Devarim 21:4 (Deuteronomy) – The eglah arufa ceremony: A wadi in the land of Israel

Devarim 21:4 records that by the eglah arufa ceremony a heifer is to be brought to a nahal eitan and killed, see our discussion, The eglah arufa ceremony: The rationale?

A nahal is a wadi but it is not clear what is meant by the word eitan. The Mishnah (Sotah 9:5, also see Rashi and Luzzatto on 21:4) writes that it was hard ground, a dry wadi. On the other hand, the Rambam (Laws of murder and preserving life, 9:2) explains that nahal eitan means a strong flowing creek, and this is followed by modern translators. For example, Fox (1995, p. 942) and Alter (2004, p. 980) translate the phrase as an "ever flowing or swift running wadi." Tigay (1996, p. 192) explains that eitan is a wadi with a perennial stream, and that this translation is based on an Arabic word.

Tigay questions the interpretation of a perennial wadi "since there are not many perennial wadis in Israel," and hence "it would be difficult to carry out this ceremony in most parts of the country." This question appears to be based on the assumption that the ceremony was held near the place where the victim was found, but the Torah only states that the elders were to be from the city that was closest to the victim, but nothing is stated about where the wadi was. The wadi could have been quite far from the where the corpse was found.

21:4 records that the wadi was not tilled or sown. Tigay (1996, p. 142) notes that this could mean "either that it was never tilled or sown or cannot be" in the future tilled or sown, see Mishnah Sotah 9:5. Either possibility makes it difficult to find a wadi for the ceremony. Any wadi near a city would naturally be used to irrigate the land around it and if a wadi could not be used after the ceremony, then many eglah arufa ceremonies would decrease the available land for farming.

My guess is that there were just a few wadis or even just one wadi that was to be used for the ceremony and it did not matter where the wadi was since the elders would have to travel to the wadi. In addition, the priests, who joined the ceremony in the middle, were not from the city closest to the victim but were more likely from the chosen city where they officiated. The chosen wadis could have been some of the few perennials wadis in the country. Also, as the Torah did not specify any length to the wadi, it could have been that only one part of one wadi was used over and over again for the ceremony.

Bibliography:

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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

Tu B'av

The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:8) records that Raban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated that "There were no happier days for the people of Israel than the fifteenth of Av (Tu B'av) and Yom Kippur (after the cohen gadol finished the avodah?) for on those days the daughters of Jerusalem used to go out….to dance in the vineyards. And what did they (the women) say, 'Young man lift up your eyes, and see what you will choose." This going out and dancing was that the men and women should meet which would explain why the days were so happy, but why did this dancing happen on Tu B'av and Yom Kippur?

The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a, 31b, and Baba Bathra 121a) suggests six reasons why Tu B'av was a special day. One, this was the day when people from different tribes were allowed to marry with each other. Two, on this day, the tribe of Binyamin was allowed to marry with the other tribes after the civil war between the all the tribes and Binyamin, Judges 20,21. Three, this was the day when the people stopped dying in the desert. (This reason is difficult since Bemidbar 33:38 records that Aharon died on the 1st of Av, and Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people cried for Aharon for a month, which implies that they did not travel for the entire month of Av. However, the people did not stop dying until they reached Nachal Zered, Devarim 2:13-16 and Bemidbar 21:12, which was after Aharon had died. Even if the people traveled when they were in mourning for Aharon it is doubtful they could have reached Nachal Zered by the 15th of Av since they had a war with Arad during this period. This chronology also calls into question the first explanation for Tu B'av since that explanation is based on the incident with the daughters of Tzelofhad, which appears to have occurred after the people had reached Nachal Zered.) Four, it was the day when Hoshea ben Ela removed the roadblocks that Yerovam ben Nabat had put up to stop the people from going to Jerusalem. Five, this was the day when the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead from the battle of Betar. (This reason cannot be the source for the uniqueness of the day since the women seemed to have danced when the Bet ha-Mikdash was standing and Betar fell 60 year after the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed.) Six, this was the last day that trees could be cut for the altar since after this period the wood was not dry because the sun was starting to get weaker and there could be worms in the wood. Megilat Ta'anit (chapter five) also relates Tu B'av to the wood donations to the Bet ha-Mikdash, but for almost exactly the opposite reason. Megilat Ta'anit states that this was the day when wood was donated to the Bet ha-Mikdash. (Mishnah Ta'anit 4:5 records that Tu B'av was one of nine days when wood was donated, though from the Mishnah it seems to be the most important of the nine.)

Maybe there is another reason related to the climate in Israel. The fifteenth of Av is a full moon, and also the midpoint in summer season, the months of Tammuz, Av and Elul. Strikingly, Tu B'av is six months apart from Tu be-Shevat, is also a full moon and is on the mid-point of the winter season, the months of Tevet, Shevat and Adar. Our designation of the seasons is based on the number of sunlight hours there are in the day. The summer begins when the day is the longest, and the winter begins when the day is the shortest. Yet, there exists a seasonal lag, that the climate does not exactly match the number of sunlight hours. For example, in Israel, on average, the hottest months are July and August and not June, while the coldest months are January and February. (For example, according to Table 1.3 in the 2010 Statistical Abstracts of Israel by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics for the years 1981-2000, the average highest monthly temperatures at the Beit Dagan Meteorological Station was 29.2 in June, 30.8 in July, 31.2 in August and 30.4 in September, and the average lowest monthly temperatures were 8.6 in December, 7.2 in January, 7.1 in February and 8.8 in March. The corresponding readings for Jerusalem for the same period were 27.8 in June, 29 in July, 29.4 in August, 28.2 in September, 8.4 in December, 6.4 in January and February and 8.4 in March.)

Tu B'av occurs from the end of July to the middle of August, while Tu be-Shevat falls in the middle of January to the middle of February, which means that these dates roughly correspond to the peak changes in the temperatures in Israel. Furthermore, in Israel there are really only two seasons, the cold and rainy season and the dry and hot season. From the peak of the hottest temperature in Israel around Tu B'av, the temperature begins to fall, reaching its nadir around Tu be-Shevat, from which point it begins to rise reaching its peak around Tu B'av. Thus, Tu B'av and Tu- be-Shevat were a set of new years based on the climate. They were the full moons that were closest to the peaks in temperatures, and hence they signaled a change in the climate. Tu B'av would mark the end of the hot, dry season and the beginning of the cold and wet season, while Tu be-Shevat would mark the end of the cold and wet season, and the beginning of the hot and dry season. (The Meiri in his commentary on the first Mishnah of Rosh Hashanah notes that after Tu be-Shevat, it becomes less cold.)

If this idea is correct, there would be two sets of "new years," one based on climate, Tu B'av and Tu be-Shevat and one based on hours of sunlight, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly correspond to the two equinoxes. In the Torah, the beginning of the year is from Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Shemot 12:1), the system based on sunlight, but it very possible that the people also used the climate system to mark the beginning or changes in the year.

If this idea is true, then we can understand why the women went out to dance on Tu B'av, since it is normal for people to celebrate on a new year. Furthermore, this explanation could accord with the second explanation in the Talmud for Tu B'av, that it was the day that the tribe of Binyamin could rejoin the people. This explanation is based on the verse in Shoftim 21:16 that this event happened on some unidentified holiday, which is suggested to be Tu B'av. Maybe the holiday was Tu B'av that the people were celebrating the new year. In addition, this idea that the dancing on Tu B'av was derived from the celebrations of the new year, might also explain why the dancing was also on Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashanah was the start of the year, and hence we would expect that there would also be celebrations by Rosh Hashanah. However, Rosh Hashanah is a very somber time leading up to Yom Kippur, and hence it is possible that the celebrations were pushed off until the somber period ended either in the afternoon of Yom Kippur or the night after Yom Kippur.

Finally, these two systems of marking the year recall the first Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, that there are four new years. The Mishnah lists, Rosh Hashanah, and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and a disagreement whether the new year for the trees should have be Tu be-Shevat as maintained by Hillel or should be on Rosh Chodesh Shevat as maintained by Bet Shammai. The Mishnah also lists that Rosh Chodesh Elul is a new year, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon argue that it is not a new year at all. It is not clear why Rosh Chodesh Elul should be a new year, as what does it mark? My guess is that the source for Rosh Chodesh Elul is Tu B'av. Chazal did not like the celebration of Tu B'av as the new year possibly because it was "competition" with Rosh Hashanah or because they wanted to emphasize that the dating of the year was to be based on the new moon and not the full moon. Thus, one idea was to minimize the day by moving "the new year" fifteen days ahead to the next new moon, Rosh Chodesh Elul, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon wanted to abolish it altogether. It could be that this same idea is the basis for the argument between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai with regard to Tu be-Shevat. Bet Hillel was willing to keep the people's celebration of the 15th of Shevat as a new year, while Bet Shammai wanted to move the marking of the "new year" to the new moon instead of the full moon. (I think I heard this idea or a variation of it concerning Tu be-Shevat from my brother-in-law Michael Segal.)

To summarize, I believe that there were two systems to mark the changes in the year, and each system had two festivals at the half-points of the year. One system was/ is based on the hours of sunlight, and the festivals are Rosh Hashanah and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly mark the equinoxes. The other system was based on change in climate and the two festivals were Tu B'av, which marked the peak of the dry and hot season, and Tu be-Shevat, which marked the peak of the wet and cold season.

Eating on erev Tisha B’av

The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records three opinions with regard to how a person is to act on erev Tisha B'av, the 8th of Av. One opinion, the anonymous tanna kamma, is that a person is not allowed to eat two (or more) cooked items, eat meat or drink wine. (Today this opinion is only relevant with regard to not having two cooked dishes since we stop eating meat and drinking wine from Rosh Chodesh.) Two, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel maintains that a person should reduce his regular intake of food, and three, Rebbi Yehuda says that a person must turn his bed over to sit on the floor. The Mishnah ends by noting that the Rabbis did not accept this latter opinion.

The three opinions of the Mishnah share the common idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning and a realization that people cannot be asked to fast two days in a row. The first opinion limits the food intake the most, but still people can eat. The second opinion, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, believes that the limits of the first opinion are too much for people who are about to fast, and hence he says that people should just eat less. (Today we fulfill, unintentionally, his dictum by not eating meat on erev Tisha B'av.) The third opinion, Rebbi Yehuda could be stating either an additional requirement to the first two opinions or he could be arguing with the first two opinions. If he is arguing, then maybe his view is that on erev Tisha B'av there should be no limitations on eating, but instead to show that the day is one of mourning, a person should turn his bed over.

This idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning could be either to prepare for Tisha B'av that one does not make a barbecue/ party before the fast or maybe Chazal thought that the eighth day of Av was also a day that was worthy of mourning. The Talmud (Ta'anit 29A, also Tosefta Ta'anit 3:10) records that there is a contradiction as to when the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed. Kings II 25:8,9 records that it was destroyed on the 7th of Av, but the book of Jeremiah 52:10 records that it was destroyed on the 10th of Av. The Talmud reconciles these opinions that on the seventh and the eighth the Babylonians entered the sanctuary, on the ninth the Bet ha-Mikdash began to burn and the destruction ended on the 10th. Thus maybe the mourning on the 8th is based on the period when the Babylonians entered the Bet ha-Mikdash, and then the mourning was slightly less than on Tisha B'av since the Bet ha-Mikdash did not begin to burn until the 9th of Av.

The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a,b) records that on erev Tisha B'av Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai (?) would sit between two types of ovens and only eat bread and water. This practice was more than required by the Mishnah, and certainly fulfilled the idea of the Mishnah that erev Tisha B'av was a day of mourning. However, the Talmud (30a) also records that Rav Yehuda stated that the first opinion in the Mishnah of not eating two cooked items on erev Tisha B'av only applies to the last meal of the day prior to the fast, the seudah hamafseket, and only if this last meal occurs after midday. (Is this the view in the Tosefta Ta'anit 3:11?) This is a big leniency and change from the Mishnah since according to this opinion, except for the last meal after midday, people can eat regularly on erev Tisha B'av, and the day loses is quasi-fast status.

We see that in the Talmud there were two approaches to eating on erev Tisha B'av. The first approach is that the day is a day of mourning almost similar to Tisha B'av and hence one eats just the simplest food possible, while the second approach allows one to eat regular food with no limits on the quantity except by the last meal.

The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Fasting 5:7-9) first writes that for the general population who cannot endure too much, i.e., who find it difficult to fast on Tisha B'av without eating regularly on erev Tisha B'av, the law is like Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, that the limitations of not eating two cooked foods only applies for the last meal prior to the fast which is consumed after midday. However, afterwards he writes that the more appropriate behavior is to follow the practice of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai to just have bread and water. He concludes by saying that he himself never ate any cooked food on erev Tisha B'av unless it was on Shabbat. The Rambam views the two approaches in the Talmud as being complimentary depending on the type of person. (The Bach, Orah Chayyim 552, writes that the Rambam's practice is not the accepted custom and is not even praiseworthy!)

The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyyim 552) writes that the law is like Rav Yehuda, and he discusses what is considered two cooked items. He writes that the custom in France was to mix many items together in one pot and this was called one cooked item, while in Germany this was not done. He adds that if it was customary to add items together when cooking all year long, then he thinks that this only counts as one item. He also quotes his father, Rabbenu Asher, that there are no limitations on items that are eaten raw, which means that one can eat raw fruit and vegetables at the seudah hamafseket. The Tur then adds that in Germany there was a custom to eat eggs, and this meant that they could not have any more cooked items in the seudah hamafseket.

It seems that in Germany in the end of the 13th century the seudah hamafseket consisted of bread, eggs, vegetables, fruits, cheese, and salted fish. However, in the end of the 14th century/ beginning of the 15th century there developed a custom to have two meals, a regular meal before minhah, and a simple meal, the official seudah hamafseket, after minhah. (The Rama, 16th century, 552:9, also in Darkei Moshe 552 quotes this from the Maharil, Germany, 1365-1427.) Most likely the reason for this development is that people wanted to eat a cooked meal before the fast, and hard boiled eggs were not enough.

The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, 552:11 also see Mishnah Berurah, 552:22) writes that this custom of two meals is a haarama (trick). It seems that his custom was to eat just one meal, but he would eat also a dairy kugel not as a meal before the seudah hamafseket.

The trick is that the last meal is not really a meal but only eaten to allow a person to eat as much as they want in the second to last meal. If a person did not have the simple last meal, then the second to last meal would be the last meal before the fast and then one could not eat a regular meal before the fast. Yet, this trick is not a new development of the Rama or the Maharil but is from Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, who argued that the limitations of the first opinion of the Mishnah were only for the last meal eaten after midday. Furthermore, it is common to have haarama by rabbinic prohibitions, for example see Shulchan Orah, Orah Chayyim 334:16 and 335:5, and Mishnah Berurah 335:11, and people even sell their hametz, a trick to get out of the biblical requirement to destroy all of one's hametz.

The Rama (552:9) also adds that one can be stringent and not eat so much, and this person is called holy. The comment of the Rama is based on Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, but it is not clear how stringent the "holy" person should be, i.e. how much food he/ she should limit himself/ herself and for how long on erev Tisha B'av is the person limiting his/ her intake of food. Most likely, from the context, the Rama is referring to the meal before minhah that instead of eating a lot, a person limits him or herself. In any event, this holy person is the exception, and today I believe that the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim, if not all, eat a very full meal before the seudah hamafseket on erev Tisha B'av. Furthermore, as noted by the Chayyei Adam (1748-1820, 134:6), this full meal is eaten right before the start of Tisha B'av, which means that for almost the entire day there is no limitation on the quantity of food that can be consumed.

There was one other development by the seudah hamafseket. After his discussion of what is considered cooked food, the Tur records the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai that if possible it is better for a person just to have only bread and water. Most likely, the Tur meant that all day the person should follow Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, and this would be the Rambam's view. However, the Shulchan Arukh (252:6) interpreted the Tur's comment that "if possible one should just eat bread and drink water" only in reference to the seudah hamafseket. This ruling by the Shulchan Arukh changed the seudah hamafseket to just being a meal of bread and water. According to this ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, one should not even eat eggs at the seudah hamafseket, just bread and water. This was not accepted, as R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 15), notes that the custom today is that seudah hamafseket consists of bread, cold hard-boiled eggs and water. The custom is also to dip the bread into ashes, see Rama 552:6.

We see that the law/ custom of eating on erev Tisha B'av has changed from limited eating according to the Mishnah and the ideal of the Rambam to eating with almost no limitations. Almost definitely this change was due to people's fear of fasting, and hence the practice was/is to allow people to eat without limitations for almost the entire erev Tisha B'av. The limitations on food consumption throughout the day in the Mishnah have become relegated to just the last meal of the day that is eaten after midday, and this last meal, the seudah hamafseket, has developed into a ritual meal of bread dipped in ashes, with hard boiled eggs and water to mark the impending onset of Tisha B'av.

The prohibition of doing laundry in the nine days

The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records that during the week of Tisha B'av, one does not cut one's hair or do laundry unless Tisha B'av is on Friday, and then one can cut one's hair and do laundry on Thursday. Most likely, the rationale for these prohibitions is that a person should not look festive, with a haircut and clean clothes. This was especially relevant in olden times, when doing laundry was much more infrequent than today, and hence wearing clean clothes was more impressive. (It cannot be that the prohibition of doing laundry is because of the labor involved in doing laundry since for most people not doing laundry is a vacation and this idea leaves the prohibition of not cutting one's hair unexplained.) With this understanding, it would be obvious that one could not wear new clothing, though this is not stated in the Mishnah, see Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 551:6.

In the Talmud there were two developments to this Mishnah with regard to the prohibition of doing laundry. One, there is an argument as to whether a person can do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av, Rav Nachman says yes, while Rav Sheshet says no (Ta'anit 29b), and the halakhah is like Rav Sheshet, Shulchan Arukh, 551:3. Rashi explains that the basis for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that doing the laundry, which in those days was quite time consuming, would divert one's mind from the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash. It is not clear if this reason would be relevant today since washing clothing is much easier today with washing machines, but a different explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that he was making a gezirah. The gezirah could be either that there was a fear that if a person washed clothing for after Tisha B'av, then by accident they might come to wear the clothing before Tisha B'av or that people would claim that they were washing clothing for after Tisha B'av when really they were washing clothing to wear before Tisha B'av.

A second development was that the Talmud (Ta'anit 29b) makes the unexpected claim that gihutz (a type of ironing) in Bavel is comparable to the washing of clothes in Israel. The idea seems to be that in Bavel they were not able to clean the clothes as well as in Israel, and then the prohibition on doing laundry in the week of Tisha Ba’av would only be if a person both washed and ironed (gihutz) the clothing, while there would be no prohibition of just washing clothing in Bavel since the person would not look so sharp because the clothing even if laundered were not that clean. With this logic, the question would be whether other places were like Bavel and washing clothing would be permitted in the week of Tisha B’av or like Israel and laundry would be forbidden. (In the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, they quote the Raavad as permitting laundry outside of the land of Israel.)

The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) first writes that our laundry is permitted, which is surprising since when he wrote the Shulchan Arukh he was living in Israel, but it seems that he was following the language of the Tur, who lived outside of Israel. However, afterwards he writes that the practice is not do laundry. Furthermore, he notes that several Rishonim argue that only in Bavel was washing clothing permitted but in other places it was forbidden, which means that washing clothing in the week of Tisha B'av  is forbidden not due to custom but to the rabbinic enactment of the Mishnah. Today with our machines and soap, laundered clothing is much cleaner than in Israel in the time of the Mishnah, and hence today the leniency of the Talmud with regard to Bavel should certainly not be applicable.

In the Middle Ages, there were several developments in the law/ custom. One, Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) quotes that Rashi ruled that one should not do laundry even on non-clothing items. This appears to be based on Rashi's explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion that doing laundry diverts one from mourning, and then any laundry even one not related to making a person look good would be forbidden. The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) accepts this ruling, and also rules that a person should not change one's linen during the period (see R. Shimon Eider, 1978, p. 10).

One exception to this rule is that the Rama (551:14) rules that one can do laundry for little children's clothing. This latter ruling accords with the idea that the prohibition is to look good, and then this would not apply to little children, but if the problem is doing the laundry itself, as evident with the prohibition of washing linen, than any laundry, even children's laundry should have been forbidden. However, maybe it was considered too much to prohibit washing children's clothing since it is hard (impossible?) for little children to keep their clothing clean and in those days there was very little spare clothing.

One new stringency in the Middle Ages is that Ashkenazim began to keep this prohibition of not washing clothing from the beginning of the month of Av, as opposed to just the week of Tisha B'av, Rama 551:4. No reason is provided for this extension and it contradicts the principle of the Mishnah that Shabbat takes precedence over the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash and hence the prohibition in the Mishnah only began after Shabbat, see our discussion "The law/ custom of not cutting one's hair in the nine days and three weeks." This new stringency began after the 11th century since Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) rules that if Tisha B'av is on Thursday, then one can cut one's hair and wash clothes for Shabbat on Tisha B'av itself in the afternoon. Certainly, if one can wash clothings on Tisha B'av for Shabbat, then one can wash clothes for the Shabbat before Tisha B'av. Also in the 12th century, the Ravyah (Germany, 1140-1225, siman 881) writes that the custom was not to do laundry during the week of Tisha B'av, though he writes that one should not mend clothes from the beginning of the month. (With regard to Sefardim, R. Chayyim David haLevi in his Kitzsor Shulchan Arukh, 1975, p. 239 writes that Sefardim only keep the prohibition from the week of Tisha B'av, but in his longer work Mekor Chayyim, vol. 4 p. 184 he writes that Sefardim follow the Ashkenazim and stop doing laundry from the beginning of the month.)

This question which takes precedence, the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash or Shabbat, also arises as to whether one is to wear Shabbat clothing on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'av, Shabbat Chazon. The Rama (551:1) writes that one is not to switch to Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which shows that he gives precedence to the mourning over Shabbat, and this ruling accords with his comment that the prohibition of doing laundry begins from Rosh Chodesh. The Mishnah Berurah (1907, 551:6) notes that in Vilna the practice was to follow the Gra (1720-1797) who ruled that one wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon and this was also the ruling of the Rav Yaakov Emden (1697-1776). The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, Russia, 551:11) notes that in his time people wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, and he is upset that people are not following the "old" custom to wear regular clothes on Shabbat. However, what he calls the old custom was really the newer custom that only began in the late Middle Ages, and really the initial custom prior to the Middle Ages was to wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon.

My impression is that today everybody wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which means that they give Shabbat more priority than the mourning for Tisha B'av. Similarly, people eat meat on Shabbat during the nine days. However, if a person does not shave or bath on Friday for Shabbat, then the person is giving precedence to the mourning of Tisha B’av over Shabbat, which is a contradiction.

One recent development with regard to the prohibition of not wearing freshly laundered clothing is that people prepare for the nine days, by wearing freshly laundered clothing a few minutes prior to Rosh Chodesh, and then they wear these clothing, which are almost completely freshly laundered, during the nine days. (I am not sure when this idea developed but it must be relatively recently since only in the 19th/ 20th century did people have more than a few items of clothing that they were able to wear clean clothing every day.)

With regard to this trick, there has developed a difference between Sefardim and Ashkenazim. R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, vol. 5, p. 563, also see R. Chayyim David HaLevi, 1975, p.239) writes that one prepares the clothing by wearing them for a half hour, and one needs to do this even for socks and undershirts. However, R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 9) writes that one only needs to do this trick for outer garments, but for inner garments, such as socks and undergarments, he quotes that R. Moshe Feinstein stated that one could wear them freshly laundered. This ruling accords with the original idea of the Mishnah, that the prohibition of not doing laundry was in order that a person will not look good, and nobody sees the undergarments. Furthermore, R. Shimon Eider also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein that if a person prepared a garment to wear, and inexplicably it got dirty, then if a person must wear a clean garment (for work) then one can wear a freshly laundered garment. Rabbi Ari Enkin (2009, p. 64) quotes from the Minchat Yitzhak (10:44) another trick, that if a person did not prepare clothing beforehand, then one can put the freshly laundered clothing on the floor for some time, and then wear the clothing. 

We see that the law of not doing laundry the week of Tisha B'av from the Mishnah had several stages of development. In the Talmudic period, there was both a leniency that the law was not applicable to Bavel, and a stringency that it was even forbidden to do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av. In the Middle Ages, the tendency was to be stringent as the prohibition was extended even to laundering non-clothing items, and for Ashkenazim the prohibition was extended to the beginning of the month of Av. Finally, recently the propensity is to be lenient both by wearing Shabbat clothing on Shabbat and by preparing clothing prior to the period when doing laundry is forbidden.

Bibliography:

Eider, Shimon, (d. 2007) 1978, A summary of halachos of the three weeks, Lakewood, NJ.

Enkin, Ari, 2009, Amot shel Halacha, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.

Bemidbar 32:1-24 (Mattot) – The request of the tribes of Gad and Reuven for land on the eastern side of the Jordan River

Bemidbar 32:1 records that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had a large amount of domesticated animals, mikneh. Does this verse mean that they had more animals than the other tribes or that all the tribes had a lot of animals but this fact is recorded in reference to the tribes of Gad and Reuven since it was the basis for their request for land on the east bank of the Jordan River? With the former possibility, it is unclear why they should have had more animals. Could it be that that since they camped in the south, they had more opportunities to trade with Moav which enabled them to acquire more animals than the other tribes? With the latter possibility, it is curious why they asked to remain on the eastern side, and various reasons relating to their status have been suggested, see Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 266-298), Nathaniel Helfgot (1998) and Lawrence Kaplan (1999).

32:2-5 records that the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested land on the east bank of the Jordan River (present day Jordan) because they claimed it was good land for their mikneh. Breuer (1993) and Helfgot (1998) note that this request was similar to the actions of Lot and Esav, Bereshit 13:10-13, 36:6, that all left the land of Israel due to their mikneh. Moshe was very unhappy with this request, 32:5-15, which led the tribes of Reuven and Gad to make a counteroffer, 32:16-19, which Moshe accepted, 32:20-24, and the book of Yehoshua, 22:1-4, records that they carried out their part of the bargain. Thus, in the end, the tribes received the land on the eastern side of the Jordan River, but they remained part of the covenant (see Devarim 27:13) unlike Lot and Esav who by leaving the land of Israel left the covenant of Avraham. Why did Moshe change his mind? Why were the tribes of Gad and Reuven allowed to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan River?

The simplest understanding of the discussion between Moshe and the tribes of Reuven and Gad is that Moshe thought that the tribes did not want to go fight. (Jacobson, 1986, p. 176 quotes this idea from Josephus, see also Rashi on 32:7, Bekhor Shor on 32:14 and Ramban on 32:2) This was troubling for two reasons. One, this was morally wrong, that only some of the tribes should fight as Moshe said, (32:6) “Should your brothers go to war, and you stay here?” Two, Moshe (33:7) compared their actions to the spies, that their act of cowardice could inspire other tribes to act similarly that nobody would want to go fight for the land of Israel. Accordingly, the tribes of Reuven and Gad answered that they would lead the fight for the land, 32:17, so instead of being considered as cowards they would take upon themselves the brunt of the fighting.

While this explanation sounds reasonable, I doubt that the people would have been scared to go to the land of Israel because of the actions of the tribes of Reuven and Gad since the people had just decisively defeated Sihon, Og and Midyan. N. Leibowitz (1982, pp. 379-387) notes that the crucial issue here is the mikneh and not a fear of fighting in the land of Canaan. Did the tribes just mention their mikneh as a cover for their fear of fighting? Why did the Torah begin the episode by noting the tribes had lots of animals if this issue was not important? Finally, why should the tribes end up getting land outside of the land of Israel just because they were willing to be the lead troops?

The fundamental issue is what was the status of the land on the east side of the Jordan River? The land appears to be part of the promise land to Avraham in the covenant in Bereshit 15:18-21. Yet, based on the boundaries of the land of Israel, as delineated in Bereshit 10:19,20, it is outside the land of Israel. Thus, Moshe was on the east bank, but yet he never made it to the land of Israel, Bemidbar 20:12.

I believe the standard understanding is that the land on the east side of the Jordan River was considered a second stage to the land on the western side of the river, which was the land of Israel proper. This understanding raises the question what was to become of the land that the Jewish people had captured from Sihon and Og. The land was not to be abandoned since it was to be part of the land of Israel, but who was going to get the land? Ramban (on 21:21) writes that if the tribes of Reuven and Gad had not requested the land, it would have remained empty (a national park?) but this is difficult since surely other nations would have tried to settle there. Netziv (on 32:5) explains that the land on the east bank was supposed to be divided equally in 12 tribes. This is also difficult because then almost all the tribes would lack territorial contiguity between their land on the east bank with their land on the west side of the Jordan.

Thus, it must be that the land on the east bank of the Jordan River was supposed to go to some tribe(s), and realizing this, the tribes of Gad and Reuven requested this land. Maybe they did not initially offer to be the lead troops since they thought that their offer was beneficial to the other tribes who would now have more land in the land of Israel proper. Furthermore, I do not think that the tribes asked for land that they thought was not part of the promise land. Most likely, they thought that it was possible to receive the land before the people entered the land of Israel since once G-d had helped the people conquer Sihon and Og, then the conquered land was already to be considered part of the promise land. Thus, in 32:4 they refer to the land as the land that G-d had delivered to the people. (A friend, Meir Horden, also suggested to me that since the Amorites, Sihon and Og, were considered as Canaanites, then this also would be a reason why they thought the land on the east bank was already part of the promise land.)

Moshe was upset with their request for two reasons. One, he thought it was morally wrong for them not to fight when everybody else had to fight, 32:6, and two he was worried that just as they wanted to stay on the east bank because they thought it was good land so too the others tribes would also want to stay on the east bank for economic reasons, 32:7-15. It is not that the rest of the nation would have been scared of fighting, but if they agreed with the tribes of Gad and Reuven that the land on the eastern side was better land, then they would not want to cross over the Jordan River.

Furthermore, I think that Moshe also rejected their claim that the land on the eastern side was already to be considered as part of the promise land. Instead, first the land on the western side had to be acquired and only afterwards would the holiness spread to the eastern side. Thus, Moshe ended his retort by stating that if the people turned away from G-d, then they would be left in the desert, 32:15, since the eastern side of the Jordan was not yet considered as part of the land of Israel.

The tribes of Gad and Reuven had two responses for Moshe's two arguments. One, they would not shirk their duty to fight, but they would fight on the frontlines, 32:17. This more dangerous fighting would be their way of "paying" for the right to choose their land. Two, they would remain on the western side until all the people received their inheritance, 32:18. This second response shows that they understood that the land on the eastern side was not yet part of the promise land since the land on the western side had to be settled first. Moshe accepted their offer, and stated that after the land on the western side was captured, then the tribes would receive the land as an ahuzzah, 32:22. (It is not clear if Moshe thought that they just had to wait until the land on the western side was captured, 32:22 or that they had to wait until the land was parceled out as they had offered, 32:24, see Rashi on 32:24.)

Bibliography:

Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, Jerusalem: Horev.

Helfgot, Nathaniel, 1998, Shall your brothers go into battle while you remain here? An analysis of Numbers 32, Tradition, 32:2, Winter 1998, pp. 119-133.

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

Kaplan, Lawrence, 1999, Communications, Tradition, 33:3, Spring, pp. 116-118.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography:

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

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