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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

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

 

Devarim 31:20, 21 - G-d’s last message in the Torah to Moshe concerning the people

Devarim 31:20,21 record that G–d explained to Moshe (and seemingly also Yehoshua) that the people were going to worship other gods when they would come to the land of Israel since G-d knew "their yetser even before they entered the land that I promised them." The word yetser is usually translated as devisings, but as we discuss on Bereshit 8:21 "Is man evil?" I think it means people’s selfish nature. In any event, these verses raise several questions, and maybe answer a question from the flood in the beginning of the Torah.

One question is do these verses state that the people were destined to sin when they would come into the land of Israel? Note, this same question would seem to apply to 30:16, 29; also 4:25. If the answer is yes, then the people have no free will. However, Moshe seems to affirm the principle of free will at the end of his speech by the establishment of the covenant on the plains of Moav, 30:15,19. Yet, if people have free will, then how could G-d state the people were destined to worship other gods? Thus, either one must understand these verses as being conditional that if the people would sin, which seems difficult, or that in these verses G-d was saying that there was a high probability, but not 100%, that the people would sin. Note, as one refers to more and more generations of people, then the cumulative odds would get higher and higher that some generation would sin.

A second related question is do these verses imply that G-d does not know the future? 31:21 states that G-d knew the people would sin since He knew their yetser, but if He knows the future, then there is no reason to relate G-d’s knowledge of the future to the people’s yetser in the present. Ibn Ezra (on 31:21) writes that the verse means that even if G-d did not know the future, still G-d would have known that the people were going to sin. My impression is that the Torah (see Bereshit 6:6) is written based on the idea that G-d does not know the future, and hence 31:20,21 should be understood that since G-d knew that people are selfish, He could predict with a very high certainty that the people would worship idolatry in the future. One might wonder how being selfish would lead a person to worship other gods, but it could be that people would worship other gods in order to get the “benefits” they would think come from worshipping these other gods, that the person would think that he/ she is “covering his/ her bases.” With regard to the basic question of does Judaism believe that G-d knows the future, this might depend on how one understands Pirkei Avot 3:19.

A third unrelated question is if there was a high probability that the people would sin when they would come into the land of Israel, why would G-d give the people the land of Israel? One answer could be there was still a small chance the people would not sin. A second answer is that they received the land of Israel based on their present status, and while they had the yetser even before they entered the land of Israel, it had not yet caused them to sin. A third answer is that they received the land since G-d had promised it to the patriarchs, which is re-called in 31:20.

The connection between these verses and the flood is that the word yetser only occurs three times in the Torah, here, before the flood, Bereshit 6:5, and after the flood, Bereshit 8:21. Alter (2004, p. 1035) writes, "This relatively unusual word, yetser, is surely a pointed allusion directing us to G-d's bleak words about human nature after the Flood: For the yetser of the human heart is evil from youth." This word establishes a connection between the beginning of the Torah and the end, but what is the connection?

Why did G-d re-start the world after the flood if people have this yetser which can cause them to be evil? Maybe, the entire Torah is to answer the question can people be good even though people have this yetser? If the answer is a categorical no, then there was no point to re-starting the world after the flood. However, G-d did re-start the world after the flood, which means that even though people have this yetser, this selfishness, a (the) point of the Torah was to teach man to overcome/ modify or channel his yetser to become a good person.

When it is all said and done at the end of the Torah, does G-d think that people will succeed or not in overcoming/ modifying or channeling their yetser to do good? The answer from 30:20,21 is not a resounding yes, as otherwise G-d would not have stated that the people were going to sin in the future. However, since we have argued that the verses are speaking in probable terms, even highly probable that the people will sin, still there is some chance that people will not sin. Some people at some time, will be able overcome/ modify or channel their yetser and be good people, but others, maybe the majority, will fail. This possibility leaves people with the free will to be good or bad even though we have this yetser.

Bibliography:

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

Devarim 31:9,25 - Who carried the aron when the Jewish people were in the desert?

Devarim 31:9 records that after Moshe wrote the Torah, he "gave it to the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the aron of the covenant." This verse implies that the priests carried the aron (the box that contained the luchot) when the people were in the desert, but Bemidbar 4:15 (also 3:31?) and Devarim 10:8 and 31:25 record that the Levites carried the aron and not the priests.

Hizkuni (on 31:9) writes that 31:9 should not be understood to mean that the priests carried the aron and he suggests two reasons why in 31:9 the Torah refers to the priests as the people carrying the aron even though he claims they did not carry the aron. One, this reference is because very shortly afterwards the priests would carry the aron when the people crossed the Jordan River, Yehoshua 3:3,6,8, when the people circled Yericho, Yehoshua 6:6,12, and during the ceremony on Mount Eval and Mount Gerizim, 8:33 (also Melachim I 2:26 and 8:4-6), but these were exceptions to the general rule, see Sotah 33b. Two, the priests helped prepare the aron for travel (see Bemidbar 4:5,6), so 31:9 can refer to them as if they also carried the aron.

Abarbanel (1999, p. 491) suggests that the phrase “who carry the aron” in 31:9 refers just to the “sons of Levi’ and not to the priests. The idea being that the Abarbanel splits the phrase "the priests, the sons of Levi" into two groups: The priests and the sons of Levi. According to this idea, 31:9 should be understood to mean that Moshe gave the Torah to the priests, and to the sons of Levi, who carried the aron, and to the elders of the people.

Both of these suggestions are difficult since the phrase, the priests, the sons of Levi, occurs several times in Devarim (17:9, 18:1, 21:5) and the implication of all these verses is that the phrase is just referring to the priests. The phrase, the sons of Levi, is a description of the priests that they are part of the tribe of Levi. Hoffmann (1961, comments on 17:9) explains that with regard to the events recorded in the books of Shemot, Vayikra, and Bemidbar, the priests were just Aharon and his immediate family, and they are sometimes referred to as the sons of Aharon. However, in the book of Devarim, which transpired at the end of the fortieth year of the people’s stay in the desert, the number of priests had grown and hence they are described based on their tribal affiliation, which is Levi.

If the phrase, "the priests, the sons of Levi," just refers to the priests, then the question remains that 31:9 implies that the priests carried the aron, and not the Levites.

My guess is that during the people's stay in the desert there was a change with regard to who carried the aron. When the people first entered the desert, the only priests were Aharon and his four sons, and two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu, died in the second year of the people's stay in the desert, Vayikra 10:2. Thus, initially there were not enough priests to carry the aron, and hence, the Levites carried the aron. Accordingly, Bemidbar 4:15 and Devarim 10:8 which refer to the beginning of the people's stay in the desert only mention that the Levites carried the aron. However, by the end of the forty years, there were enough priests who could carry the aron, and they began to carry the aron either along with the Levites or just by themselves. Thus, shortly after the events recorded in chapter 31, when the people crossed the Jordan and were in the land of Israel, the priests carried the aron, Yehoshua 3:3-8, 6:6,12, and 8:33. However, instead of these cases being exceptions to the general rule, these cases are examples of the change that transpired during the forty years of the people living in the desert that the priests carried the aron instead of or in addition to the Levites.

Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 277) in his comments on the kinah, eicha yashvah chavselet ha-sharon, notes that there is an argument between the Ramban and the Rambam as to who was supposed to carry the aron after the people came to the land of Israel. The Ramban’s (on Sefer ha-Mitzvot shoresh 3, ve-khen) view is that the Levites were to carry the aron even in the land of Israel, while the Rambam’s (Sefer ha-Mitzvot positive commandment no. 34) view was after the people reached the land of Israel, then the priests were responsible for carrying the aron. Our understanding of 31:9 accords with the Rambam’s view, and 31:9 might be the basis for the Rambam’s view.

If this approach is correct, it remains to explain 31:25, which records that Moshe commanded the Levites who carried the aron. Why does the verse not refer to the priests as the people who carried the aron as in 31:9? First of all, Ibn Ezra (on 31:25), suggests that 31:25 could be understood as a shortened version of 31:9, and then 31:25 would mean that Moshe was referring to those Levites who carried the aron, namely the priests. A different idea is that this change at the end of the forty years of the people’s stay in the desert that the priests carried the aron did not preclude the Levites from carrying the aron even when there were enough priests to carry the aron. Thus, in 31:25, Moshe was referring to anybody, the entire tribe of Levi, who might carry the aron. Yet, if this is true, why did Moshe not refer to the Levites also in 31:9?

The difference in the references to who carried the aron between 31:9 and 31:25 relates to how the two verses connect to their surrounding verses. In 31:9, Moshe referred to the priests and the elders since in the ensuing verses Moshe gave the instructions for the Hahkel ceremony, 31:10-13, and it was the responsibility of the priests and the elders but not the Levites to ensure that the Hahkel ceremony was to occur every seven years. Thus, Moshe could not have referred to all the members of the tribe of Levi in 31:9. Also, in 31:9, Moshe mentioned that the priests carried the aron, which they had begun to do at some point in the desert, since just like they had the responsibility to carry the aron, they had the responsibility to ensure that the Hahkel ceremony would happen.

On the other hand, the context of 31:25 is that Moshe had just added the “song” to the Torah to teach the people not to sin, 31:24. This undoubtedly took time, and Moshe was then somewhat rushed for time since he had not known about the song when he had planned his last day. After writing the Torah with the song, Moshe needed it to be placed in the aron (or on its side), and this could have been done by either a priest or a Levite since both groups could carry the aron. In order for this to be done quickly, Moshe referred to the Levites in 31:25 since he wanted to increase the pool of people who would place the Torah in the aron. In addition, 31:28 records that some people were to go and gather the leaders of the nation. The reference to some people can only be to the Levites referred to in 31:25, and again the more people Moshe could get to gather the people the quicker the job would be done. Accordingly, in 31:25 Moshe refers to the Levites, which includes the priests, to increase the number of people who would place the Torah in the aron and who would go about gathering the elders and leaders of the people.

It should also be noted that the message concerning the song, and now the Torah, after the song was added to the Torah, was for all the people to learn, 31:19. Accordingly, in 31:25, it could be from a metaphorical perspective that Moshe refers to everybody who can carry the Torah, which is all the Levites and the priests, to take the Torah, and not just to place the Torah in the aron but also to teach the people, the Torah and the song that it contained. With this idea, Moshe’s message in 31:25 was more geared to the Levites. who were going to live throughout the people in the land of Israel, than the priests, even if the Levites were no longer the main group of people who carried the aron.

Bibliography

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

Soloveitchik, Joseph, (1903-1993), 2010, The Koren Mesorat Harav Kinot, with commentary on the kinot based upon the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, New York: OU Press and Jerusalem: Koren Publishers.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim

In our discussions on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” we attempted to explain that the term mishkan only refers to the walls and ceiling of the special cultic building, which consisted of two rooms containing the aron, the menorah, the inner altar and the table of bread that the Jewish people built in the desert, while the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, the mishkan, the special ritual furniture, and the courtyard around the mishkan. In addition, the term mikdash refers to the collection of ritual items, independent of the building or tent where they are located. Now, we want to examine all cases of these three terms in the book of Bemidbar (Numbers) and the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy, only one verse).

1:1 records that G-d spoke to Moshe in the ohel moed, and according to our understanding this could have been anywhere in the entire complex.

1:50 refers to the mishkan three times, that the Levites would be in charge of the mishkan edut, that they will carry the mishkan, and that they will serve or guard the mishkan (Milgrom, 1990, p. 10). 1:51 continues with this theme, that the Levites would take down and put up the mishkan. 1:53 concludes this short section with another two references to the mishkan (altogether seven from 1:50-53) that the Levites would camp around the mishkan ha-edut and that the Levites would be in charge of watching/ protecting the mishkan ha-edut. (This term mishkan ha-edut appears three times in the section of 1:50-53.) 

1:50 twice refers to the vessels, i.e., the ritual furniture that is situated in the mishkan, and hence we see that the mishkan is the walls but not the items within the walls. Possibly the Torah uses the word mishkan here and not ohel moed because of the second term ha-edut. The term edut is never use in the Torah in conjunction with ohel moed, only ohel edut or the mishkan edut, maybe because ohel moed refers to the entire complex and one should not think that that entire complex is considered edut, testimony. On the other hand, ohel ha-edut refers to the tent by the parochet within the mishkan, which housed the aron, which contained the tablets, which are the edut, see our discussion on Shemot 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21, "The parochet: A pavilion and a screen."

2:2 records that the Jewish people were to camp around the ohel moed, and this would mean around the entire complex.

2:17 records that the ohel moed would travel with the people. Again, this is referring to the entire complex, which would be carried with the people travelled, and not just the special building within the complex.

3:7,8 refer to both the ohel moed and the mishkan. Following Milgrom (1990, p. 16, and Levine, 1993, pp. 141,142) the first half of 3:7 records that the Levites are to guard the ohel moed, the entire complex from the Jewish people approaching it inappropriately. In addition, the first half of 3:8 means that the Levites were to guard the items in the ohel moed, the complex, when they were being transported. The end of both 3:7,8 refer to the Levites work in the mishkan, and I would understand that these verses refer first to the taking down of the walls and ceiling of the special building when the people travelled, and then afterwards to the re-assembling of these walls and ceiling when the people reached their next camp.

3:23 records that the Gershonite clan within the Levites, camped on the side of the back of the mishkan, which continues the designation from 1:53, which also used the word mishkan, see our discussion above on the verse.

3:25 records the work of the Levite family, Gershon, in moving parts of the ohel moed when the people travelled in the desert. 3:25 refers to the ohel moed, then the mishkan, then the ohel, and then its cover. The verse indicates that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? 3:25 should be understood to mean that first the verse refers to the entire complex, the ohel moed (see Levine, 1993, p. 159), and then it specifies the mishkan, the walls and the first ceiling of the special building, see 4:25. 

The next term in 3:25 is ha-ohel, the tent, which tent?  The answer is that the word tent refers to the second ceiling/ covering of goat hairs over the mishkan, and this covering is not part of the mishkan, see Shemot 26:7, 36:14 and 40:19, and Rashi on 3:25, on 4:25, and on Shemot 26:14 and 35:11.   

The following word in 3:25 is its cover, and this refers to the cover of the second covering, namely the third and/ or the fourth covering to the area of the mishkan, as recorded in Shemot 26:14, 36:19, and 40:19.

The last phrase in 3:25 is the curtains of the opening, petach, to the ohel moed, and this is the opening to the courtyard coming from the mishkan since the following verse, 3:26, refers to the opening of the courtyard.  (Note as we discuss on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” the phrase petach ohel moed can sometimes refer to the opening to the entire complex from outside the complex.)

3:26 refers to the curtains “on the mishkan” and this refers to the curtain that cordoned off a courtyard that was around the walls of the special cultic building (and the outer altar). Accordingly, the term “on the mishkan” means surrounding the mishkan.

3:29 records that the Kehat clan amongst the Levites camped on the south side of the mishkan, which follows method of designating their camping spot from 3:23 and 1:53. Similarly, 3:35 records that the Merari clan amongst the Levites camped on the north side of the mishkan.

3:36 records that men of Merari were to carry the beams that made up the mishkan, that is to say the walls of the special building.

3:38 refers to Moshe and Aharon camped before the mishkan on the east and before the ohel moed on the east. Again, we see that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? The verse first mentions the camping of Moshe and Aharon in reference to the mishkan, as occurred by the three clans of the Levites, 3:23, 29, 35. Why then does the Torah add that Moshe and Aharon were also before the ohel moed, lifnei ohel moed? The answer is that if the Torah had only written that they were to camp before the mishkan, then one might have thought that they were to camp in the courtyard of the complex. To reject this possibility, the Torah records that they were to camp before the ohel moed, as this is the entire complex, and being before the entire complex means to be outside the complex. The phrase before the mishkan would then mean to camp in the direction of the opening of the special building but not next to the special building. Note, Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10, we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside of the complex, and see also our discussion on Vayikra 3:8,13 in our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”

3:38 also refers to the mikdash, and this means the collection of special ritual furniture that was within the mishkan/ ohel moed since Aharon and his sons were responsible for these items being packed when the people travelled, 4:5,15,19.

4:3,4,15 record that the work of the Levite family of Kehat was in the ohel moed, referring to the work of carrying the special ritual furniture that was in the entire special complex when the people travelled in the desert. The verse did not use the term mishkan since the family of Kehat carried the special ritual items within the ohel moed, but not the walls and the ceiling of the special building, which constituted the mishkan.

The first half of 4:16 records that Elazar was to be charge of various items associated with the sacrifices that were not ritual furniture. The second half of 4:16 records that Elazar was in charge of the mishkan, meaning the walls and ceiling of the special building, and all items, the special ritual furniture and supplementary vessels, within the mishkan, ostensibly when the mishkan/ ohel moed was being dismantled. Again, the fact that 4:16 records “within” indicates that the mishkan is just the exterior of the special cultic building. Yet, why does 4:16 refer to the mishkan in 4:16 since Elazar’s brother Itamar was in charge of the Levites families of Gershon and Merari and they carried the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan? 

Milgrom (1990, p. 28) suggests that based on 3:32, Elazar was in charge of his brother, and then overall in charge of the transporting of the mishkan. Thus, his father Aharon was only in charge of covering the special ritual furniture, 4:4,15,19, but not of overseeing the transport of the items. The second half of 4:16 is then a summary sentence not just in reference to the work of the family of Kehat, the preceding verses, and possibly this summary is mentioned at this point due to the first half of 4:16 recording that Elazar was directly in charge of the transport of the various items that were not ritual furniture. (Note it is not obvious that the family of Kehat had to carry the items mentioned in the first half of 4:16.)

4:23 records that the family of Gershon was to work in the ohel moed, which refers to these Levites carrying different parts of the entire complex. If the term ohel moed just means the mishkan, the special building, then this description of their work is difficult since 4:26 records that they were to carry various items from the courtyard. Yet, if the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then 4:23 refers both their work carrying items from the special building and from the courtyard, as recorded in 4:25,26.

4:25 is similar to 3:25 and refers to the work of family of Gershon of carrying the curtains (ceilings) of the mishkan and the curtains of the ohel moed. Again, if these terms are synonyms, then it is odd that both are mentioned in the verse. Instead, the first item are the curtains of the mishkan, and this was the first cover on top of the area that had the special cultic furniture, excluding the outer altar.

The second phrase in 4:25 is “and ohel moed” referring to some curtains mentioned in the beginning of the verse, yet what are the curtains of the ohel moed? As noted by Rashi (on 4:25) the reference is probably to the second covering above the enclosed area of the mishkan, which was made from goat’s hair. Shemot 26:7 refers to this covering as a tent to the mishkan, which could imply that this second (third?) covering was not part of the mishkan, but it would be part of the ohel moed. With this idea, only the first covering is part of the mishkan, but not the additional coverings. The additional coverings (third and fourth) of the area enclosed by the mishkan are referred to in the following words of the verse. Accordingly, as the second covering is not considered part of the mishkan, the phrase “and ohel moed” is referring to the second covering of the mishkan.

The end of 4:25 refers to the curtain by the opening of the ohel moed, see our discussion above of this phrase in 3:25.

4:26 has the phrase “on the mishkan” and this has the same meaning as in 3:36.

4:28 concludes the section on the work of the Levite family Gershon, and refers to them working in the ohel moed like in 4:23, the beginning of the section. This term ohel moed is more general than the term mishkan, and some of the items carried by the family of Gershon were part of the ohel moed and not the mishkan.

4:30 records that the work of the family of Merari was also in the ohel moed, just like by the family of Gershon, 4:23.

4:31,32 specify the work in the ohel moed of the family of Merari. They were to carry the walls, bolts and sockets of the mishkan, and the columns that formed the wall of the courtyard, which were not part of the mishkan but are subsumed under the term ohel moed.

4:33 is the concluding verse to the description of the work of the family of Merari, and refers to the ohel moed, as in the beginning of the section, 4:30, and this pattern is similar to the section on the work of the family of Gershon.

4:35,37,39,41,43,47 all refer to the three different Levite families working in the ohel moed, the entire complex, in reference to a count of how many men in each family between the years thirty and fifty. This reference to working in the ohel moed accords with the mention of the ohel moed by the opening and closing verses of the description of the work of each family in chapter four.

5:17 records that the priest was to take some dirt from the mishkan to create some type of drink for the suspected adulteress. This means that the priest was to take some dirt that was between the walls of the special building since there was no floor to this building.

6:10,13 records that the nazir who accidently became tamei needs to bring two birds to the petach ohel moed to offer as sacrifices. As mentioned in our discussion above on 3:25, this place is probably the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

6:18 records that the nazir was also to cut/ shave the hair on his head at the petach ohel moed, and again as 6:10,13, this could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from outside the complex, as would a person or many people be cutting their head by the opening to the special cultic building?

7:1 records that when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, meaning the wall and ceiling of the special building, then he anointed it, the vessels that were inside the special building, the outer altar, which was not in the mishkan, and the other vessels in the courtyard.

7:3 then records that the tribal leaders offered sacrifices before the mishkan, which means that they offered sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The altar was situated before or in front of the special building, which was the mishkan.

7:5 then records that the tribal leaders gave wagons to Moshe to help the Levites in their work in the ohel moed, which accords with the description of the work of the three Levite families mentioned in chapter four.

7:89 then record that after the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, Moshe went into the ohel moed, and he heard a sound coming from inside the special building, which was G-d speaking to Moshe. While it could be that Moshe went into the special building, it could also be that he was in the courtyard when he heard G-d speaking to him.

8:9 records that as part of the ceremony to induct the Levites, the Levites were to be brought before, lifnei, the ohel moed, and all the people were to gather around. 8:10 then records that the Levites were to be brought closer before G-d, and the people were to place their hands upon them. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that 8:9 should be understood to mean that the Levites were first brought outside the complex, and this where the people gathered. Afterwards, as recorded in 8:10, they entered the courtyard of the mishkan, passing by the people. This explanation accords with the idea that the ohel moed is more encompassing than the mishkan.

(If one wants to claim that the terms mishkan and ohel moed are synonyms, that both terms refer to the enclosed area with the two rooms, then one would understand that 8:9 means that initially the Levites were in the courtyard of the mishkan with the people, and then in 8:10 they either went into the special building with the two rooms or they scrunched up within the courtyard. Both options seem logistically unreasonable.)

8:15, 19, 22, 24, 26 record that after the Levites were inducted, then they were to work in the ohel moed, which again follows the description of their work in chapter four, see our discussion on 4:23.

9:15, records that on the day when the mishkan was constructed (see 7:1) then the cloud of G-d covered the mishkan, and specifically the ohel edut (also mentioned in 9:17). As discussed above on 1:50-53, the ohel edut is the tent made by the parochet which was a type of pavilion, and the cloud of G-d was then above the special building.  9:18, 19, 20, 22 all continue to discuss the cloud of G-d being above the special building. The Torah did not use the term ohel moed in these verses, since the cloud of G-d did not cover the courtyard.

10:3 records that trumpets would be blown to call the people to come to the petach ohel moed. As discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside to the complex since very few people could fit inside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

10:11 again refers to the cloud of G-d on top of the mishkan, like in 9:15-22.

10:17 refers to the taking down of the mishkan, the opposite of 9:15, and the transporting of the mishkan by the families of Gershon and Merari. While one might have expected 10:17 to use the term ohel moed instead of the mishkan, maybe since the main work in transporting the special complex, was the taking down of the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan, so then the Torah refers to the mishkan in 10:17.

10:21 records that the family of Kehat transported the mikdash, which means the collection of special ritual furniture. 10:21 ends by recording that the mishkan was to be re-built when the people got to the new camp, and again putting back up the walls and ceiling of the special building was the most difficult part of the re-constructing the special complex, which could be why the Torah uses the term mishkan and not ohel moed in 10:17. Also, the mishkan needed to be re-assembled in order to house the special cultic items being carried by the family of Kehat.

11:16 refers to ohel moed, but this was a tent that Moshe had outside the camp, and is unrelated to the special building and courtyard that was within the camp, see Benno Jacob, 1992, pp. 960-966.

12:4 records that Moshe, Aharon and Miryam were to meet at the ohel moed, and it is not clear if this was referring to Moshe’s tent outside the camp, or to the entrance to the courtyard of the special building within the camp.

14:10 records that the glory of G-d appeared in the ohel moed. Most likely this vision of the glory of G-d was within the cloud that was on top of the mishkan, and the cloud moved to be over the courtyard. This was a frightening vision to stop the people from stoning Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua and Calev.

16:9 records that Moshe asked the Levites within Korah’s rebellion that was it not enough that they worked in the mishkan? I think the reference is to the Levites carrying the mishkan when the people travelled in the desert since they did not work in the mishkan. Maybe, Moshe mentioned the mishkan and not ohel moed since the work carrying the mishkan was more special than transporting parts of the courtyard.

16:18 records that Aharon and the 250 men were to stand by the petach ohel moed, and 16:19 records that they were joined by Korah and other people at the petach ohel moed. As we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

16:24,27 refers to the mishkan of Datan, Aviram and Korah, but this means a regular tent as indicated by 16:25, without any cultic functions.

17:7,8 record that the glory of G-d appeared over the ohel moed, and then Moshe and Aharon could only go up to the ohel moed, but not into the ohel moed since they could not approach the glory of G-d. The ohel moed here refers to the entire complex, and the it seems that just like in 14:10, the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d and the cloud moved over the courtyard towards the people.

17:9,10 then record that G-d spoke to Moshe, and 17:11 records that Moshe told Aharon to take coals from the outer, apparently from the outer altar. Yet, if the cloud of G-d was over the ohel moed, which encompassed the courtyard of the mishkan, and the outer altar was in the courtyard, how could Aharon go to the outer altar? It must be that the glory of G-d and maybe the cloud of G-d has left the courtyard by the time that Moshe spoke to Aharon.

17:15 records that after going around the people with a pan of incense, Aharon returned to Moshe who was petach ohel moed. Initially Moshe and Aharon had approached the ohel moed in 17:8, and then apparently the cloud of G-d departed from the ohel moed. Moshe was then able to go into the ohel moed and he went to the entrance of the ohel moed, which as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18,19, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

17:19 refers to the ohel moed that the staffs of the tribal leaders and Aharon were to be placed in the ohel moed before the edut, the aron that had the luchot. It is very unlikely that the tribal leaders were to place their staffs in the mishkan since the they could not enter that room. Thus, 17:19 means that the tribal leaders were to put their staffs in the courtyard near the special building, as the courtyard was part of the ohel moed, and then 17:22 records that Moshe took the staffs into the ohel edut, the pavilion created by the parochet.

17:28 records that the people said that they realized that they would die if they entered the mishkan, and this refers to entering the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling of the special building. This did not include the courtyard surrounding the special building since at certain times or in certain areas, people could enter the courtyard, and hence 17:28 does not use the term ohel moed.

18:1 refers to the mikdash, concerning some sin relating to the collection of the special ritual items.

18:4 refers to the Levites watching or guarding the ohel moed. The following verse. 18:5, refers to watching the altar, and if this refers to the outer altar, then the term ohel moed must refer to the courtyard where the outer altar was situated.

18:6 repeats (a type of bookend) that the Levites were to work in the ohel moed. This could refer to transporting the ohel moed, as recorded in chapter four or maybe it means to stand in the courtyard (see our discussion on Devarim 18:6,7, “To stand before G-d”) since the Levites did not do any work in the mishkan, other than carrying it when the people travelled in the desert.

18:21,23,31 mention the Levites working in the ohel moed, and would have a similar understanding to 18:6.

18:22 records that a regular Jew (i.e., not a priest or a Levite) could not enter the ohel moed, which I understand to mean that they could not regularly enter the courtyard. Most likely there could be exceptions to this rule, as for example by the new mother, Vayikra 12:6, unless one claims that after Korah’s rebellion, even these exceptions were no longer allowed. If one claims that ohel moed means just the mishkan, then it is not clear when any regular Jew would ever have gone into the mishkan. However, during the rebellion of Korah, it might be that many regular Jews entered the courtyard of the mishkan some with permission but many without, see our discussions above on 16:19 and on Chapter 16, “The great rebellion by an unholy coalition.”

19:4 records that the blood of the red cow was to be sprinkled in the direction of the ohel moed, the entire complex.

19:13 records that if a person is tamei and does not purify him/herself, then he/ she has made the mishkan tamei. 19:20 expresses a similar idea, but records that the person has made the mikdash tamei. The mikdash is the collection of special ritual items, and all of them except the outer altar are situated in the area enclosed by the mishkan. Possibly 19:13 refers to the mishkan and not the ohel moed to express the gravity of the person remaining tamei.

20:6 records that when the people were complaining for water, Moshe and Aharon went to the petach ohel moed, and we discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19 this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

24:5 records that in Bil’am’s third set of blessing he praised the mishkenotecha of the Jewish people. This word refers to the tents that were the dwellings of the people, and not to the special cultic building.

25:6 records that the leaders of the nation were weeping at the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, and as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, and 20:6, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. 

Similar to 3:25, 4:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6 and 25:6, 27:2 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad spoke to the leaders of the people and the whole assembly petach ohel moed, and this can either mean the entrance to the entire complex or to the entrance to the courtyard. In this case, I think it means the entrance to the entire complex since I do not think that all these people referred to in 27:2 could be in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

31:30 records the instructions from G-d to Moshe that part of the booty from the war with Midyan was to go to the Levites who guarded the mishkan. This refers back to 1:53, which records that the Levites watched the mishkan ha-edut, and this was their principle area that they guarded. Possibly this guarding is mentioned here since the share of the booty in the verse was from the Jewish people to the Levites, and the people should realize that the Levites were protecting them when they guarded the mishkan, see 1:53 again.

31:47 records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions in 31:30 that Moshe took some of the booty that the people got from the war with Midyan and gave it to the Levites who guarded the mishkan.

31:54 records that Moshe and Elazar took all the gold from the soldiers who had defeated Midyan and placed it into the ohel moed. It is unlikely that they could put all the gold into the outer room of the mishkan, and then 31:54 means that they put it in the courtyard, or maybe some was put in the courtyard and some in the outer room of the mishkan. This concludes the mention of these three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed, in the book of Bemidbar.

In the book of Devarim, only the term ohel moed appears (twice) in 31:14. 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua were to go the ohel moed, they went there, and they stood in the ohel moed.

As mentioned above on Bemidbar 11:16, there were two ohel moeds when the people were in the desert, one within the camp connected to the special cultic building, and two, Moshe’s private tent outside the camp. It is not clear which ohel moed is being referred to in Devarim 31:14. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 960-966), believes it is Moshe’s private tent since 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua had to walk to the tent. This could be, but my inclination is that the ohel moed being referred to in 31:14 is within the camp since I think the point of the appearance of the cloud of G-d goal was to show the people that G-d was with Yehoshua, and this lesson could best be shown if the cloud of G-d appeared in the midst of the people.

Following this idea, 31:14 means that Moshe and Yehoshua went to the courtyard of the mishkan. I doubt they went into the special building since Yehoshua who was not a Levite or a priest could not enter the building.

The first half of 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d appeared in the ohel, which from 31:14 would mean the ohel moed (within the camp), and then the second half of 3:15 records that the cloud was by the entrance to the ohel, again apparently the ohel moed (within the camp).  Most likely, the first half of the verse means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the courtyard surrounding the special building, and not inside the special building. The second half of 3:15 then specifies where in the courtyard the cloud of G-d appeared, at the entrance to the courtyard. Again, this entrance could be from outside the complex or the entrance into the courtyard leaving the special building, see our discussions above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6, 25:6, and 27:2. Moshe and Yehoshua would have been standing between these two points/ areas, and would have turned to face the cloud of G-d depending on where it was located. Note the Torah needed to specify that the cloud of G-d was by the entrance since if it was in all of the courtyard, Moshe and Yehoshua could not have been in the courtyard, see Shemot 40:34,35. (Note the term ohel could also refer to the ohel edut, the tent made by the parochet. With this possibility,  the first half of 31:15 means that the cloud of G-d appeared above the inside of the special building, and the second half of 31:15 means that the cloud moved from being above the inside the special building to being above the entrance to the building).

Bibliography:

Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

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

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Devarim 31:2 and 34:7 – Moshe's physical condition at the end of his life

דברים לא:א,ב - וַיֵּלֶךְ מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל.  וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא-אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה.

דברים לד:ז -  וּמֹשֶׁה בֶּן-מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בְּמֹתוֹ לֹא-כָהֲתָה עֵינוֹ וְלֹא-נָס לֵחֹה.

Devarim 31:2 records that Moshe told the people that he was no longer able to come and go, and that G-d had told him that he could not cross over the Jordan River to get to the land of Israel. The beginning of this verse, “I am no longer able to come and go” indicates that there was a deterioration in Moshe's physical abilities. However, Devarim 34:7 records that "his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated" (JPS translation in Tigay, 1996, p. 338), which seems to imply that there was no diminishment in Moshe's physical condition.

Rashi (on 31:2) suggests two solutions to this question. One, the reason Moshe could not go about was because of G-d's command, which is referred to in the second half of 31:2, but really he was completely fit. This is problematic since the second half of 31:2 appears to be an additional reason why Moshe was not able to be the leader of the people. Rashi's second suggestion is that the phrase coming and going in 31:2 refers to Moshe's ability to learn and expound the Torah and not his physical abilities. Yet, the phrase coming and going seems to refer to physical abilities, and it is difficult to claim that Moshe was no longer able to expound the Torah since he still has various messages to give to the people, from 31:3 to the end of the Torah.

Ibn Ezra (on 31:2) suggests that the coming and going in 31:2 refers to Moshe's ability to lead the people in war, which required extraordinary physical strength. He claims that 31:3, which refers to the upcoming conquest of the land of Israel, is a proof to this idea. However, the point of 31:3 is that G-d will take care of the fighting and then Moshe would not need to have great physical strength. Furthermore, Moshe was not going to be the general going out to battle. Even by the war with Amalek, forty years earlier, Moshe did not fight Amalek physically, Shemot 17:9. In addition, the people had just had several wars with Sihon, Og and Midyan (Bemidbar 21:35, 31:3-6) without Moshe having to be directly involved in the war. Also, Luzzatto (on 31:2) notes that the phrase "coming and going" in 31:2 just refers to going about and not to leading the people in battle.

The Ramban (on 31:2) writes that Moshe was completely fit, and his statement that he could not come and go was just to comfort the people about his upcoming death. The idea is that Moshe was not being completely honest with people that he was telling them that he was not well, even though really he was feeling fine, in order that they would accept his death. This seems very unlikely.

The Abarbanel (1999, pp. 489,490) suggests that Moshe was telling the people that shortly in the future he would be losing his strength. This is problematic because 31:2 seems to mean that at the moment when Moshe was speaking his strength was already beginning to ebb.

A simple answer is to re-examine the meaning of 34:7. Does 34:7 state that Moshe's vigor was unabated? Tigay (1996, p. 338) points out, based on the Ibn Ezra's comment on 34:7, that 34:7 means that Moshe's skin had not become wrinkled. This means that Moshe showed no signs of aging, but many times a person can look fine but still not feel well. Thus, 31:2 could just mean that Moshe was telling the people that even though he looked young and fit, still he knew that his physical strength was ebbing and consequently he no longer had the physical strength to be their leader. In fact, because he looked young, he had to tell the people that really he was not completely fit. 

This deterioration might have been in some ways a comfort to Moshe that he would accept his impending death. If he had the vigor of a twenty year old, then it might have been harder for him to accept that it was time to die, while if he understood that he was aging, then it could have made it easier for him to accept that he was about to die.

Devarim 31:16-22 (Va-yelekh) – The song of Devarim 31

Devarim 31:19-30 record the phrase “this song” five times, 31:19 (2), 21, 22 and 30. (The phrase also appears in 32:44.) In 31:19,21, the song is referred to as being a witness. What is the song? Rashi, Rashbam and Ramban (all on 31:19) explain that the reference is to 32:1-43, Moshe's song, the bulk of parashat Ha'azinu.

One problem with this approach is that the word “this” in 31:19 should refer to either the preceding or the following verses and not to text twelve verses later. Two, 31:19 records that Moshe was to “put the song in the people’s mouth,” which Ibn Ezra explains means to have the people memorize the song. (Tigay, 1996, p. 295, writes that in Akkadian and Sumerian this phrase to “put in the mouth” also means to memorize.) Could the people memorize such a long and complicated poem as Moshe's song? Even if they could, did Moshe have enough time to teach it to them since it appears that chapter 31 took place on the last day or days of Moshe’s life (31:1)? Three, 31:20 relates the song to the people breaking the covenant in the future, but the covenant is not referred to explicitly in 32:1-43. Four, 31:22 records that Moshe taught the song to the people, but then 31:28-30 records that he told them to gather around and hear it again. Why did he teach the song to the people twice? Five, Moshe's song is very difficult to understand, while one would think that a song that was to function as a witness would be straightforward.

All the questions can be answered by understanding that 31:16-18 is the song being referred to in 31:19,21,22. (To be more precise, the song probably starts with the word ve-kam in 31:16.) It is true that 31:16-18 does not have the usual parallelism found in biblical poetry, but the verses are connected through similar words, azavani in 31:16,17 and histir, in 31:17,18. Also, the song of 31:16-18 is not a usual song that was meant to be chanted, but it was a declaration that was to be a witness to the people. The song was a witness that the straightforward message of 31:16-18 is that the people should understand that if they would violate the covenant in the future, then they would be punished and G-d would not help them.

If 31:16-18 is the song referred to in 31:19,21,22 then there were two songs, 31:16-18, and, 32:1-43, and we can answer all the questions raised above. The phrase, “this song” in 31:19,21,22 is referring to the first song, 31:16-18, its immediate context, while the same phrase in 31:30 and 32:44 is referring to the second song, and even form a bookend around the second song. The first song of 31:16-18 refers explicitly to the covenant, 31:16, as indicated in 31:20. Also, the first song is very short, three verses, which was relatively simple to write down and Moshe was able to quickly teach it to the people, 31:22. On the other hand, 31:28-30 refers to Moshe teaching the people the second song, 32:1-43.

Bibliography:

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

Devarim 31:7-23 (Va-yelekh) - Yehoshua on the verge of taking the reins from Moshe

Devarim 31:7,8 records that Moshe gave a specific charge to Yehoshua in front of the people to be strong and courageous.  Afterwards in 31:23, G-d gave almost an identical support to Yehoshua. These two verses, 31:7,23 form a bookend of the intervening text, but why does 31:23 not follow 31:7,8, since this would join together the two charges concerning Yehoshua? Or, why is there a need for two charges to Yehoshua? In order to answer these questions, we will review the order of 31:8-23.

The first verse after Moshe’s charge is 31:9 that Moshe gave the Torah to the priests and the elders. Why was this verse recorded after Moshe's charge in 31:7,8? A possible answer is that 31:9 contains two ideas. One, the deposition of the Torah and two, Moshe is reminding Yehoshua that there are other leaders, the priests and the elders, who can help him. In 31:8, as part of his charge to Yehoshua, Moshe told Yehoshua that he was not alone since G-d was with him, and then in 31:9 Moshe was indicating to Yehoshua that also the priests and elders were with him. This explains the reference to the elders in 31:9 who did not have to be mentioned if the issue was only the storage of the Torah, but they did have to be referred to if the goal was to mention other leaders of the people. Thus, on the second occasion when Moshe gives the Torah over, 31:26, the elders are not mentioned since this was after Yehoshua had been fully appointed.

Afterwards, 31:10-13 records the law of hakhel, that every seven years all the people were to gather together to hear the Torah being read. Why did Moshe wait until after passing the leadership to Yehoshua to tell the people about the laws of hakhel? The goal of the ceremony was to increase the people's fear of G-d in the future, and hence Moshe was telling Yehoshua that this ceremony would help him in dealing with the people. Due to the ceremony, there would be a greater chance that the people would continue to listen to Yehoshua in the future, and maybe this would boost Yehoshua's confidence.

Another possible connection between hakhel and the appointment of Yehoshua is that many have argued that the hakhel ceremony was to re-create the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, see for example Jacobson, 1986, pp. 211,212. The basis for this supposition is from the Rambam, Laws of Festival Offerings, 3:6 and the use of the word hakhel in Devarim 4:10 and 18:16. Also, 31:12 records that the point of the gathering every seven years was experiential, to instill the fear of G-d into the people, which was also one of the purposes by the Decalogue, Shemot 20:17. Furthermore, Devarim 18:15-22 record that Moshe told the people that in the future they would have prophets who they would have to accept. Moshe explained that their future acceptance was based on their acceptance of Moshe at the time of the Decalogue, when they asked Moshe to speak to G-d since they were afraid of G-d continuing to speak to them. Accordingly, maybe Moshe mentioned the laws of hakhel as part of the process of appointing Yehoshua to be the next leader of the people to remind the people of their actions by Decalogue, the source of authority for all prophets. Furthermore, just as hakhel symbolized a re-enactment of the Decalogue, so too more prophets could be “re-created.” (Note, just as the hakhel was only a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah and not equal to the actual event, so too the future prophets who would be successors to Moshe would never be equal to Moshe.) Thus, the reference to the laws of hakhel might have been part of Moshe’s attempt to generate support for Yehoshua from the people or to increase Yehoshua's confidence. 

After the laws of hakhel, G-d told Moshe to bring Yehoshua into the ohel moed where G-d would speak to him, 31:14. Ramban (on 31:19) explains that the idea was for G-d to make Yehoshua a prophet in Moshe’s lifetime. 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d, a demonstration of G-d’s powers, descended upon the entrance of the ohel moed. This showed the people that G-d was talking to Yehoshua which showed G-d’s support for Yehoshua as a prophet. 

In addition, the appearance of the cloud of G-d was part of the 3rd stage of the covenantal process in the book of Devarim, see our discussion on Shemot 24 "The covenantal process." By every covenant there is a revelation from G-d (see Rashbam on Shemot 33:18), and the revelation by the covenant on the plains of Moav was the appearance of the cloud of G-d. The cloud showed the people that G-d approved of the appointment of Yehoshua to be their leader and it was the revelation that occurs by every covenant.

Afterwards, 31:16-22 records that G-d told Moshe about the song that was the witness of the covenant. When G-d finished telling Moshe the song, 31:22 records that G-d told Moshe to write the song down and teach it to the Jewish people, which means that Moshe left the tent. This implies that Yehoshua was left alone with G-d, and 31:23 records that G-d charged Yehoshua to be the next leader of the people, see Rashi, Ramban and Seforno on 31:23.

Why was Yehoshua with Moshe when G-d was just speaking to Moshe in 31:16-22? Why did G-d not charge Yehoshua immediately after the cloud of G-d appeared in 31:15? Or, in other words, why does 31:23 not follow 31:15? Ibn Ezra (on 31:16) is so bothered by this question that he argues that this is another example of the Torah recording events not in their chronological order, as he claims that 31:23 occurred immediately after 31:15. I rarely like this approach, and instead Hoffmann (1961, p. 566) suggests a reasonable answer.

Hoffmann explains that Yehoshua was standing next to Moshe when the cloud of G-d descended and when G-d spoke to Moshe. G-d first spoke to both Moshe and Yehoshua together, 31:16-22 and then to Yehoshua alone, as a way of passing Moshe’s majesty to Yehoshua, 31:23. The idea is that it was not enough for G-d to have just spoken to Yehoshua alone, rather the people also had to see that G-d spoke to Moshe and Yehoshua together.

Accordingly, G-d’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:23 culminated a five part process to enhance Yehoshua’s leadership. First, Yehoshua was told that he would have assistance from the elders, 31:9, and then the laws of hakhel were mentioned, 31:10-13. Afterwards, the cloud of G-d appeared over the tent, 31:14,15, then G-d spoke to Moshe and Yehoshua together, 31:16-22 and lastly G-d spoke to Yehoshua alone, 31:23. Moshe’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:7 started this process and G-d’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:23 ended this process.

Why was there such a lengthy process? Presumably it was because Yehoshua had a very difficult task in following Moshe. Moshe had been the leader of the people for 40 years, and had done things no human would ever duplicate. It would have been only natural for the people to withhold their support for Yehoshua, as capable as he was, after having had Moshe as their leader. Thus, Moshe himself passed the leadership to Yehoshua, and G-d also raised Yehoshua’s status by making him equal to Moshe in hearing (and maybe writing, see Ramban on 31:19) the last message that G-d spoke to Moshe. G-d was not just establishing Yehoshua as a prophet but also showing the people that he was a worthy successor to Moshe.

Bibliography:

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

Jacobson, B. S. 1986, Meditations on the Torah, Hebrew, Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.