piece of gold when it was first constructed, but afterwards, if needed, pieces could be added to it. Accordingly, 8:4 informs us that the menorah always had to consist of one piece of gold, and since this law is pertinent only after the menorah was completed, the law in 8:4 is recorded after we read of the menorah being used in 8:3.

 

Bemidbar 11:1 - Leaving Mount Sinai: A balagan

Chapter eleven in the book of Bemidbar begins after the people had just left Mount Sinai to go the land of Israel. In the end of chapter ten, things appeared to be going well with the ark and the cloud of G-d leading the way, but suddenly and unexpectedly, everything went awry, even before the failure of the mission of the spies.

The first verse of chapter eleven describes a cryptic episode. The people complained, and they were instantly punished. The Torah does not record what were the complaints and what were the people's sins which caused them to be punished. Were the sins so heinous that they could not be mentioned? It is unlikely that the Torah is hiding some terrible sin, as the Torah records that the people committed idolatry (Shemot 32:1-6) and that Cozbi acted a harlot (25:1-15). Furthermore, it is surprising that after this swift punishment, the people complained about their food, 11:4-6. Why did the people not learn a lesson from this incident in 11:1?

The conjunction of this incident in 11:1 with the traveling of the people in the end of chapter ten has led commentators to suggest that the people's complaints were due to the traveling. Rashbam (on 10:33 and 11:1) suggests that that the people were complaining of hardships on the road. Ramban (on 11:1) suggests that by Mount Sinai, the people had become established and gotten relatively comfortable, but now they were despairing of surviving in the desert.

My guess is that the complaints arose due to the problem of coordinating the movement of all the people in their march to the land of Israel. This coordination problem arises naturally whenever large masses of people travel. Some people want to march earlier in the morning, and some want to start later. Some people walk faster and some people walk slower. This leads to backups and frustration amongst the people. This was not the first time the people had travelled, but previously, when they left Egypt, everybody was in such high spirits from being freed from slavery that they were more tolerant and willing to accommodate other people. However, now after being in the desert a little more than a year, normal human behavior returned.

Possibly, the frustration led some people to stop marching altogether, and hence they were at the back of the camp. Thus, G-d struck them down since they were refusing to march with the rest of the nation, and 11:1 records that the people were killed at the edge of the camp. My son, Binyamin, suggested that the edge could also be in the front of the camp that some people were marching ahead of everybody to separate themselves from the rest of the nation.

With this idea, we understand why the Torah did not list the people's complaints. First of all, these complaints were not serious, i.e., he/ she is walking too slow.  Secondly, the complaints consisted of many different complaints from different people. For example, A was upset with B, and C was upset with D, and E was upset with F, etc. The Torah could not have listed all of these insignificant complaints, and hence the Torah just stated in a general way the people complained.

This idea can explain why the swift punishment in 11:1 did not deter some people from complaining for meat immediately afterwards. The people realized that the complaints in 11:1 were "small time" and due to a lack of manners, while they thought that their complaints about food were justified.

This idea can also explain Moshe's statement in 11:14 that he was all alone since he had to deal with all of these little complaints by himself, and then the seventy prophets, 11:16, who were G-d's answer to Moshe's statement in 11:14, were to be a type of traffic police to coordinate the travels of the people.

Bemidbar 10:29-32 - Confusion in the family of Yitro

Bemidbar 10:29 records that Moshe spoke to Hovav? Who is this mystery man Hovav? 

10:29 records that he was the son of Reuel, Moshe's hoten, father–in-law. Reuel is mentioned before in the Torah. Shemot 2:16-21 records that when Moshe ran away from Pharaoh, he married Tzippora the daughter of Reuel, the kohen of Midyan. (Kohen can be priest or chief, see Rashi on Shemot 2:16.) This would appear to make Reuel, Moshe's father-in-law, and Hovav, Moshe's brother-in-law. However, Shemot 3:1 records that Yitro was the kohen of Midyan and that he was Moshe's hoten, father-in-law. This description of Yitro is repeated again in Shemot 18:1. How does Yitro relate to Hovav and Reuel?

One popular answer (see Rashi on Bemidbar 10:29, on Shemot 4:18, on Shemot 18:1, and the second explanation of Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 10:29) is that Hovav really was Yitro, as the same person had two different names, and Hovav/Yitro was Tzippora's father. Reuel would then be Hovav's/ Yitro's father, Tzippora's grandfather, and when Shemot 2:18 records that Reuel was Tzippora's father, this means her grandfather.

Ibn Ezra's (first answer on Bemidbar 10:29) offers a slight variation on the first approach. Again, Yitro and Hovav are two names for the same person, but now he is Tzippora's brother. This approach accords with Shemot 2:18 that Reuel was Tzippora's father, but how then can Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Moshe's father-in-law when he was really Moshe's brother–in-law? Ibn Ezra answers that the term hoten in both verses, which we have been interpreting as father-in-law, can also refer to a brother-in-law.

Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 503-511) points out that while Yitro is referred to as the cohen of Midyan, Hovav is never designated with this term. Benno Jacob argues that Hovav and Yitro could not be the same person since Moshe could never have suggested to Yitro, the cohen of Midyan, to leave Midyan and accompany the Jewish people. Benno Jacob argues that Yitro and Reuel were two names for the same person, the father of Tzippora, and then Hovav was the son of Yitro/Reuel, and Tzippora's brother. Benno Jacob follows Ibn Ezra that Hovav is called hoten Moshe (Judges 4:11 and possibly Bemidbar 10:29) since he was Moshe's brother-in-law, Tzippora's brother.

Luzzatto (on Shemot 18:1) quotes two other opinions that Hovav was not Yitro. One, (R. Yonah ibn Janach, Spain, 990-1055), Hovav was the son of Yitro and brother to Tzippora. Luzzatto did not quote who R. Janach thinks is Reuel. If Reuel is the same person as Yitro, then this is the same opinion as Benno Jacob. Two, (Moses Mendelssohn, Germany, 1729-1786, on 10:29), Yitro and Hovav were brothers, the sons of Reuel, and Tzippora was their sister. Luzzatto rejects both of these opinions since he argues that the word hoten cannot refer to a brother in law, and he follows the first approach above.

The most reasonable approach is that different names signify different people unless we are specifically told that a person had two names as for example by Avraham, Yaakov and Sara. Thus, Yitro was not Hovav or Reuel, but both Yitro and Reuel were kohanim of Midyan. While Midyan could have had two kohanim at the same time, more likely, Reuel was the kohen of Midyan when Moshe first came to Midyan, but as Moshe was in Midyan for quite some time, Reuel died and was replaced by Yitro. Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Midyan's kohen because by then Yitro had replaced Reuel as the kohen of Midyan.

Yet, if Reuel and Yitro were two different people, how can Shemot 2:18 state that Reuel was Tzippora's father and Shemot 3:1 record that Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, hoten? One possibility is to accept Mendelssohn's approach that Yitro, Hovav and Tzippora were the children of Reuel and Ibn Ezra's approach that the term hoten also refers to brother-in-laws. With this idea, Yitro and Hovav were brothers, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 could refer to Reuel (father-law) or to Hovav (brother-in-law).

Another possibility is that really the term hoten means a non-blood relative through marriage, and then Yitro could have married one of Tzippora's sisters. Another case where the term hoten seems to refer to relatives and not a father-in-law is by Shoftim 1:16, which refers to the Keni as hoten Moshe, and the term seems to means a group of people who were relatives of Moshe. Also, Kings II 8:27 refers to hatan bet ahav, and again it seems to mean a relative through marriage (through his mother!) to bet ahav. (For a discussion of this second definition see T.C. Mitchell, 1969.)

With this idea, Reuel was Tzippora's biological father, Hovav was Reuel's son and Tzippora's brother but not Yitro's brother, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 refers to either or both Hovav and Reuel. Yitro was then not Reuel or Hovav, but a different non-blood relative of Moshe.

According to these last two ideas, as Hovav was not Yitro, then the conversation in 10:29-32 is unrelated to Yitro's visit to Moshe in Shemot 18. Hovav might have arrived with Yitro, or he might have come at another time. Even if he came with Yitro, Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) would not have required Hovav to leave as well.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Mitchell, T.C. 1969, The meaning of the noun htn in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum, 19, pp. 93-112.

Bemidbar 10:34 (Beha`alothekha) - On the road again

Bemidbar 10:34 record (adaptation of Fox, 1995, translation), “Now the cloud of G-d is over them by day, as they march from the camp.”

This passage raises at least two questions. 10:34 implies that the cloud of G-d traveled above the aron to lead the people. Why were both the aron and the cloud necessary? Two, where was the cloud when the people marched? 9:15,16 record that the cloud floated above the Holy of Holies in the mishkan (Ramban on 9:15), and apparently the cloud was always on top of the Holy of Holies. Furthermore, 10:21 records that the mishkan was located in the middle of the people when they traveled, and then the cloud would be in the middle of the people. However, 9:17 records that when the cloud lifted up this was the signal to the people that they should march, and when the cloud “settled,” then this signaled to the people where they should camp. Also, 10:34 records that the cloud traveled with the aron leading the way. Thus, these verses imply that the cloud was in front of the people when the people marched.

Starting with the latter question, if we think of the cloud of G-d as literally a cloud, then it was able to expand and contract. Even though the cloud of G-d probably was in a form of a pillar still it functioned as a usual cloud whose elements can join together and split up. The cloud could have expanded to cover both the camp of the people, and the marching of the aron. This might have occurred in two ways. One, a small section of the cloud could have broken off to lead and cover the aron, while the main cloud remained on top of the camp of the people. When the people would join up with the Yehoshua and the aron (see above), then the small cloud would also re-join the main cloud. Two, the cloud over the people could have expanded to include a path to lead the way (see Rashi on 9:18) and cover Yehoshua and the aron, and then as the people traveled towards the aron, the path would contract. With either approach, the cloud was always over both the aron marching before the people and the people, as stated in 10:34. It is also possible that the cloud that split or extended out could have been in front of both the aron that was leading the way and of the people.

With regard to the first question, why was there a need for both the aron and the cloud to lead the way? The cloud showed that G-d was leading the way as indicted in 9:18 (also see Shemot 23:20 and 33:2), but even when G-d performs miracles, still mankind must attempt to contribute what he can. The aron with Yehoshua and his men marching before the people, follows a typical pattern of armies, that a scouting party goes ahead to lead the way. This was the people’s role in their journey, but ultimately it was the cloud that directed the people when and where to march and camp.

The idea that the cloud of G-d split up can explain the relationship between the verses 10:12 and 12:16. 10:12 records that the people left Mount Sinai, and the cloud camped in the desert of Paran. (It seems that the desert of Paran was in the northeastern part of the Sinai desert and/ or in the western part of the Negev desert.) Afterwards, 11:3 records that people camped in Taverah, which was re-named Kivrot ha-Taavah, 11:34. 11:35 then records that the people went to Hatzeirot, and from Hatzeirot they went to the desert of Paran, 12:16. How could it be that the people only made it to the desert of Paran in 12:16 when 10:12 already records that they reached the desert of Paran?

Ibn Ezra (on 10:33, also see Hizkuni on 10:12) explains that Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot were located in the desert of Paran. Yet, if this is true, why would 12:16 state that the people camped in the desert of Paran after leaving Hatzeirot, if Hatzeirot was part of the desert of Paran? Could it be that initially they camped in known locations in the desert of Paran, and afterwards they camped in a non-descript part of the desert, so it was just called the desert of Paran?
Ibn Ezra (on 12:16) quotes a different answer in the name of the many that initially only the cloud of G-d was already in the desert of Paran. This approach accords with a literal reading of 10:12. 10:12 states that the people started to travel away from Mount Sinai, but the verse does not record that the people reached the desert of Paran, only that the cloud settled by the desert of Paran. Ibn Ezra dismisses this answer without giving a reason, but I think it accords with the idea of the splitting and re-joining ability of the cloud of G-d.

The idea would be that when the people started to move as recorded in 10:12, the cloud of G-d went ahead of them to lead the way but only the cloud immediately reached the desert of Paran. Again, this does not mean the entire cloud reached the desert of Paran. Only a part of the cloud of G-d reached the desert, as the main part of the cloud was on top of the Holy of Holies in the middle of the people. The aron followed the path of the cloud of G-d marching in the direction of the desert of Paran, and the people followed the aron. On the way, the aron and the people stopped in Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot. Thus, the people only reached the desert of Paran after being in Hatzeirot, which was not part of the desert of Paran, as recorded in 12:16. When the people finally reached the desert of Paran, the two parts of the cloud of G-d were re-united.

Bemidbar 11:4 - 29 – Moshe's reaction to the Jewish people clamoring for meat in the desert

Bemidbar 11:10-15 records that Moshe was very upset by the people's complaint for meat. He complained to G-d that why did G-d put him in charge of the people since he was not their mother nor was he a nurse who carries babies. He ends by asking G-d to kill him! Moshe's use of maternal metaphors is a little surprising but maybe it was because the people had cried and stated "who will feed us," 11:4. This crying and demanding to be fed is acting like young children who cannot get what they want, and hence maybe this prompted Moshe to use maternal metaphors when speaking to G-d.

Even more surprising than Moshe's language is that he does not pray for the people and instead he asked to be killed! N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 103,104,107,108, apparently quoting R. Isaac Caro, R. Yosef Caro's grandfather) offers two answers for Moshe's response. One, the “previous grumblings were motivated by valid causes, but here there was no excuse.” And, two, their demand for meat was really doubting G-d’s power.

Rav Soloveitchik (lecture on June 10, 1974, partially recorded in Besdin, 1979, pp. 150-159) suggests that Moshe was so upset here because he realized that he was not the type of leader that the people needed. Moshe was an intellectual leader, a teacher, but he realized that he also had to give emotional support to the people, and he felt that he was unqualified for this role.

Another possible reason for Moshe's despondency was the crying of the people, 11:4,10,13. This crying was something new, as the people had not cried when they had complained in the past. They would get meat in a few weeks/ months when they would enter the land of Israel, but they could not wait. They had the mahn and they were not starving, so why were they crying for meat? People might want to eat meat and be upset that they had no meat, but was that a sufficient cause for them to cry? The crying showed that the people were not capable of dealing with the slightest adversity. The significance of this crying was that it demonstrated that the people were not ready to enter the land of Israel, and  the people would cry again when they heard the report of the spies, 14:1.

The people had been slaves in Egypt, and at this point they had been free for a little more than year. Was this enough time for them to lose their slave mentality? We see from their crying that the slave mentality remained since they could not cope with problems on their own. Thus, Moshe became depressed because he realized that he was going to fail in his mission to take the people into the land of Israel. This depression overwhelmed Moshe and hence he did not pray for the people.

G-d responded to Moshe's complaint not by killing him, but by telling him that He would provide seventy more prophets and meat for the people, 11:16-20. Moshe responded by questioning G-d's ability to provide so much meat and G-d responded by telling Moshe not to doubt G-d's abilities, 11:21-23. Why would Moshe doubt G-d and why was he not punished for this doubt?

Many of the commentators (see Rashi on 11:22, Ibn Ezra on 11:21, Ramban on 11:22 and Luzzatto on 11:21) offer answers to explain why Moshe doubted G-d's ability to feed the entire population meat, but my guess is Moshe's doubt was because he was so despondent after hearing the people crying, 11:10,13. This state of mind might also explain why G-d only rebuked Moshe. G-d was aware that when people are despondent, they sometimes say things they do not mean.

After G-d rebuked Moshe, Moshe gathered the seventy people around his private tent, which was located outside the camp, and these people became prophets. However, two people, Eldad and Meidad, who were either in addition to the seventy (Rashi on 11:26) or part of the seventy (Luzzatto on 11:26), started to prophesize within the camp, 11:23-26. A messenger told Moshe about their prophesying and Yehoshua who was with Moshe told Moshe to stop them, 11:27,28. Yehoshua was worried that their prophesying was a type of insurrection since the prophets were supposed to be with Moshe outside of the camp, 11:16,17, and not independent of Moshe. However, Moshe responded that their prophesying was good as everybody should become prophets, 11:29. N. Leibowitz (1982, p. 127) quotes R. Yitzhak Arama how "Moshe withstood the test of jealousy and this was a remarkable example of humility." Yet, Yehoshua was correct, and hence maybe Moshe's response was again due to his depression that he did not care if the people rebelled.

Bibliography:

Besdin, Abraham R., 1979, Reflections of the Rav: Lessons in Jewish thought, Vol. 1, Hoboken NJ: KTAV Publishing House Inc.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bemidbar chapter 12 – Moshe, Aharon and Miryam

Bemidbar 12:1,2 record that apparently out of the blue, Miryam and Aharon spoke about Moshe's Cushite wife, and they noted that G-d also spoke to them. These verses are surprising. Did Moshe have another wife? Why should this fact be mentioned at this point? Why are Miryam and Aharon attacking Moshe? Was it sibling rivalry? Why now? What does the issue of Moshe's second wife have to do with their statement that G-d also spoke to them?

Rashi (on 12:1,2), follows the approach that the reference to the Cushite wife is to Tzippora, and explains that during the events recorded in chapter 11, Miryam and Aharon learned that Moshe had separated from Tzippora. With this idea, Miryam and Aharon were not trying to attack Moshe but to help Tzippora. In 12:2, they were pointing out that Moshe did not have to separate from Tzippora since they were prophets and had not separated from their spouses. G-d’s response could then be understood that since Moshe was such a greater prophet, he had to separate from his wife, but lesser prophets, such as Miryam and Aharon, could remain with their spouses.

This explanation is troubling since nowhere in the text is it mentioned that Moshe separated from Tzippora and even if he did, the text also does not mention that Miryam and Aharon criticized him for this, only that they said that Moshe took a Cushite wife.

More likely, it seems that Moshe had another wife, apparently from the period when he ran away from Egypt, see Rashbam on 12:1, and comments by Joseph Ibn Kaspi, quoted by Nehama Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 130-132. It could be that this marriage ended before Moshe married Tzippora.

Bekhor Shor (on 12:1, see also Luzzatto on 12:1) explains that Miryam and Aharon referred to the Cushite wife to make the point that Moshe did not marry from among the Jewish people, while they married amongst the people. They were saying that Moshe was too proud, while they were not disdainful of the people. This was an attempt to denigrate the leadership of Moshe since it brought to the attention of the people the possibility that Moshe was separate in some ways from the people due to his foreign wife. Thus in 12:2, they were claiming that they were fit to be leaders because they were also prophets while Moshe was not fit to be either the leader or the only leader since he had married a foreigner. Accordingly, they were staking a claim for the leadership of the people.

Why did they make this claim now? Maybe they felt threatened by the 70 people who became prophets in the previous chapter 11:24-26, since this could have lowered their status. Previously, they were the only prophets besides Moshe in the camp, but now they had to share that role with 70 people. Accordingly, to raise their status they tried to make themselves equal or greater to Moshe. Or, maybe they were making a play for the leadership of the people since they saw that Eldad and Medad had rebelled and nothing had happened to them, 11:26-29. Or, maybe their comments were in response to Moshe's depression that began in chapter11, see our discussion on 11:4-29, "Moshe and the Jewish people crying for meat" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/bemidbar-chapter-11behaalothekha.html. Miryam and Aharon realized that Moshe was depressed, and they thought that this made him unable to continue functioning as the leader of the people. Thus, they were attempting to become the leaders, and they noted that G-d also spoke to them. How did this claim relate to Moshe's Cushite wife? It could be, as the Bekhor Shor explained that they were trying to show that they were more qualified to be leaders than Moshe since Moshe had some foreign connections. Or, maybe Moshe in his depression spoke about this long lost wife, and they mentioned it to indicate that Moshe was unable to function as the leader of the people. Even if one follows the idea that 12:1 refers to Moshe separating from Tzippora, then this could also accord with Moshe being depressed since maybe he separated due to his depression.

Moshe did not respond to Miryam and Aharon's accusations. 12:3 records that he was humble which might be the reason for his non-response. Yet, we know that he responded very angrily to Datan and Aviram's accusation, 16:15. Maybe he did not respond since he was in shock that his sister and brother were attacking him, or maybe again this was another sign of his despondency.

Instead, G-d responded by calling Moshe, Aharon and Miryam to the ohel moed, and then telling Aharon and Miryam to step outside the tent, 12:4,5. Why did G-d have to call for Moshe to go to the ohel moed, if afterwards, G-d spoke only to Miryam and Aharon? Why did Moshe have to be around when G-d was speaking to Miryam and Aharon? In 12:4-8, G-d rebuked Miryam and Aharon and stated the greatest praises of Moshe in the Torah, which further establishes Moshe as the foremost prophet who ever lived. Why did G-d announce Moshe's greatness at this time?

My guess is that the discussion was also for Moshe's benefit that he could hear it from inside the ohel moed. Why could he not go outside? The answer is that G-d was angry at Miryam and Aharon, and speaking harshly to them. G-d wanted Moshe to hear what he said, but G-d did not want to speak harshly in front of Moshe. Why not? Again, Moshe was depressed and G-d was trying to end the depression by having Moshe hear how unique and important he was. It is not clear if G-d's effort succeeded.

After G-d's conversation with Miryam and Aharon ended, Miryam was afflicted with tsara'at, 12:10. Aharon confessed to their sins and urged Moshe to pray for Miryam, 12:11,12. 12:12 is usually understood (see Rashi on 12:12) that Aharon was telling Moshe that if he did not pray, then their sister would be dead since a person with leprosy is like a dead person. However, this reference to the Miryam is not in the verse, and has to be added to the text.

Instead, the Rashbam (on 12:12) understands the verse simply that Aharon was telling Moshe not be dead to his sister's suffering, and the reference to being dead is to Moshe and not Miryam. Aharon was pleading with Moshe to pray for Miryam, as Aharon stated in 12:11, "my lord." Yet, why did Moshe not initially pray for his sister? Was he so angry at her for her attacks on him? Or, was it again because he was still depressed?

In any event, Aharon's plea or Miryam's condition stirred Moshe to pray and G-d healed her, 12:13-15. This prayer and the answering of the prayer ended Moshe's depression. A similar case occurred by Avraham after the destruction of Sedom and Amora, and he too had to pray for Avimelekh to end his depression.

If one has accepted this approach concerning Moshe's depression, we see the intrinsic connection between chapters 11 and 12. In addition, we understand why the two chapters were recorded in the Torah. Chapter 11 was recorded to prepare the reader for the failure of the spies that not everything was going well beforehand. This also signaled to Moshe the coming failure of the people, which caused him to be depressed, and then chapter 12 is recorded to explain how his depression ended.

Bibliography:

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