Shemot 17:16 - Does the Torah refer to G-d having a throne?

שמות יז:טז - ויאמר משה כי יד על כס קה מלחמה להשם בעמלק מדר דר.

After the Torah records the Jewish people’s victory over Amalek in the desert, 17:16 records a cryptic statement from Moshe. Moshe said, “Because the hand on kes G-d, a war between G-d and Amalek from (for, through?) the generations.” The major difficulty of this verse is, what does the two-letter word kes mean? The word does not appear again in the remainder of Tanakh, and commentators assume that it is a shortened version of a longer word. Another difficulty of 17:16 is what was Moshe saying when he referred to a hand?

Rashi (on 17:16) explains that the word kes is short for the word chair, kiseh, as then one adds an aleph to the word kes. Rashi then explains that the chair is the throne of G-d and Moshe’s reference to a hand refers to G-d swearing on His throne that He would destroy Amalek. This explanation is difficult. It depicts G-d as having a chair to sit in and having a need to raise a hand to signal that He was swearing. Why did G-d have to swear altogether? Why would G-d have to swear on His throne? Where is this throne? In the sky? Why would G-d need a throne? In his comments on Bereshit 1:2, Rashi also refers to the kiseh ha-kavod, the Divine throne, but in the Torah, there is no mention or idea that G-d has or sits on a throne. (Note, Shemot 24:10 does not refer to a throne or a chair.)

Rashi also writes that Moshe was saying that G-d’s name and throne is not complete or perfect, hence the word kes is missing the letter aleph, until the name of Amalek is blotted out. This idea seems to be popular in some circles in Judaism, but is quite odd that G-d’s name depends on the non-existence of Amalek. This idea is also not recorded in the Torah.

Other commentators (see Bekhor Shor and Ibn Ezra on 17:16) also follow the idea that kes refers to a chair and a throne, but they suggest that it could be referring to a human king sitting in his throne. These commentators suggest that Moshe was making a prophetic statement in 17:16 that when the Jewish people would have a king who would assume the throne, then the king would lead the people to attack Amalek. This is also difficult since the reference to a hand is not obviously to a future king and the end of 17:16 refers to G-d fighting with Amalek and not this future king.

Cassuto (1967, pp. 206,207) suggests that the reference to a hand in 17:16 is to a memorial, and the word kes is short for kasas (adding the letter sameach), which means to count or reckon. According to Cassuto, Moshe is saying that the altar that he built in the previous verse, 17:15, should be a memorial to G-d’s plan to obliterate Amalek. I am not sure why a memorial is needed to express this idea, especially as the people were going to be leaving the area where the altar was built, 17:5, 19:2. Maybe the memorial was to stop the people from wanting to continue fighting with Amalek.

My guess is that the word kes is short for the word kesah, which entails adding the letter heh to the word kes. The word kesah appears in Tehillim 81:4 and Mishlei 7:20 where it means at the appointed time. Also, the reference to the phrase “hand on” could refer to G-d’s power being evident, as in 9:3 and 14:31. The meaning of the verse would then be that Moshe was saying that G-d’s power would be evident in its appointed time as in the future at some time G-d would fight with Amalek. This understanding connects 17:16 with 17:14, where G-d had told Moshe that He would destroy Amalek. Also, it might connect with the previous verse, 17:15, which records that Moshe built an altar and called it “G-d is my banner,” since with this interpretation, in 17:16 Moshe was explaining that the evidence for this “banner” would be apparent in its appropriate time in the future.

Note, G-d could have destroyed Amalek on the spot instead of waiting for the future, but maybe G-d chose not to in order not to give the people a feeling of a great victory since the war with Amalek was a punishment for doubting G-d. 

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Highlights of parashat Beshallach

Parashat Beshallach begins that the Egyptians chase the Jewish people, but G-d saves them with the miracle of the splitting of Yan Suf. Afterwards, the parasha records some of the trials and tribulations the people had when they were in the desert on the way to Mount Sinai.   I have nine discussions on this parasha on the blog.

One, I discuss why G-d had the Jewish people go in an indirect route to the land of Israel, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/01/shemot-131718-beshalach-roundabout.html

Two, I discuss why was there a need for the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf since had G-d not hardened Pharaoh's heart he would not have chased the Jewish people,   http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/02/shemot-14131-bait.html

Three, I discuss how the Jewish people were able to see the Egyptians dying by Yam Suf when it seems that the Egyptians drowned at the bottom of the sea/lake, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2012/01/shemot-1427-30-view-from-shore.html

Four,  I present a structure of Moshe's song by the Yam Suf, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/shemot-151-18-beshallach-structure-of.html

Five, within Moshe's song, he seems to refer to other gods, 15:11, and I discuss this possibility in reference to this verses and other verses in the Torah,   http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/shemt-203-yitro-forces-and-gods.html

Six, I discuss how the mahn was a test of the Jewish people, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/02/shemot-162-4-double-test.html

Seven, I discuss how Moshe was able to tell the people that they would get meat at night, 16:8, when he had not yet been told this information, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2011/01/shemot-162-13-beshallach-predicting.html

Eight, I discuss how the people had water during their stay in the desert,  http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/bemidbar-202-5-hukkat-water-in-desert.html

Nine, I offer a new understanding of the last verse of the parasha, Shemot 17:16, which has the word kes, which is a mystery.  This discussion is titled "Does the Torah refer to G-d having a throne?"

Shemot 15:1-18 – The structure of the song that Moshe sang by Yam Suf - אז ישיר משה

Shemot 15:1-18 records the song that Moshe and the people sang by Yam Suf after the great miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf. The song can be divided into two parts based on its content. 15:1-12 refer to the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf, while 15:13-17 refer to future events, and 15:18 is the conclusion to the song.

A different approach is to divide the song into three sections (15:1-6, 15:7-11, 15:12-16) based on the three sets of doubles words in 15:6,11,16 (see Cassuto 1967, p. 173, 177, and Alter 2011, pp. 59-64) and then 15:17,18 are an epilogue to the song. In addition, prior to each double phrase, there is a simile involving stone (15:5,16) or lead (15:10). Also, in each of the three double phrases, there a mention of G-d’s name.

This structure is very appealing, but I would make two variations. One, 15:1,2, are the introduction to the song and not part of the first section, 15:3-6 is the first section, 15:7-11 is the second section, 15:12-16 is the third section and 15:17,18 is the conclusion to the song. This structure follows the idea that the double words of 15:6,11,16, end each section. A second variation is that the three double phrases indicate the section is about to end, but the section only ends with the following verse. With this possibility, the structure of the song would be: 15:1,2, the introduction to the song, 15:3-7, 15:8-12, 15:9-17, and 15:18 is the conclusion to the song.

Following the second variation, the first section of the song is 15:3-7. The theme of this section is that G-d destroyed the Egyptians forces, but there is no mention of the miracle of the water stopping. Thus, the section begins by declaring that G-d is a warrior, 15:3, and the double phrase, 15:6, refers to the G-d's strength.

15:7 refers to "G-d consuming them as straw" which appears to refer to G-d striking the Egyptian chariots, 14:24, and then the end of the first section, 15:7, is linked to the beginning of the first section, 15:4, which refers to the chariots.

The advantage of moving 15:7 to the end of the first section (the second variation) is that the second section then begins with 15:8, that the waters of the Yam Suf are standing still, before the Egyptian forces were drowned. 15:4,5,7 refer to the drowning of the Egyptian forces, but those verses were from the first section. 15:8 then starts the story afresh, from the point where the waters of the Yam Suf were divided but before the Egyptian forces were drowned. Accordingly, from that point, 15:9 then records the Egyptian forces confidently chasing the Jewish people before they were drowned, which is referred to in 15:10,12. Note if one follows the idea that 15:6 is the end of the first section, then one could explain that 15:7 is foreshadowing in a general way G-d’s power, but since there is no explicit reference to Egyptians in the verse, then the story can start afresh with the waters standing and the Egyptian forces entering the dry land.

The second section with the second variation ends with 15:12. Alter (2004, p. 400; 2011, p. 63) notes that 15:12 is connected with 15:13 since there is a "phonetic assimilation of these three leading verbs (in 15:12 and 15:13) involving alliteration, assonance, and rhyme – natita, nahita, neihalta." This phonetic assimilation implies that 15:12 should be in the third section of the song, as Cassuto and Alter argue, but in terms of content 15:12 belong to the second section. 15:12 refers to the Egyptians being swallowed in the bottom of the sea, while the remaining verses in the third section have no reference to the Egyptians. Thus, 15:12 should be the last verse of the second section. With this idea, 15:12 is in contrast to 15:9, which referred to the Egyptians threatening the Jews that their hands would subdue the Jewish people, while 15:12 states that G-d's hand subdued the Egyptians. Instead, the phonetic assimilation in 15:12,13 serves as a bridge to connect the second section (and first section) with the third section, and this bridge is warranted due to the huge change in the content of the song between the second and third sections of the song. (I thank Joe Berliner for this idea that the verses are a bridge.)

With either structure, the second section discusses the miracle of G-d stopping the flow of the water and then releasing the water, 15:8,10. This would show G-d’s wonders which is the double phrase of 15:11.

(If one follows the idea that 15:11 is the end of the second section, then presumably one has to argue that before the song can refer to other nations in section three, still there needs to be a reference to the Egyptians in each section. With this idea, 15:12 is a short cryptic reference to the Egyptians, and the reference to land in the verse leads into the rest of the section.)

The third section according to the second variation is 15:13-17, and this section has a chiastic structure. The last verse, 15:17, parallels the first verse of the section, 15:13, since both verses refer to G-d's sanctuary. Note, most likely, both verses are referring to Mount Sinai, which Moshe knew about from his first conversation with G-d, see Shemot 3:1,12. The middle verses, 15:14-16, refer to other nations being scared seven times with seven different words: Twice in 15:14, three times in 15:15, and twice in 15:16.

Within these seven references to fear, one can view the first reference 15:14a as parallel to the last reference, 15:16a. The intervening passages, 15:14b, and 15:15 refer to four specific nations being scared, and the list can be viewed as having a chiastic structure, see Avishur, 2007, p. 98. The first nation is the Pelishtim, 15:14b, who lived on the western side of the Jordan River in the land of Israel (13:17, on the outskirts?) and who had no biological connection with the Jewish people, and these points also apply to the fourth nation, the Canaanites, mentioned in the end of 15:15. The middle two nations in the section, Edom and Moav, both mentioned in 15:15, lived on the eastern side of the Jordan River, and had some biological connection with the Jewish people, through Lot and Esav. Also, by the Pelishtim and the Canaanites, they are referred as the inhabitants, yoshvei, while by Edom and Moav, the reference is to their leaders.

The theme of the third section is the fear of G-d, and G-d leading the people, the double words of 15:16.

15:18 is the conclusion to the song.  Maybe this verse was the only one recited by the Jewish people after hearing Moshe sing the verses 15:1-17. This idea can explain why the verse lacks the poetic structure of the other lines of the song.

With the structure of the second variation, there might be another repeated simile, G-d's hand, in each of the three sections. This simile is referred to in the double words of first section, 15:6, if the term right in the verse refers to a hand, in the second section, 15:12 and in the third section, 15:17. Also, the first and third sections have a literary connection with the introduction to the song. The word gaoncha in 15:7, in the end of the first section, is similar to the words gaah in the introduction of the song, 15:1, see Alter, 2004, p. 399. Also, the word neveh in 15:13, by the beginning of the third section, is in the word, ve-anvehu, in 15:2.

There is also a thematic connection between the three sections and the introductory verses of the song. The end of 15:1 refers to the horse and rider being flung in the water, and this image is elaborated on in the first section. The beginning of the 15:2 refers to G-d saving the people, and the second section records how the Egyptian forces were threatening the Jewish people but G-d saved the people. The end of the introduction of the song, the second half of 15:2 refers to glorying G-d, which is not only the idea of the song, but also in the third section, Moshe refers to the future worship of G-d, which would also be to glorify G-d.

The three sections, with either variation, along with the introduction and the conclusion correspond to the structure of the plagues, 1, 3, 3, 3, 1: The turning of the staff to a tanin, three sets of three plagues and the tenth plague. 

 
The three themes in the song of Az Yashir might also correspond to the lessons that were to be derived from the three sets of three plagues (plagues one through nine), though with a different order, see our discussion on 7:8-12:29, “The ten plagues in Egypt: Their structure and their order.” The theme of the first set of three plagues was G-d's existence, 7:175, and correspondingly, the first section of Az Yashir records not just G-d's existence, 15:3, but also G-d's powers. The theme of the second set of plagues is G-d's involvement in the world, 8:18, and the differentiation between the Jewish people and the Egyptians. These ideas also occur in the third section, that G-d would guide the people and the fear of the other nations of G-d. The theme of the third set of plagues is that G-d is incomparable, 9:14, and this is the theme of the second section of Az Yashir.

 
A different correspondence is from Moshe’s description of G-d in Devarim 10:17, which we recite in the first blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei, that G-d is gadol, gibbor and nora, great, heroic and feared. The great would correspond to G-d being the G-d of war in the first section, the heroic would correspond to G-d doing the miracle of stopping the waters from flowing in the second section, and the feared would correspond to all the nations who fear G-d in the third section.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

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

Alter, Robert, 2011, The art of biblical poetry, revised and updated, New York: Basic Books.

Avishur, Yitzhak, 2007, The World of the Bible: Shemot, edited by Shemaryahu Talmon and Yitzhak Avishur, Tel Aviv: Yedidot Achronot, Divrie Hayamim, Sifrie Hemed.

Shemt 20:3 (Yitro) - The prohibition of idolatry in the Decalogue: Forces and gods

Shemot 20:3 records that G-d said "You are not to have other gods al panai."  The Abravanel (1997, p. 318) understands the verse as an introduction to the following laws, 20:4,5. However, the Rambam's understanding, which I believe today is considered the traditional approach, is that the verse is a separate prohibition from 20:4,5. According to the Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Basic principles of the Torah 1:6), "whoever permits the thought to enter his mind that there is another deity besides G-d, violates the prohibition of 20:3," (translation from Twersky, 1972, p. 44).

What do the last two words of the verse, al panai, mean? N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 316-319) reviews three different ways the phrase has been understood. 

One, (see Rashi and Fox 1995, p. 369) the phrase signifies G-d's presence. This would seem to limit the prohibition of believing in other gods to only being in G-d's presence (see Seforno?), and then this would be a partial recognition of the other gods. However, she notes "of course this is not so since He is omnipresent in both time and space." Yet, what then is the point of this phrase? Rashi quoting the Mechilta suggests that one might have thought that the prohibition was only applicable for the generation who left Egypt, but once the phrase al panai is added, which signifies G-d's presence, which is forever, then we know that the prohibition is binding on all generations. This is a difficult drasha since why would one have thought that the prohibition was only for the generation who left Egypt? And, if the point of the phrase is to teach that the prohibition is forever, it would have been simpler to say that directly.

A second approach to understanding the phrase al panai is that the phrase means "besides Me." (N. Leibowitz quotes this in the name of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and this understanding appears in the translations by JPS, Sarna, 1991, p. 109 and Alter 2004, p. 428). With this understanding, it is also unclear what is the need for phrase since the verse could have just said "You are not to have other gods" without the phrase "Besides me."

A third approach is from Luzzatto that the phrase al panai refers to G-d being angry, and the phrase is a warning to the people that if they worship other gods then this will make G-d angry. With this understanding, the phrase al panai has a similar message to the end of 20:5.

My guess is that phrase "al panai" means that one is not to believe that other gods are equal to G-d. With this understanding, 20:3 does not prohibit the belief in other gods, as argued by the Rambam (above), but it prohibits one from believing that they are equal to G-d. 

The idea that other gods exist but that they are inferior to G-d occurs repeatedly in the Torah. For instance, Yitro states "now I know that G-d is greater than all the other gods" Shemot 18:11. In the song by the Sea, Shemot 15:11 records that Moshe said (and we recite the verse three times in our daily prayers) "who is like You amongst the gods? (Alter, 2004, p. 400 on Shemot 15:11 writes the Torah "had no difficulty in conceding the existence of other deities, though always stipulating their absolute inferiority to the God of Israel.") Avraham in his conversation with Malki-Tzedek, refers to G-d as the highest god (Bereshit 14:22, and this verse is included in the first blessing of the shemoneh esrei), which signals an acceptance of other gods but G-d is greater than them. The acceptance of the existence of other gods also appears in Shemot 12:12, Shemot 18:11, Shemot 22:19, Bemidbar 33:4, Devarim 3:24, Devarim 10:17 (also recited in the first blessing of the shemoneh esrei), Devarim 13:8, and Devarim 29:25. In Devarim 32:12 the words "there was no god with Him" implies that there are other gods since the verse could have simply said "there are no other gods."  (Is the term Azazel in Vayikra 16:8,10 another example?  Another example in our prayers is by ein ke-elohanu.)

Devarim 4:35 (also Devarim 4:39) records that there is no other besides G-d, which might be interpreted to mean that one cannot conceive of the existence of other gods. However, the explanation of the verse is that there are no other gods like G-d since even if one believes in other gods, one must recognize that they are inferior to G-d. (Even the Rambam, Basic principles of the Torah 1:4, explains the verse that it means that there is no being like G-d, see Twersky, 1972, p. 44.) With this understanding, these verses do not repudiate the existence of other gods, and they accord with all the verses quoted above and our understanding of Shemot 20:3.

Of course, just because the Torah allows one to believe that other gods exist does not mean that they exist, only that one is not prohibited from thinking this way. Also, even if one thinks they exist, still these other gods cannot be worshipped in any way, Shemot 20:4,5; 34:14, and it is forbidden to mention their names, Shemot 23:13, since this might lead one to worshipping them.

Why was the Torah written from the point of view that there are other gods who are inferior to G-d? A possible answer is from the Rambam's (Moreh 3:32) explanation for why the Torah includes sacrifices, that the people of the generation who received the Torah could not conceive of a religion without sacrifices. Similarly, G-d could not have commanded the people not to believe in other gods since in those days the existence of all gods was an accepted fact. This seems to be the idea behind G-d's statement to Moshe by the sin of the golden calf, that the people are stiff or hard necked, Shemot 32:9. Luzzatto (on 32:9) explains that G-d was saying to Moshe that the people were attached to making and worshipping idols, and that the people were too stubborn to change their practice. Instead, the goal was to minimize this belief by demanding that the people accept that G-d was superior to these other gods and by forbidding worship these other gods, a lesson that was not learnt by the sin of the golden calf.

I discussed this idea in my synagogue, and a friend Harold Davies suggested another or complimentary reason. He suggested that it is natural for some people (even in modern times) to believe in forces in the world, and hence G-d did not prohibit these beliefs as long as people do not worship these forces and think they are equal to G-d. This idea relates to the further question what does it mean other gods? G-d is the supreme force who controls the world, and exists for eternity, while these other gods are supernatural forces that people believe in such as demons, angels, and fairies (tooth?).

Possibly then the understanding to all these reference to other gods in the Torah just boils down to semantics. If one calls then gods, as the Torah does, then it is permissible to acknowledge their existence, provided that it is understood that they are inferior to G-d and not worshipped. On the other hand, if people want to label them as "forces," which immediately makes them inferior to G-d, then it is forbidden to acknowledge other gods since with this approach all gods are considered equal. Presumably those people who believe in angels and do not believe in the existence of other gods (following the Rambam's interpretation of the 20:3) follow this second approach.

In conclusion, in the Torah and in our prayers, we clearly refer to the existence of other gods. If this understanding bothers a person, then he/ she can label all the references to other gods as forces. However, the crucial point is that Shemot 20:3 does not prohibit people from believing in other gods or forces if they want to, just that they cannot think that they are equal to G-d, and Shemot 20:4,5 prohibits them from being worshipped.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev.

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

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

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

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

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

Twersky, Isadore, 1972, A Maimonides reader, New York: Behrman House.

Shemot 14:27-30 – The Egyptians who drowned at Yam Suf: The view from the shore

Shemot 14:30 records that the Jewish people saw the Egyptian army dying on the shore. This seeing was important since it reduced the people's connection to Egypt and their fear that the Egyptians would attack them in the future (see Rashi on 14:30). Yet, how did the people see the Egyptians dying since it appears that the Egyptians had drowned at the bottom of the sea? In addition, who was on the shore: the Jews or also the Egyptians? Finally, 14:28 records that no was left of the Egyptian forces. How is it that all of the Egyptians were killed? Did all the Egyptians enter the Yam Suf?

Rashi (on 14:27) explains that the Jewish people saw the Egyptians since G-d flipped the Egyptians when the waters covered them. According to this idea, even though the Egyptians were initially on the bottom of the Yam Suf, because G-d flipped them, they were on the top of Yam Suf. Rashi (on 14:30) also writes that afterwards the sea threw the Egyptians on the shore. According to Rashi both the Jewish people and the dead Egyptians were on the shore.  

The Bekhor Shor (on 14:30) varies this slightly. He writes that the bodies washed up on the seashore, though this would have had to have occurred relatively quickly for the Jewish people to have seen them. 

Ibn Ezra rejects this approach since he argues that it cannot be that the Egyptians ended up on the shore because 15:12 records that they were swallowed by the earth. However, Luzzatto defends Rashi's approach and suggests that 15:12 only means that the majority of the Egyptians were buried at the bottom of Yam Suf. Still some of the Egyptians floated or were thrown to the seashore and these are the bodies that the Jewish people saw.

A similar question exists with the word ve-yenaer in 14:27, which Rashi translates as flipped.  Luzzatto explains the word that G-d caused the Egyptians to fall into the middle of sea and this understanding is followed by the JPS commentary (in Sarna, 1991, p. 74) that translates the end of 14:27 to mean that G-d hurled the Egyptians into the sea. Similarly, Cassuto (1967, p. 171) writes that end of 14:27 means that the Egyptians were thrown "into deeper waters." How could the Egyptians be hurled into the sea if they were already at the bottom of the sea when they entered the sea. It must be that some Egyptians were on the shore, but how can this be? To answer this question, we need to ask another question, what did Pharaoh's army who was chasing the Jewish people consist of, only chariots or also foot soldiers?

It would be unlikely that Pharaoh would only have taken chariots. Surely he would have mustered whatever forces he had, and this would have included as many infantry soldiers as possible. 14:6 records that he took his chariot and his people, and then 14:7 records that he took his charioteers with him. Are the charioteers in 14:7 the people referred to in 14:6 or were there two groups, the people who were his infantry, and the charioteers, his crack force? Similarly, 14:9,17 refer to Pharaoh's horses, chariots and forces (chelo). Is the term forces, a general term for the charioteers (as in 14:4?) or an additional force? Ramban (on 14:28) writes that chel is not the charioteers but the people referred to in 14:6. This force would be the infantry that accompanied Pharaoh to fight the Jewish people, and this understanding can answer our questions.

14:23 records that the charioteers chased the Jewish people, which meant going into Yam Suf. They were the quicker force and they entered the Yam Suf first, while the infantry remained on the sea shore. 14:24,25 record that the charioteers got stuck in the middle of Yam Suf. 14:26 then records that G-d told Moshe to hold his arms over the sea, and the waters would cover the horses and the horsemen.

14:27 records that when Moshe raised his arm over the sea, the waters began to return, and the Egyptians began to flee towards the water. This fleeing is difficult to understand since normally one flees away from the danger but here the Egyptians were fleeing towards the danger, the water. Maybe the fleeing Egyptians were the infantry who were still on the shore that G-d caused them to flee towards the water. 14:27 ends that G-d hurled the Egyptians into the midst of the sea, and this can refer to the infantry who were "fleeing" towards the water. Thus, G-d caused them to run towards the water, and then G-d hurled them into the water. Accordingly, 14:27 refers to two separate actions. One, the waters to start returning to its course, and two, G-d caused the Egyptian infantry that was on the seashore to enter the sea. The infantry forces entered the sea as the waters were returning, which meant that many of them were at the top of the water. 14:28 then records the culmination of the two processes from 14:27 that the water covered all the Egyptian forces.

14:28 is usually understood to refer just to Pharaoh's charioteers who were chasing the Jewish people. With this approach, the phrase "chel Pharaoh" is referring to the charioteers, and the words "after them" is referring to the Jews as in 14:17,22. Yet, both 14:17,22 follow verses which refer to the Jewish people, and hence one can understand that the reference to "after them" in these verses is to the Jewish people, but in 14:28 there is no prior reference to the Jewish people. Also, the term "chel" was not mentioned in 14:23 which records which of Pharaoh's forces chased the people into Yam Suf.

Instead, maybe one can understand "chel" in 14:28 just as we suggested in 14:9,17 that it refers to Pharaoh's infantry, and then the reference to "after them" in 14:28 is that Pharaoh's infantry followed the charioteers into the Yam Suf. With this understanding, 14:28 means that the waters covered the charioteers and all of Pharaoh's infantry, so that there was no one left in the Egyptian army. (See Rashi and the Rambam on 14:28 and Chavel's (1993) notes to the Ramban with regard to the lamed prior to the word col.)

14:29 then records that the Jews were marching in the sea, which as noted by the Ibn Ezra, means that while the Egyptians were drowning, the Jewish people were still in Yam Suf.

When the Jewish people reached the seashore, they were saved, 14:30. They were the only ones on the shore, and from the shore they saw the Egyptian infantry floating on the sea. Eventually these Egyptians fell towards the bottom, as indicated in 15:5,10. The people would not have seen the horses, chariots and charioteers who had drowned at the bottom of the sea, and did not rise to the top. In the end all of Pharaoh's army was at the bottom of the sea and there they were buried, as recorded in 15:12.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

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

Shemot 16:2-13 - Was Moshe able to predict the future?

Shemot 16:2,3 record that the people complained that they were dying in the desert from starvation, and they reminisced about the "good life" in Egypt where they had bread and meat. In response, 16:4,5 record that G-d told Moshe about the mahn, that each day the people would get bread from the skies and on Friday they would get a double portion. It appears that this information was to put an end to the people's complaints since the mahn would enable the people to live in the desert. G-d did not refer to the peoples' complaints possibly because the mahn had always been intended even had the people not complained. Furthermore, G-d did not fully respond to the people's complaints since G-d only told Moshe that there would be bread, but G-d did not mention providing the people with meat.

Moshe did not relay this information about the mahn to the people. Instead, Moshe and Aharon told the people that in the evening they would know that G-d took them out of Egypt, that in the morning they would see the glory of G-d and that the people should not complain to them, 16:6,7. This announcement is puzzling. Moshe and Aharon only referred obscurely to some event that was to occur at night, but they did not explain what was to happen. How did Moshe and Aharon know that something was to happen at night, as G-d had only told Moshe about the mahn? Finally, how also did Moshe and Aharon know about the appearance of the glory of G-d in the morning?

Amos Chacham (1991, pp. 299,300) writes that Moshe and Aharon's statement concerning the evening was to the birds, quails, that would arrive at night, and the reference to the glory of G-d in the morning was to the miracle of the mahn. This approach connects 16:6,7, with G-d's instructions to Moshe in the previous verses, 16:4,5, but G-d had not mentioned the birds in 16:4,5.

Benno Jacob (on 16:4, see also Bekhor Shor on 16:11) notes that 16:11,12 record that G-d told Moshe about the birds coming in the evening, and he argues that the conversation of 16:11,12 occurred at the same time as the conversation of 16:4,5 just that they were recorded separately. According to this idea, Moshe was told about the birds before he spoke to the people, and then Moshe was referring to the birds with his statement concerning the evening in 16:6. Yet, this approach is also difficult, since the information about the birds, 16:11,12, is recorded separate from 16:4,5 and after Moshe spoke to the people. If Moshe knew about the birds, why did he not mention them explicitly in 16:6,7?

I believe that the situation here is similar to that of Bemidbar 16:29 by the rebellion of Korah. In that case, Moshe was being accused of acting on his own, and he responded by proclaiming a test with no apparent source, that if the rebels would die a strange death, then that would show that he was acting under G-d's orders. Here too Moshe had been attacked by the people that he taken the people out of Egypt to die in the desert, 16:2,3, and his response was to predict a demonstration of G-d's powers that would convince the people that he was not acting on his own. This prediction had no source. Moshe was relying on G-d to do something to help him, and hence he left the prediction of what was to happen hazy. 

With regard to Moshe's statement about the glory of G-d in the morning, it is likely that Moshe was referring to the mahn, as G-d had told him about the mahn. However, Moshe was not content to just mention that something would occur in the morning since he wanted to stop the complaints by the evening, so he stated that something would also happen in the evening. (Note that Moshe was more timid here than by Korah's rebellion, where he specified a dramatic test, possibly since he had not yet experienced the events at Mount Sinai. In general, a person cannot suppose that G-d will do a miracle, but here and in Bemidbar 16:29, the question was the authenticity of the messenger of G-d, and then Moshe could depend on a miracle, also see Devarim 18:21,22.)

The Torah does not record any response by the people to Moshe and Aharon's statements concerning the evening and the morning. Instead, 16:8 records that Moshe again spoke to the people, and this time he said specifically that the people would get meat in the evening, bread in the morning, and again that the people should not complain to him. This was Moshe's second response to the peoples' complaints, but why was it necessary after his first response? Amos Chacham answers that Moshe's first response was unsatisfactory since it was so vague, and hence Moshe had to make a second statement where he more explicit. Yet, again how could Moshe know about the meat?

Cassuto (1967, p.193) answers that "Moshe understood that it was the Lord's will to give the people the two things for which they craved, meat and bread." Cassuto also claims that when G-d told Moshe about the mahn, God used the word lehem, 16:4, which could be broadly translated as all foods including meat.

I prefer to follow the idea that Moshe was relying on G-d to back him up. Initially Moshe did not want to specify what G-d would do since he did not know what would happen. However, after the people ignored his first statement, he had to be bolder so he referred to the meat based on Cassuto's idea that he thought that G-d would respond specifically to the people's complaint for meat.

Yet, again there is no response from the people to Moshe's second statement, as 16:9 records that Moshe told Aharon to tell the people to come before G-d. This was Moshe's third response to the people's complaint for food, but why did Moshe have to tell the people to come before G-d? Also, what does it mean "before G-d?"

Ibn Ezra (short commentary on 16:9,10) explains that Moshe went to his special tent outside the camp (see 33:7) and he wanted the people to meet him there. This was a third attempt to get the people to listen to him after his first two attempts were unsuccessful, 16:16:67, 16:8. Moshe was making another prediction that G-d would appear to him by the special tent and then the people would know that he always acted on G-d's command.

Moshe went to his special tent outside the camp and Aharon went to tell the people to go to the tent where Moshe would speak to them. When Aharon was speaking to the people, G-d's glory appeared in the distance by Moshe's special tent, 16:10. This appearance of G-d's glory fulfilled Moshe's statement in 16:9 for Aharon to tell the people "to come before G-d." This appearance of G-d's glory was not the reference to Moshe's prediction in 16:6 since that was to occur in the following morning. However, once the glory of G-d appeared during the day, there was no need for it to reappear the following morning.

The glory of G-d got the people's attention, (see Bemidbar 14:10, 17:7, 20:6) and then Moshe went to speak to G-d, which showed the people that Moshe was acting on G-d's behalf, 16:11,12, see Ibn Ezra, long commentary on 16:11. G-d told Moshe that he should tell the people that G-d heard their complaints and that they would get meat at night and bread (mahn) in the morning. In this case, as opposed to 16:4,5, G-d said he heard the complaints of the people, which implies that the meat was only because the people complained. Also, G-d only granted the people meat to back up Moshe's prediction. Yet, why did Moshe have to be told to relate this information to the Jewish people if he had already told the people that they would get meat in the evening and bread in the morning?

Ramban (on 16:12) writes that the repetition was to emphasize that G-d was acting due to the people's complaints that they should know that they should not have complained. Ramban also suggests that initially the people might have thought that the promised food was only for one day, but now they would know that they would get the mahn everyday during their stay in the desert.

My guess is to follow our earlier idea that initially Moshe was making his prediction without any previous promise from G-d. 16:11,12 is when G-d first told Moshe that Moshe's prediction concerning the meat would be fulfilled that G-d would provide meat to the people as Moshe had said. G-d also told Moshe to tell this to the people since Moshe could now speak with greater confidence because he knew for sure that his prediction would come true, and also, now that the glory of G-d had appeared, the people would accept his words. 16:13,14 records that the people received meat (the birds) and the mahn, but since the meat was an addition due to Moshe and not part of G-d's plan to feed the people in the desert, the Torah records it very briefly, just the first half of verse 16:13.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

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

Shemot 13:17,18 – The journey of the Jewish people when they left Egypt: The roundabout

Presumably, when the Jewish people left Egypt they thought they would travel to Israel in the shortest possible way, but Shemot 13:17,18 records that G-d directed them to travel in a roundabout way to the land of Israel. 13:17 explains that the reason for the roundabout was “lest the people regret when they see battle and go back to Egypt” (Alter translation, 2004, p. 388), but this rationale raises two questions.

One, even with the roundabout way, the people did not avoid experiencing battles, as Pharaoh chased them at Yam Suf, 14,8,9, and then they had a war with Amalek, 17:8. The war with Pharaoh is particularly surprising since 14:2 records that G-d caused the people to turn around in order that Pharaoh would chase them. It could be that had they followed the direct route to Israel they would have avoided this war with Pharaoh. Thus, it cannot be that the roundabout way was to completely avoid all wars, but maybe it was to reduce the number of wars. Or, maybe it was only to avoid natural wars, but not wars where G-d would do miracles for the people, as by Yam Suf and Amalek.

Two, the roundabout way did not solve the problem that the people would not want to return to Egypt. When Pharaoh chased them, the people stated that it was better had they not left Egypt, 14:11,12. Even a year later, by the sin of the spies, Bemidbar 14:3,4 records that the people expressed their desire to return to Egypt. Thus, even by going the long way to Israel, still the people wanted to return to Egypt. Also, in the end, it did not matter that the people wanted to return to Egypt since G-d was not going to allow them to return to Egypt because that would have contradicted the whole point of the Exodus.

Many answers have been suggested as to why the people took the roundabout way. 

Rashi (on 13:17) explains that the purpose of going the long route is that when a war would happen it would be difficult to return to Egypt since they were not on the direct road.

The Ramban (on 13:17) explains that the roundabout was to avoid a war with the Philistines.

Sarna (1991, p. 69) notes that the roundabout way avoided Egyptian fortifications on the coastal road from Egypt to Israel.

One of the most interesting approaches is the Rambam’s idea (1963, Moreh 3:32) that “the deity used a gracious ruse in causing them to wander perplexedly in the desert until their souls became courageous- it being well known that life in the desert and lack of comforts for the body necessarily develop courage… And, until, moreover, people were born who were not accustomed to humiliation and servitude.” 

Thus, according to the Rambam, the roundabout was to build up the courage of the people, and, according to this idea, with this courage, the people would be able to fight against the people of Canaan using natural means. N. Leibowitz (1976a, p. 242) notes that according to this idea, the diversion was not just “a preventive act to stop the people from running back to Egypt, but also an educative measure of positive significance to train the people for greater tasks in the future.” Accordingly, the “ruse” was that G-d was telling the people that they were traveling in a roundabout way in order that they would not see war, but really the reason was to toughen the people up or even to wait for the next generation. Yet, would this travelling in a roundabout way have been enough time to develop the courage of the people? How much longer did the roundabout add to the trip, a month?

Instead, maybe the roundabout was due to the Decalogue. Could the Decalogue and the establishment of the covenant have occurred in Israel or by the Mediterranean coast? Luzzatto (on 13:17) writes that one reason the people traveled roundabout was in order to receive the Torah together. He suggests that had they entered the land of Israel immediately, then each person would have wanted to go to their share of the land and Moshe could not have taught everybody together the Torah. Thus, G-d had to give the people the Torah when they were together before they entered the land of Israel.

My guess is that the Decalogue could only have been told to people who had experienced the Exodus, and who had begun the process of doing the mitzvot such as the korban pesach and the mahn. Only then were the Jewish people able to attempt the experience of G-d speaking to them. The Decalogue could not have occurred in a place where other people could just “pop in.” (Was Yitro an exception or did he leave as recorded in 18:27? See our discussion on 18:13-27, "The need for a judicial system.") Thus, the Decalogue could not have been stated in the populated land of Canaan. In addition, the area on the Sinai coast was also not feasible since this was the main route between Israel and Egypt, which meant that other people could accidentally be present when G-d was declaring the Decalogue. Consequently, the people had to travel to a deserted area to hear the Decalogue.

With this understanding, 13:17 is expressing two independent reasons for the roundabout. One, the main and first reason, was that the people were not to travel on the coastal road, "the way of the Philistines" because it was close, which meant that other people also travelled on this route, and the goal was for the Decalogue to be declared by G-d in a deserted place. Two, the people were travelling a roundabout way to avoid war with regard to the Philistines (as mentioned by the Ramban on 13:17). In addition, the last phrase “return to Egypt” was meant as a warning to the people not to express any desire to return to Egypt. The people ignored this warning, Shemot 14:11,12, and later by the sin of the spies, they were punished for saying they wanted to return to Egypt, Bemidbar 14:29.

Bibliography:

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

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Rambam (1138-1204), 1963, Guide to the perplexed (Moreh Nevukhim), translation by Shlomo Pines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

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

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.