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 20:16 – A window into Moshe’s perception of his life

במדבר כ:טז - ונעצק אל ה' וישמע קולנו וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך. 

20:14-17 records Moshe’s request to the king of Edom to let the people pass through his country, and within this request Moshe recalled some of the history of the people. Moshe mentioned that when the people were in Egypt, they had cried out to G-d, G-d heard the cries of the people, G-d sent a malakh, and G-d took the people out of Egypt. Moshe’s reference to a malakh in this message to the king of Edom is perplexing. It is not clear who is being referred to, what incident is being referred to, its importance to the Exodus from Egypt, and why this information should be relevant to the king of Edom.

Rashi (on 20:16) writes that the malakh is referring to Moshe, the messenger of G-d. Yet, would Moshe, the humblest person, Bemidbar 12:3, refer to himself as a malakh? Why would Moshe need to tell the king of Edom that he was a messenger from G-d? Was this information supposed to scare the king of Edom? Moshe could have just mentioned that the people cried out to G-d and G-d saved them, without any reference to himself.

Ibn Ezra (on 20:16) notes that many people believe that Moshe was referring to himself, but he thinks that Moshe was referring to a real malakh. Yet, did a malakh have an important role in the Exodus from Egypt? Shemot 14:19 refers to a malakh who stood between the Jewish people and the Egyptians prior to the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf. However, this was a minor part in the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea, and occurred after the people left Egypt.

Some translators (see for example, in JPS, Milgrom, 1990, p. 168 and Kaplan, 1981, p. 439) write that in 20:16 Moshe was saying that a malakh had taken the people out of Egypt. The only possible reference to a malakh by the Exodus is that Shemot 12:13,23 refer to a mashchit, destroyer, by the tenth plague, who according to some commentators (Hizkuni on Shemot 12:23) was a malakh. Yet, Shemot 12:29 records that G-d killed all the firstborn Egyptians and not a malakh.   Also, 20:16 refers to G-d, and then records three verbs relating to actions of G-d, that G-d heard the cries of the people, that G-d sent a malakh and that G-d took the people out of Egypt. These three separate verbs imply that G-d’s sending of the malakh was distinct in some way from G-d taking the people out of Egypt, and then in 20:16, Moshe was not saying that the malakh took the people out of Egypt. 

My guess is that in 20:16, Moshe was referring to the malakh he saw by the burning bush, Shemot 3:2. This incident happened after the people cried to G-d, and G-d heard their cries, Shemot 2:23,24, which follows the order of events Moshe recalled in 20:16. Yet, this incident was only crucial to Moshe, and was only indirectly related to the Exodus of the people from Egypt since this vision of the malakh was to induce Moshe to be the leader of the people. Moshe did not have to mention this sending of the malakh by G-d to the king of Edom, but it could be that he mentioned it as a personal matter. Many times, a speaker or writer, will include a point in a speech or in a book, which has meaning only to the speaker and the writer, and not to the public who will be hearing the speech or reading the book. The person mentions the point since it is important to the person even if the intended audience will not grasp the significance of the point. In this case, when G-d sent the malakh by the burning bush, this was the turning point in Moshe’s life, and hence for him this was a crucial point of the story. Thus, in his recollection of the basic facts of the Exodus from Egypt, Moshe mentioned this point. This recollection is even more poignant coming at the end of the 40 years of the people’s stay in the wilderness, and right after Moshe was told that he would not take the people to the land of Israel, 20:12.

My daughter Talia has pointed out to me that also Moshe’s first recollection in 20:16, that we cried, is an anomaly since Moshe did not cry out to G-d due to the suffering from slavery as the people did as recorded in Shemot 2:23. Shemot 5:22 does record Moshe crying out to G-d, but this crying out was due to G-d’s actions. Talia suggests that by using the pronoun we, in 20:16, Moshe was tying himself to the people, and their crying out to G-d. Furthermore, Talia notes that combining this point with the idea above that in 20:16 Moshe was referring to his personal vision of the malakh, then in Moshe’s message to the king of Edom, there is a synthesis of Moshe and the people that what happened to the people is a part of who he was, and what happened to him is a part of the history of the Jewish people.

Bibliography:

Kaplan, Aryeh, 1981, The Living Torah, New York: Moznaim Publishing Corporation.

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

Bemidbar 19:2 – How red did the red cow have to be?

 :במדבר יט

פסוק ב: זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר:  דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין-בָּהּ מוּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָלָה עָלֶיהָ, עֹל.  ....  יג כָּל-הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא, אֶת-מִשְׁכַּן ה' טִמֵּא--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:  כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא-זֹרַק עָלָיו, טָמֵא יִהְיֶה--עוֹד, טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ. 

Bemidabr 19:1-12 record a process of purifying a person who became tamei since the person came into contact with a dead body. The process involves sprinkling ashes from a red cow, parah adumah, on the person being purified.

19:2 records that the cow is to be adumah, which is usually translated as red, but there are many shades to the color of red. If the Torah means a bright red, like the color of tomatoes, then having a cow with such a color would be rare. However, if the Torah means a reddish, brown color like bordo, then there are many types of cows who fit this qualification.

19:2 also records the word temimah, whole, after the word adumah, and that the cow cannot have a blemish and not have been worked. Does this word temimah modify the term cow, parah, or the term red, adumah in the verse? Rashi (on 19:2), following the Sifrei, writes that the word temimah modifies the word adumah, and then the Torah is requiring that the cow be completely red to the extent that even if there are two black hairs on the cow it cannot be used to purify the tamei person. The logic of this reading is that the phrase after the word temimah is “that the cow had no blemish,” and if the word temimah was referring to the cow, then it is claimed that the phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would be redundant. Hence, according to this approach, it must be that the word temimah means that the cow must be completely red. With this reading of 19:2, a red cow without even two black hairs, and presumably any other color, would be rare.

Rashi is following the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Bethyra in the Mishnah in Parah 2:5, but there are other opinions that the cows can have more than two non-red hairs and still be acceptable. For instance, the Mishnah quotes R. Akiva that even if there are four or five non-red hairs that are not together, then they can be plucked from the cow and the cow can be used for the purifying process. The Mishnah also quotes R. Eliezer that even if there were fifty non-red hairs, which are dispersed on the animal, then they can be plucked off the animal. A different Mishnah (Parah 2:2) notes that if the horns and hoofs of the cow are black, then they also can be cut off. These opinions recognize the difficulty to have a cow which is literally red all over, though these opinions only minimally reduce the rareness of the appearance of a red cow.

A different reading of 19:2 is that the word temimah does not refer to the color red but to the cow, that the cow has to be whole. With this understanding, the following phrase in the verse “that the cow has no blemish” is just coming to explain what is meant by the term temimah. The phrase “that the cow has no blemish” would not be viewed as being redundant but as being explanatory and Luzzatto (on 19:2) points out that a similar case with the word tamim and the phrase “that there is no blemish” occurs in Vayikra 22:21. The Torah Temimah (on 19:2) notes that in the Torah the word temimah refers to the state of the animal, and if the Torah meant for the cow to be completely red, then the Torah should have stated have used the word “all” or “completely” instead of the word temimah.

With this latter understanding of 19:2, one can understand that the parah adumah was not 100% red, but rather that it was mostly red (bordo). This would follow the general rule in halakhah that a majority is like everything, rubu kekulo. The question would then be how much of a majority? The Mishnah Parah (2:5) notes the possibility that some of the hairs on the cow might have different colors in different parts of the hair, and the Mishnah rules that that status of the hair as being red or another color would depend on what is more evident. The same rule could apply to the red cow that if it looks red (bordo), then it would qualify for the purifying process even if it was not completely red.

It is possible that such a view exists in the Mishnah. The Mishnah (Parah 3:7) discusses the case of what happens when a designated red cow would not be willing to go to the ceremony (a stubborn cow). The Mishnah states that one cannot take out a black cow or another red cow to walk with the first red cow because in the case of the two red cows, people might say that two red cows were killed. This idea that there could be two red cows living at the same time is difficult according to the understanding that the red cow had to be completely red since this was a such a rare occurrence. It is true that the Mishnah (Parah 3:5) states that in two people’s lives there were two red cows, but still this was only in their lifetime, while the case of Parah 3:7 is when the two red cows were living at the same exact time. I think that this possibility in the Mishnah to have two red cows alive at the same time shows that for some opinions (not all) the parah adumah did not have to be completely red.

Regardless of how one understands the Mishnah Parah 3:7, the two different ways to read 19:2 have several different implications. If one understands that the word temimah refers to the color red and that the cow has to be completely red, then the appearance of such cow would be very rare. This accords with the Mishnah (Parah 3:5), which records an argument about the number of parot adumot, red cows, that existed until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. R. Meir claims that from the time of Moshe to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were only seven red cows, while the Chachamim, who did not discuss the period before Ezra (5th century BCE?) state that from Ezra to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash there were seven red cows. This opinion would be seven red cows in around 500 years, while according to R. Meir there were seven reds cows in around 1400 years. Both opinions attest to the rarity of the red cow. (The Rambam, Laws of parah adumah, end of chapter three, combines the two opinions in the Mishnah to claim that there were in total nine red cows from the time of Moshe until the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, and then he adds that there will be one more red cow by in the messianic age. I am not sure where the Rambam knew about the tenth parah adumah.) On the other hand, if the word temimah relates to the cow, then the cow could just be a cow that looks red, though not completely red, and then the red cow would not be such a rare case.

This difference is how rare was the red cow has other implications. If the cow is very rare, just once in a century, then there is a need to both limit the need for the ashes from the cow and to increase the supply of the ashes that come from the red cow. With regard to the need for the ashes, the simple reading of 19:13 (and Vayikra 15:31?) is that a person who comes into contact with a dead body must purify him or herself, and that a person cannot remain in a state of tumah. This creates a huge need for red cows, which could only be fulfilled if the red cow was only a majority red. However, if the red cow had to be completely red, and hence very rare, then there would not be enough red cows for people to be purifying themselves on a regular basis. Instead, the traditional understanding of 19:13 (see Rashi on 19:13) is that only the person entering the Bet ha-Mikdash needs to purify him/ herself, but everybody else can remain in a state of tumah.

With regard to the supply of ashes from the red cows, if one thinks that a red cow is such a rare event, then there is a need to increase the ashes through other means. One other mean could be to have a larger pyre to burn the red cow, as then the wood would give more ashes, but the pyre could not be that large since the high priest has to take the cow up to the pyre and come down after killing the cow on the pyre, Mishnah Parah 3:9. Another way to increase the ashes is by adding more water to the combination of water and ashes, that is to say diluting the combination of water and ashes. Yet, the Chachamim (Mishnah Parah 6:2) maintain that any ashes that have been mixed with some water cannot be mixed with other water.

Another difference between the two different understandings of 19:2 is more philosophical. Is the Torah to be understood in a miraculous manner or is the Torah to be understood a guide for people to live in a normal manner without relying on miracles. According to the idea that the red cow had to be completely red, then the Torah is making a law which is based on miracles, while if 19:2 is understood to mean that the cow could be mostly red (bordo), then the Torah was setting rules for people to live without having to rely on events that at best occurred once in a century. This blog, as indicated by its name, obviously follows the non-miraculous approach.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 20:6-13 - Moshe's reaction to the people's request for water in the desert in Bemidbar (Numbers) 20 : The "sin?"

Bemidbar (Numbers) 20:2-13 record the people's complaint for water and the ensuing “sin” of Moshe and Aharon that caused them to be punished that they were not allowed to take the people to the land of Israel. What was Moshe's and Aharon’s sin? For various reviews of this question, see Ibn Ezra on 20:8, Abravanel, 2008, pp. 167-176, and N. Leibowitz, 1982, pp. 236-247. I will review some of the explanations of the "sin" and offer two possible explanations.

The Rambam (Shemoneh Perakim, chapter 4) suggests that Moshe’s sin was that he got angry and his anger implied that G-d was angry at the people, but G-d was not angry with the people. Moshe definitely seems to be angry here, both his language in 20:10 and the fact that he hit the rock twice. Why did Moshe get angry here? Perhaps it was because he felt the people were attacking him personally, 20:3-5. Even though a person is humble, still when someone is attacked, then he/ she will respond by being angry. Yet, Moshe had been angry before, as for example when speaking to Datan and Aviram (16:15), when they attacked him personally, 16:13,14, and he was not punished then.

A second answer is Rashi's explanation (on 20:11,12) that Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock, 20:8, but instead Moshe hit the rock, 20:11. The idea of speaking to the rock is understood to mean that Moshe was supposed to give an order to the rock to exude water, for example to say to the rock "give the people water." This approach has raised various questions.

The Ramban (on 20:7) criticizes Rashi's approach. He notes that 20:12 records that Moshe and Aharon showed a lack of faith in G-d, lo heehmanetem, but how did Moshe show a lack of faith in G-d by hitting the rock instead of speaking to the rock? When Moshe hit the rock, he had faith that water would flow from the rock. It could be that Moshe was not following G-d's command (according to Rashi) and that the miracle would have been more impressive if Moshe had spoken and not hit the rock, but still Moshe did not demonstrate any lack of faith in G-d. The Ramban also notes that Moshe spoke about the rock, 20:10, which he argues was the fulfillment of G-d's command to Moshe to speak to the rock.

Another question on Rashi's approach is how could Moshe have misunderstood what G-d told him to do? The Sifrei (157, on parshat Mattot), Rashi (on Bemidbar 31:21 quoting the Talmud Pesachim 66b), the Ran (Derashot haRan, derashot 8 and 9, 2003, pp. 304, 334, 335) and Luzzatto (end of comments on 20:12) suggest that the misunderstanding was because Moshe was angry, but still it seems problematic to say that Moshe misunderstood G-d's command to speak to the rock. (The Rashbam on 20:10 seems to accept this possibility, but if one says that Moshe misunderstood G-d here, then this opens a pandora’s box for other cases.)

A third question on Rashi's approach is why was Aharon punished here? Aharon did not speak to the rock, but did he have a chance to do so? 20:10 records that Moshe spoke to the people, said rhetorically, “could the rock exude water?” and then Moshe hit the rock. Was Aharon supposed to jump in and shout "exude water" to the rock?

Abravanel argues that Moshe and Aharon were being punished for previous sins. Aharon was punished for his role in building the golden calf and Moshe was punished for requesting more information from the spies than what was needed. Abravanel claims his approach explains why in Devarim 1:37 Moshe mentioned his punishment in conjunction with the sin of the spies since his real sin was by the sending of the spies. Also, Abravanel’s approach appears to explain why Aharon was punished here even though he had almost no role here.

The Abravanel's approach is appealing but not convincing. 20:24 states that Aharon sinned here as well, and thus he was not being punished for his role in the sin of the golden calf. Similarly, as Rashi (on 20:12) points out, the sense of 20:12 is that Moshe was also being punished for his action here. Also, I do not think that Moshe sinned in any way by the sending of the spies, see our discussion on 13:1,2,26, "A test."

Luzzatto (on 20:12) has a lengthy review of Moshe's "sin" and he begins with a disclaimer that for many years he did not try to examine this question since he did not want to add another sin to Moshe. Instead, initially he accepted Moshe Mendelssohn’s (1729-1786, Germany) approach that the sin was Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people when the people complained for water that Moshe and Aharon ran away from the people, 20:6, also see Ibn Ezra on 20:6. Luzzatto notes that three other commentators (R. Avraham ben Shem Tov Bibago, Spain 15th century, Derekh Emunah; R. Avraham Menachem ben Jacob haKohen Porto, Verona, 16th century, Minhah Belulah; and the book Avat Nefesh a commentary on Ibn Ezra) also followed this approach.

After quoting these other commentators, and noting that he taught their explanation for 15 years, Luzzatto rejected it for the following reasons. One, G-d did not criticize Moshe and Aharon for not speaking to the people, but for showing a lack of faith. Two, the statement in the Torah words that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me,” 20:24, implies that Moshe and Aharon did not do something that they were commanded. Three, the language in the Torah that Moshe and Aharon left the people, 20:6, does not imply that they ran from the people. Luzzatto writes that he now accepted Rashi’s explanation that the sin was they were supposed to speak to the rock.

It seems to me obvious that Moshe would not have misunderstood G-d’s command even if he was angry, and hence I think the Ramban in correct that Moshe's statement in 20:10 about the rock with Aharon standing next to him was the fulfillment of G-d's command to him and Aharon in 20:8 to speak to the rock. What then were Moshe and Aharon’s sins?

One possibility is that after Moshe made his statement in 20:10 about the rock, he was supposed to wait until the water started to gush from the rock, but he got impatient, maybe since he was angry, and he hit the rock twice. This impatience was the lack of faith since the water was going to go forth in a few more seconds. Aharon's sin here was that he did not stop Moshe from hitting the rock. 20:11 records that Moshe raised his arm to lift his staff to hit the rock and at the time, Aharon could have grabbed Moshe's arm and stopped him from hitting the rock. Moshe even hit the rock twice, and my son Binyamin believes that this means that Moshe raised his arm a second time, which would have given Aharon a second chance to stop Moshe from hitting the rock. (Note this idea could also be Aharon's sin if one believes that the sin was not telling the rock to exude water, Rashi's approach.)

Another possible "sin" could have been Moshe and Aharon's reaction to the people's demand for water. Was the people’s complaint about water justified? The traditional explanation (see Rashi on 20:2) for the people’s complaint for water is that previously they had been getting water from a well which traveled with the people, but after Miryam died, the well disappeared. With this explanation, the complaint of the people would seem to be justified since they truly needed water to live (see Hizkuni on 20:2). Yet, why then was the people’s complaint considered a fight against G-d (20:13)? Also, after Miryam died, how were the people supposed to get water, as the incident here appears to be a onetime event?

As we discussed on 20:2-5 "Water in the desert," my understanding is that the mahn was able to supply the people with all their nutritional needs in the desert, both solids and liquids. I doubt there was a well that traveled with the people since it is never mentioned in the Torah, but even if there was a well and it disappeared after Miryam died, the people did not need regular water. Thus, the peoples' complaints for water in 20:5 and 21:5, were unjustified, and this understanding offers a new perspective on Moshe's and Aharon's "sin."

The people stated that they were going to die in the desert and that they never should have left Egypt, 20:3-5. This was a denial of G-d’s goodness to them, and hence the Torah calls it a rebellion against G-d, 20:13. Moshe and Aharon should have told the people that they were not going to die because they would live by eating the mahn. It is possible that the people were so worked up, that they would not have listened to Moshe and Aharon, but then Moshe and Aharon should have ignored the people’s complaint for water. (Note by the sin of the spies, Moshe and Aharon did not run to the ohel moed, but fell on their faces before the people, 14:4. Also by Korah’s rebellion, Moshe tried to convince the people to stop.) Again, it could have been because Moshe was angry that he did not try to argue with the people.

When Moshe and Aharon went to G-d after hearing the people's complaint for water, this gave the impression that they were going to ask G-d to give the people water, which implied that Moshe and Aharon accepted the people’s complaint. Thus, when Moshe and Aharon went to the ohel moed it was a partial negation of the great miracle of the desert, the mahn. If Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were even just partially negating the miracle of the mahn, then this would be considered as showing a lack of faith in G-d. In addition, if Moshe and Aharon gave the impression that they were praying for the people to get water, then in some sense they were joining the people’s fight with G-d. This could then be considered as rebelling against G-d, and this would explain the language in 20:24 (also see 27:14), that “you (Aharon) rebelled against Me.”

With either possibility (Moshe was impatient or Moshe and Aharon should have argued with the people before going to G-d), the sins of Moshe and Aharon here seem minor, but this is not our judgement to make. Also, it could be that that the punishment was in conjunction with other actions, Moshe by 11:21-23 and Aharon by the golden calf, Shemot 32:2-5, (the straw that broke the camel’s back).

For more discussion on why Moshe was not able to go to the land of Israel, see our discussion on Devarim 1:37, 3:26, 4:21, "Why was Moshe unable to go to the land of Israel?"  

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2008, Commentary on Bemidbar, Jerusalem: Horev Publishing.

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

Rabbenu Nissim (Ha-Ran, Spain, 1290-1376), 2003, Derashot HaRan, compiled by Aryeh Leib Feldman and comments by Mordechai Leib Katzenelbogen, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Bemidbar 21:5-9 (Hukkat) - Take a good look

Bemidbar 21:5 records that the people complained, why did G-d and Moshe take them out of Egypt? In response, G-d sent snakes to kill them, 21:6. This was the second time the new generation complained, but on the first occasion (20:4,5) they were not punished. Presumably, initially G-d gave the people another chance, but when they sinned a second time, they were punished.

S. R. Hirsch (on 21:6, 1989, p. 380) and N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 260-263) argue that verb for the word send in 21:6 means not that G-d specifically sent snakes, but that G-d removed his protection of the people in the desert. With this idea, there were always snakes in the desert, and only now were they able to attack the Jewish people. Also, with this idea, the snakes were not all over the camp, but 21:6 records that many people died. Maybe, the word many is relative, and the people thought that many people were dying from the snakes. Also, Devarim 8:15 records that not only were there snakes in the desert but also scorpions, so if G-d removed the people's protection, then they also should have been bitten by the scorpions. However, maybe G-d only partially removed the protection from the people, and they were still protected from scorpions.

Why did G-d send snakes, and not a plague as occurs by 17:11 and 25:9? Maybe the snakes had a double symbolism of the desert and of Egypt and more specifically of Pharaoh, who might have had an image of a snake on his crown. Milgrom (1990, p. 174) notes that the word seraph (21:6,8) connotes winged snake, which is similar to the winged Egyptian uraeus (cobra). This double symbolism could correspond to the two complaints, one, about leaving Egypt and two, about the mahn in the desert.

A different idea is that the snakes were because the people were complaining that their lives were bad since they had to eat the mahn, and hence they were punished with snakes that bit and burnt them, and then they were truly suffering.

Or, maybe the punishment of the snakes was because the cure was to make a copper snake, 21:9, but then the question is what is the message of the copper snake?

After people died from the snakes, the people said they had sinned, 21:7, and this was a form of repentance, which marks the second generation as being more worthy to enter the land of Israel than the first generation. One might have thought that this repentance would have been sufficient to end the attack of the snakes, but it was not. 21:8 records that in response to the people’s statement, G-d said to Moshe to make a seraf, and put it on a pole, which the people would be able to look at and survive. 21:9 then records that Moshe made a copper snake, and people who were bitten by a snake could look at the copper snake and live.

Rashi (on 21:9) notes that Moshe was not told to make a copper snake, but that he did this on his own since the word for copper, nechoshet, is similar to the word for snake, nachash. This is a nice literary idea, and also the sounds relate to the word biting, nashach in 21:6,8,9. A different idea is that Moshe learned from the incense pans used by the 250 “men of renown” in the rebellion of Korah, that they were made from copper and put on the altar afterwards, 17:1-4. Another possibility is that the word seraf, which today we do not know its meaning, is related to copper. Or, maybe copper was the most accessible and easy to use item to make the snake.

One unusual point of this incident is that making the artificial snake surely took some time, which might have meant that some people died during the time it was being made. This differs from the case of Aharon taking the incense to stop the plague that Moshe told him to go fast and Aharon ran with the incense, 17:11,12. Maybe the reason for the delay in the people’s salvation was because the attack of the snakes was because the people became inpatient when they had to march around Edom, 21:4, and hence when they were being saved, they had to learn to be patient.

The incident ends with the people being able to be saved if they were bitten by a snake, but it is not recorded that G-d stopped the snakes from attacking the people. It could be that for the rest of the time the people were in the desert, the people would need to look at the snake Moshe made if they got bitten. Thus, following N. Leibowitz’s understanding that G-d allowed the snakes to attack the people, this change was not revoked. This would be a partial step to learning to live normally, as people had to worry and make an effort not to be bitten by a snake, although being healed by seeing the snake on the pole was a miracle.

Why did the people have to look specifically at a snake? The looking was because the second generation had to participate in their repentance, like by Pinhas, 25:4-9, but why did they have to look at a snake? Is it just to show that the antidote comes from the poison?

The Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 3:8, quoted by Rashi on 21:8) wonders how this metal snake could have healed the person, and it answers that the person was looking towards G-d in the heavens. Yet, if this was the point, then there was no need for there to be a snake on the pole since the people just had to look up to the heavens. Also, unless this pole was very high (three meters high?), the people were not looking up, but looking more horizontally than vertically.

A different answer following the idea that the snake symbolized the desert and Egypt is that the people had to look at the snake, to take an honest look at what was life in Egypt. If they took an honest look, then they would remember that they had been slaves and suffered in Egypt, and hence they should be grateful to G-d for taking them out of Egypt even if they did not like the mahn and even if they would not get into the land of Israel. Also, by looking at the snake they would realize what life in the desert is really like, and how G-d had protected them in the desert. This gratitude to G-d would save them from the snakes which was a punishment for their ingratitude towards G-d.

A different idea is that the image of the metal snake on the pole meant that there was a snake above them, maybe at the level of their heads, as well as snakes below them. The snake above them counters the curse said to the snake, but blessing to Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, that people would be above the snakes, Bereshit 3:15. Seeing this artificial snake would be a warning to the people that even though they were supposed to go to the land of Israel, if they kept complaining then they would not get there, just like the snake being above them was symbolizing that the blessing to Adam and Havva about snakes could be rescinded. With this approach the lesson to the people from looking at the snake above them was that blessings are conditional. Maybe the people understood this lesson, and we do not hear of the people again asking to go back to Egypt.

Bibliography:

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 10:6 - Where did Aharon die?

Bemidbar 20:28 records that Aharon died on Mount Hor, and this is also recorded in 33:38,39 and in Devarim 32:50. G-d also stated that Aharon was to die on Mount Hor in G-d’s instructions for Moshe, Aharon and Elazar to go on Mount Hor, 20:24,26. However, Devarim 10:6 records “And the Israelites journeyed onwards from Beeroth-Bene Jaakan to Mosera. There Aharon died, and he was buried there, (Alter, 2004 translation, p. 931). The word “there” refers to the previous location mentioned, Mosera, which means that according to Devarim 10:6, Aharon died in Mosera. Also, only in Devarim 10:6 does the Torah state where Moshe was buried, as in Bemidbar there is no mention of where Aharon was buried. Where did Aharon die and why would he be buried in Mosera if he died on Mount Hor?

Rashi (on Devarim 10:6) based on the Midrash explains that Moshe’s reference to the death of Aharon in Mosera means that the people associated Mosera with Aharon's death, but really, Aharon died on Mount Hor. Rashi explains that when Aharon died on Mount Hor, the clouds of G-d’s glory departed from the people, and hence the people feared the King of Arad, which caused them to march back towards Egypt. The people marched backwards to Mosera, (Moserot in 33:31) and there the tribe of Levi battled with the people to stop their march back towards Egypt. Many people died in this battle at Mosera, which caused a great mourning for Aharon because his death had led to this tragic civil war. Thus, according to this idea, while Aharon really died at Mount Hor, because of the great mourning at Mosera (Moserot), the people associated his death with Mosera.

This explanation is difficult for many reasons. One, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this battle between the people and the tribe of Levi at Mosera. Two, as pointed out by the Malbim (1809-1880, on Bemidbar 20:29), Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died and was buried in Mosera, which cannot be understood to mean that the people just associated Aharon's death with Mosera.

Hizkuni (on Devarim 10:6) quotes from an unknown Midrash a slight variation of Rashi’s approach. This explanation is that for some time after the people left Mount Hor, they were able to see Aharon’s gravesite. It was only when they reached Mosera that they were unable to see the gravesite, and hence it seemed to the people that Aharon died at Mosera. However, still Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died at Mosera and not that the people associated his death with Mosera.

A second approach to explain where Aharon died is to argue that the places Mount Hor and Mosera are really the same place. For example, Ibn Ezra (on Devarim 10:6) suggests that Mosera was the name of the desert where Mount Hor was situated. According to this approach, Aharon died both in Mount Hor, the specific place, and in Mosera, the general name of the area. A problem with this explanation is that Bemidbar 33:31 refers to a place called Moserot, which could be the same place as Mosera, but Bemidbar 33 records that the people came to Moserot several stops before they came to Mount Hor, 33:37.  However, one could maintain that Mosera is not the same as Moserot.

Ramban (on Devarim 10:6) follows this approach that Mount Hor and Mosera are not two separate places, as he suggests that Mount Hor was a large mountain, and due to its great size, there were many places that faced the mountain. Bemidbar 20:22 records that the people camped by Mount Hor, which means that they were at the foot of the mountain. Ramban then suggests that Mosera was the place that faced the top of the mountain, and thus it could be said that Aharon died at Mosera. Ramban further suggests that maybe the mountain was also referred to by the names of the places situated near the mountain, so then Mosera would also be a name for Mount Hor.

Hoffmann (1961, on Devarim 10:6) slightly varies Ramban’s answer. He suggests that Mosera was the name of the place where the people camped by the foot of Mount Hor, and Aharon died on the Mount Hor itself. Thus, it could be written that Aharon died on Mount Hor, but also his death and burial could be considered as being at Mosera since that was where the people were camped. Hoffmann then suggests that Bemidbar 20:22 recorded the encampment of the people as being at Mount Hor, even though it really was Mosera, to focus on the death of Aharon, which was on Mount Hor. Yet, if all the names really refer to the same place, then one would have thought that the Torah would have used just one name consistently in all references to Aharon’s death.

A third approach is to understand that the word “there” in Devarim 10:6 is not referring to Mosera. The idea is that the word “there” means at that time, and then 10:6 should be understood that at the time when the people were traveling to Mosera, they happened to be near Mount Hor and Aharon died on Mount Hor. This approach is quoted by Ibn Ezra (on Devarim 10:6) in the name Yitzhak Ibn Geat (?), Da’at Zekenim (13th century), Bekhor Shor (12th century) and Hizkuni (13th century) on all on Devarim 10:6. This approach is difficult since it introduces a break in the sentences, and requires one to add words to the verse.

Malbim (on Bemidbar 20:29) offers two other answers. The first explanation centers on the fact that only Devarim 10:6 records where Aharon was buried, in Mosera.

How could Aharon be buried on Mosera if he died on Mount Hor? Malbim suggests that after Aharon died on Mount Hor, the people went up and saw his body (Bemidbar 20:29) and they intended to eulogize him on the mountain in the presence of his body. However, the Canaanites attacked the people during the time they were doing the eulogy, as Bemidbar 21:1 records this attack immediately after the mention of Aharon dying on Mount Hor. The people then retreated due to this attack, as Bemidbar 21:1 records that the Canaanites were initially successful in their attack. When the people retreated, they took Aharon’s body with them on their retreat from Mount Hor. In their retreat they went to Mosera, and there they buried Aharon. This answer is reasonable, but still Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon also died in Mosera. In this explanation, Malbim explains that Devarim 10:6 only mentions that Aharon died as part of the reference to the burial. However, this is difficult since according to this approach, Devarim 10:6 should have just recorded that Aharon was buried in Mosera, and not mentioned anything about where Aharon died.

Malbim’s second explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people saw that gavah Aharon. What does the word gavah mean? While in some verses, Bereshit 6:17 and Yehoshua 22:20, it seems to be synonymous with dying, in many more verses, it seems to refer to a stage prior to dying, Bereshit 7:21,22; 25:8,17; 35:29 and 49:33.

Ibn Ezra (on Bereshit 25:28) suggests that gavah signifies dying without suffering, and hence he claims that gavah always refers to dying, but dying does not always refer to gavah.

Malbim also notes that there is a difference between gavah and met, and he suggests that gavah means a loss of crucial life functions, while met refers to the state afterwards where the body degenerates due to the loss of these life functions. Thus, he explains that Bemidbar 20:29 means that the people only saw that Aharon was in a state of gavah but not a met. According to this, Aharon only partially died by Mount Hor, while the full state of being a met occurred when the people were at Mosera. Accordingly, Aharon was buried in Mosera since one does not bury somebody who is in a state of gavah. Note, I did not see how the Malbim explained the use of the word met in Bemidbar 20:26,28.

I used to think that gavah could refer to a condition where a person is alive but something (a famine, a virus, a decree, not including the aging process) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this process. However, after seeing how my mother died (June 27, 2024), that she accepted that she was dying a week before she actually died, left the hospital, and then literally waited in bed to die barely eating or drinking, I would vary my suggestion as to what the word gavah mean. Now, I think that gavah means that a person has accepted his/ her immanent death and stops living, which means to stop eating, drinking and taking medicines that could delay one’s death. I was told that many people sort of “shut down” before they die, as they willingly stop eating and drinking and doing normal human activities prior to the actual death. This would be a state of gavah. Note, that in some situations this could viewed as being a better state than dying instantaneously since it allows a person to “say goodbye to the world.”

This understanding would mean that in Bereshit 6:17, G-d told Noah that the ensuing flood would cause the animals to give up hope of living. Afterwards, when the flood occurred, Bereshit 7:21 records the fulfillment of G-d’s statement in 6:17, and then Bereshit 7:22 records that the animals then died.

This understanding of the term gavah also accords with 17:27,28, when the people were physically fine, but they said that they were giving up on living once they realized that they were destined to die from G-d’s decree after the sin of the spies, see our discussion on 17:27,28, “The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert.” Similarly, in 20:3, the people referred back to the statement of people who gave up hope of living in 17:27,28, and in 20:3, the people were saying that they also should have given up hope of living (gavah) and then died earlier, instead of living and going to a new desert to die.

Following this understanding of the word gavah, we can answer the apparent contradiction as to where Aharon died. The verses which state that Aharon died (met) on Mount Hor are referring to when he gave up on living since G-d had told him that it was his time to die, even though he might have been physically healthy. On the other hand, Devarim 10:6 which records that Aharon died at Mosera, is where he stopped breathing, and hence he was buried at Mosera.

Once he had given up hope of living on Mount Hor due to G-d’s decree, then even though he was alive, he could no longer function as the high priest, so his special clothing was transferred to his son Eliezer, 20:28. Also, 20:29 can use the word gavah as the people did not see Aharon when he had died (stopped breathing), rather when he had given up hope of living.

Furthermore, while by G-d’s instruction to Moshe and Aharon, Aharon was “to be gathered to his kin” 20:24,26, the fulfillment of this instruction is not recorded in Bemidbar 20 since he had not died yet. 20:24,26 would then mean that he would be gathered to his kin in the future, and this process started on Mount Hor. Devarim 32:50 implies that Aharon was gathered to his kin on Mount Hor, but it also records that he died on Mount Hor. Thus, just as the giving up of hope of living on Mount Hor was the beginning of the death process, so too the reference to Aharon gathering to his kin on Mount Hor should be understood as the beginning of the gathering process. 

In addition, by the second statement by G-d that Aharon would be “gathered to his kin,” 20:26, this gathering is stated before the statement that Aharon was to die, but usually first one dies and then one is gathered to one’s kin, see Bereshit 25:8,17; 25:29; 49:33(?), and Devarim 32:50. The change in order could signify that in case since Aharon began the dying process on Mount Hor, that is where the process of “being gathered to his kin” began even before he actually died.

It remains a question how did Aharon get from Mount Hor to Mosera? In class, people said that it could not be that he walked down from Mount Hor since 20:28 record that only Moshe and Elazar walked down. Yet, by the Akedah, the Torah only records that Avraham returned and not Yitzhak, Bereshit 20:19. Another possibility is that people went up the mountain to help/ get Aharon after they saw that he did not return with Moshe and Elazar. Maybe Moshe went down first and then Elazar waited until people came up to take Aharon down? Note that 20:28 records Moshe and Elazar descending by using a singular verb, which could imply that they came down separately. A different and not so likely possibility is that Moshe and Elazar carried Aharon down, and since Aharon was not considered dead, he did not generate any tumah. Yet, it would have been physically hard for just two people to carry Aharon down a mountain. Another also not so likely possibility is that other anonymous people went up with Moshe, Aharon and Elazar on Mount Hor (maybe staying in the background), and these unnamed people brought Aharon down. With any of these possibilities, if Aharon’s body was brought down, then it gives a simple explanation to the word seeing in 20:29, that the people literally saw Aharon. (For other explanations of this seeing, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni all on 20:29.) 

To summarize, Bemidbar 20:26,28, Bemidbar 33:39 and Devarim 32:50 all record that Aharon died on Mount Hor, which can be understood to mean that Aharon stopped trying to live (eating and drinking) due to G-d’s statement that it was his time to die, as indicated by the use of the word gavah in Bemidbar 20:29. However, Aharon only finally expired at Mosera and there he was buried as recorded in Devarim 10:6. (Note with this idea still one has to maintain that Mosera is not the same place as Moserot.)

Bibliography:

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

Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.

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 20:2-5 (Hukkat) - The source of water for the Jewish people when they were in the desert

Bemidbar 20:1-5 records that the people came to the desert of Tzyn, Miryam died, there was no water and the people complained. Moshe supplied the people with water by hitting a rock, 20:11, but again in 21:5 the people complained that there was no water. Afterwards, 21:16-18 records that the people came to some well, and this was such a momentous event that they composed a song about the well. It is obvious that in a desert, the water supply will be a crucial issue, but the complaints here for water are surprising. Why at this point did the people complain for water?

The people complained about water when they left Egypt, Shemot 15:22, and 17:1, but presumably the water supply problem had been solved since we do read of any complains about water from then until Bemidbar 20.  Furthermore, it is generally assumed that chapters 20 and 21 in the book of Bemidbar are recording events at the end of the people's 40th year in the desert, and if so, why in the 40th year did the water supply problem reemerge? If the people had water for 39 years, what happened in the 40th year?

Bekhor Shor notes that the water crisis in chapter 20 is very similar to the water crisis in Shemot 17:1-7 since in both cases the people asked for water and they got water by Moshe hitting a rock. This similarity led Bekhor Shor (on 20:8) to claim that these narratives are describing the same incident, just like the sending of the spies is recorded twice, Bemidbar 13 and Devarim 1. In one place some of the details of the incident are recorded, and the remaining details are recorded in the second instance.

Bekhor Shor quotes two proofs for his position. One, Shemot 17:7 records that the place where the incident occurred is called Massa and Meriva and Bemidbar 20:13 also refers to the Waters of Meriva. Furthermore, Devarim 33:8 records “whom you tested at Massa, who you quarreled with by the Waters of Meriva.” This is a poetic text using parallelism and Bekhor Shor argues that the place names Massa and the Waters of Meriva are referring to the same incident. A second proof is that Bemidbar 20:1 records that the people came to the desert of Tzyn while Shemot 17:1 refers to the desert Syn, whose similarity also leads Bekhor Shor to argue that the both chapters refers to the same incident.

Milgrom (1990, p. 449) adds another proof for the Bekhor Shor's approach. Devarim 9:22 records three places where the people sinned, Tav’era, Massa, and Kivrot ha-Taava. The 1st and 3rd places are from Bemidbar 11, so Milgrom argues that Massa, which is only mentioned in Shemot 17, must also be from Bemidbar.

If this approach is correct, then we must determine when the actual incident occurred. Was it when the people left Egypt or in the 40th year? If the complaint was when the people left Egypt, then we have an answer to our question since then there was no new complaint about water in chapter 20, as the Torah is only recording the incident that occurred when the people left Egypt.

I doubt that Shemot 17 and Bemidbar 20 describe the same event. First, the names of the desert while close are not identical. Secondly, the parallelism in Devarim 33:8 could be because the incidents were similar without them being the same incident. It could be that the names Meriva and the Waters of Meriva are almost identical since the complaints were similar, and not that the names are referring to the same incident. Third, Milgrom’s proof is not convincing since according to his argument, Massa should have been listed last because it occurred after Kivrot ha-Taava. In fact, one could argue that Devarim 9:22 proves that there were two separate incidents. In Devarim 9:22, Moshe was warning the people not to sin by recounting their errors in the past but he would not mention the Waters of Meriva since that was his sin. If Massa was the same story as the Waters of Meriva, then Moshe would not have referred to Massa.

Finally, if really there was only one complaint for water, why should it be recorded twice? The second telling of the story is not presented as a reference to the past but as a new episode, and there are small differences between the episodes. If the incident happened when the people left Egypt, then Moshe would have been punished even before the people had been told they would not enter the land of Israel. On the other hand, if one argues that the incident only happened after 40 years, why should the complaint have been recorded when the people left Egypt?

The traditional answer (Ta’anit 9a and Rashi on 20:2) for the sudden water crises in chapter 20 is that it was due to the death of Miryam, which was recorded in 20:1. The idea is that for all the years in the desert the people had water from a traveling well which was due to the merit of Miryam and when Miryam died the well disappeared. This answers the question why the sudden complaint for water, and explains the conjunction between the record of Miryam’s death in 20:1 with the lack of water in 20:2.

Yet, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this traveling well. When did it begin? In Shemot 17, Moshe had to hit a rock to supply water to the people, so it must have begun afterwards, but when (see Ramban on 20:8)? Also, if the well disappeared in the 40th year, what did the people do for water for the rest of the year? The Ramban (on 20:8) explains the rabbinic position that after the death of Miryam, the people got water from Moshe hitting the rock for the remaining period in the desert. Why then did they complain for water in 21:5? Netziv (on 20:8 and 21:5) explains that the people complained since the water from the rocks in the 40th year was of a lower quality than what they had received from the well. This seems ad hoc, how would we know that the water from the rock was a lower quality? Furthermore, the text never indicates that Moshe continued to hit the rock to supply water, as 20:11 seems to record a temporary measure. Finally, if the well disappeared, then the people would have had a legitimate need for water so why was Moshe angry with the people, 20:10, and considered their request a quarrel with G-d, 20:13? As for the mentioning of the death of Miryam in 20:1, Ibn Ezra (on 20:2) explains that this was in conjunction with the ensuing punishments of Moshe and Aharon that they also would die in the desert.

Moskovitz (1988, p. 229) offers a different answer to the water crises in chapters 20 and 21. He suggests that these two complaints for water were symptomatic of the perennial water problem the people had in the desert. According to this the people really complained on numerous occasions in the 40 years for water, but only these incidents were recorded. This seems unlikely. Why should the Torah have recorded the two cases here (plus the two cases in Shemot 15 and 17) and left out the other cases? Also, as the food problem was solved permanently by the mahn, why should the water problem be left without a permanent solution requiring periodic stopgap measure? Furthermore, how was the water problem solved on these other occasions? By the well? By Moshe hitting the rocks? Finally, if it was solved on other occasions, then again why now was there a shortage of water?

I believe that the mahn provided all the liquid requirements of the people. One proof of this idea is that 21:5 records that the people complained, “For there is no food and no water. And our throats loathe the despicable food.” The people are not satisfied with the mahn and request both food and water. Yet they only complain about the mahn, there is no complaint about their water source. It must be that the mahn was the source both for food and water providing them with their solid and liquid nutritional needs. Furthermore, by this complaint Moshe did not provide them with water because they did not need water since they had the mahn. A second possible proof that the mahn also provided their liquid needs can be seen in Bemidbar 11:8, which records that if one made a cake from the mahn then it tasted as a cake baked with oil. This means that cake would have a moist taste, which implies some amount of liquids within the solids.

This idea can explain why the people complained for water in Shemot 17:1. In Shemot 16, the people had just received the mahn, but they wanted regular water in addition to the mahn. This complaint was unjustified, and that is why Moshe was angry with them in Shemot 17:2. They got water that one time but then they had to adjust to getting their liquid needs from the mahn.

One could also maintain that even if there was a well that traveled with the people, then still the mahn was an additional source of water. The well would have provided tasty water, while the mahn supplied the liquid nourishment that was necessary. Also, if not everybody could get water from the well, then still the people would be able to get water from the mahn.

Yet, if the mahn provided all the liquid needs of the people, why did the people complain in Bemidbar 20:2-5 for water? The answer is due to the travels in the desert after the sin of the spies. From Bemidbar 33:34-36, we see that before the people came to the desert of Tzyn in 20:1, they had camped in Etzyon Gever, which is assumed to be Eilat and two stops before that they camped at Yotvata. While we cannot identify exactly where Yotvata is today, Devarim 10:7 describes it as a “land of streams of water.” This means that in these places, the people had additional sources of water besides the mahn. (Devarim 8:15 “that they went in a desert without water” means the first stage of their travels in the desert, before they reached these areas.)

Thus, after the sin of the spies, the people had settled down for almost 38 years and had become comfortable. Now, in the 40th year of the people's stay in the desert, the people marched north to the desert of Tzyn, which is probably the Arava desert. The phrases “this wilderness” and “this evil place” in 20:4,5 are in reference to the Arava desert, which is a harsh desert.

We can know postulate that there were two problems that caused the complaints of 20:3-5. One, the simplest, is that in the desert of Tzyn the people had no natural water, as they said in the end of 20:5, "there is no water to drink." However, before coming to the desert of Tzyn, they had become accustomed to natural water, and hence they thought they might die if they only had the mahn. Two, 20:3 refers to "our brothers" who died many years earlier, which suggests that the people complaining, at a minimum in this verse, was the generation who left Egypt. This generation knew that they were not going to make into the land of Israel, and hence they were upset since they saw no reason why they had to leave a place they had been for 38 years just to end up dying in a harsh desert. From their point of view, they could have died, and then the new generation would start to march towards the land of Israel.

In response to the complaints, G-d temporarily gave the people regular water, 20:11, possibly because this was the first complaint of the new generation or a recognition that the people had become used to regular water.

From the desert of Tzyn the people could have traveled through Edom, but Edom refused to let them pass so they have to detour around Edom, 20:14. This detour meant marching south back to the Red Sea, 21:4, (area near Eilat, see also Devarim 2:8) which returned the people to their additional water sources. However, the people had to continue marching turning east and north to go around Edom to the desert of Moav (21:11, Devarim 2:8,9) which meant leaving any sources of water, and they complained again.  It is true that Devarim 2:29 records that Moshe said that Edom sold the people water, but this was for money, probably not in great quantities and most likely after the complaints in Bemidbar 21:4,5. Edom initially met the people with force (20:20,21), and only after the Jewish people passed by would Edom have sold them water. The fact that the people bought water from Edom indicates that they were not happy with getting their liquid needs from the mahn. Shortly after passing around Edom and Moav, the people reached the well referred to in 21:16, and they sang a song because they were very happy since they again had water in great quantities without having to purchase it.  Possibly from that point on, the people always had access to water supplies, and then the song signals the end of the water problem in the desert, but even if not, they still had the mahn to give them their liquid needs.

Bibliography

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

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