[Par-lite] Parshat Devarim - additional shiur

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
  In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
 Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
 
for PARSHAT CHUKAT[& Parshat Devarim]
 
 BETWEEN KADESH & KADESH BARNEA
 (or When did the Mei Meriva incident take place?)
 
 Most all commentators assume that the Mei Meriva incident (as
described in Bamidbar 20:1-14) took place in the fortieth year.
Hence, it is also assumed that Bnei Yisrael spent most of the 38 years
wandering from place to place in the desert.  
    Nonetheless, the Torah never provides us with a precise date for
the Mei Meriva incident.  In fact, we are only informed of the month,
but not the year (see Bamidbar 20:1).  Furthermore, from a careful
reading of how Moshe Rabeinu describes those events in Parshat
Devarim, one could arrive at a very different conclusion concerning
what transpired during those forty years! 
    In the following shiur, we will explore this possibility, by
undertaking a careful comparison between several psukim in Parshat
Devarim and their parallel sources in Sefer Bamdibar.
[To follow the shiur, you'll definitely need a Tanach in hand; in fact
using two Tanachim (and a "mikraot gdolot") would come in very handy.]
 
INTRODUCTION
   There's a very simple reason why everyone takes for granted that
the Mei Meriva incident takes place in the 40th year.  Later on, in
that very same chapter in Sefer Bamidbar, we are told of Aharon's
death (see 20:22-29), an event which definitely took place on the
fifth month of the fortieth year (according to Bamidbar 33:38).
    Therefore, it is only logical to assume that all the events in
chapter 20 took place in the fortieth year.  Hence, upon reading its
opening pasuk: 
"And Bnei Yisrael [the entire congregation] arrived at MIDBAR TZIN on
the first month, and the people settled down in Kadesh, there Miriam
died and was buried."  (20:1)
    
    - most all commentators conclude that Miriam died if the first
month of that very same year (i.e. four months before Aharon).  For
example, let's note Rashbam's commentary:
"And Miriam died there: On the first month at the end of the FORTY
years - for Aharon died on the fifth month of the fortieth year, as it
states [explicitly] in Parshat Masei."
 
    Note however that Rashbam's assumption is based on "parshanut"
(exegesis) and not on a "masoret" (tradition).
    
    
     / see Rashi 20:1). 
 However, one could suggest that it would be safe to assume that
conclusion is based on 
 
 is quite simple - Mei Meriva takes place immediately after the death
of Miriam (see Bamidbar 20:1), and Miriam died in the first month of
the FORTIETH year - didn't she?
 Let's double check this assumption by taking a closer look at that
pasuk in Parshat Chukat:
 
 Note, that we are only told that this took place on the first month,
but there is no mention of the year at all! So why does everyone
assume that it is year FORTY?
 Most of the classical commentators deal with this question. Let's
start with Rashbam's explanation (on 20:1):
 Rashbam's logic is quite straightforward. Since later in this same
chapter we 
[In other words, Rashbam doesn't say that we have a tradition that
tells that Miriam died in the 40th year; rather, one can deduce this
date from the psukim. Therefore, if by using the same tools of
"parshanut" [i.e. by carefully studying all of the psukim involved]
one arrives at a different conclusion, it is permitted to suggest (and
discuss and debate) other possibilities as well - better known as
"la'asok b'divrei Torah"./ "v'akmal"]
 
    In the commentary of Ibn Ezra (to Bamidbar 20:1), we find a very
similar conclusion:
"In the first month: In the FORTIETH YEAR. And (thus) there is neither
a story nor a prophecy in the Torah other than in the FIRST year and
in the FORTIETH year."
 
 Ibn Ezra is making a very bold statement, as he claims that from the
moment that God decreed the punishment of forty years (after chet
ha'meraglim) Chumash goes into a 'coma' for 38 years, no stories, no
mitzvoth.  Hence, Ibn Ezra must explain that all of the mitzvot and
narratives recorded in Chumash between chapters 15 and 20 (i.e.
between the story of the spies and the death of Miriam) took place at
an earlier time, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai.  [See Ibn
Ezra on Bamidbar 16:1.]
 However, Ibn Ezra does not explain here how he arrives at this
conclusion. [We'll return to a possible source later in the shiur, but
most probably he would explain as Rashbam does.]
 
 Also RAMBAN agrees that Bnei Yisrael first arrive at Midbar Tzin in
the fortieth year; but note how he concludes his commentary to 20:1
"But this KADESH is located in MIDBAR TZIN, and [Bnei Yisrael] arrived
there in the FORTIETH year, and there Miriam died, and the psukim are
EXPLICIT!"
[Note that the "girsa" in Torat Chaim's Ramban is "u'mikraot mfurashim
HEYM" while Chavel's edition has: "u'mikraot mfurashim SHAM"!]
 
 Now Ramban tells us that the psukim are explicit, but he doesn't say
which psukim he is referring to!
[Note again how neither Chavel's Ramban nor Torat Chaim's provide a
footnote to explain what psukim Ramban is referring to (even though
you would expect them to).]
 
 Most likely, Ramban is referring to psukim in Moshe's first speech in
Sefer Devarim. In fact, in CHIZKUNI's parallel explanation (on 20:1/
he concurs that they arrive at Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year), he
attempts to reconciliate these psukim with parallel psukim both in
Parshat Masei and in Sefer Devarim.
[I suggest that you see that Chizkuni inside, but AFTER you are
familiar with those sources.]
 
 To figure out what Ramban is referring to we must first take a step
back and try to follow the flow of events, and then take inventory of
all of the related sources in Chumash that describe this leg of Bnei
Yisrael's journey. 
 
WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN TILL NOW?
 Where were Bnei Yisrael before they arrive at KADESH Midbar Tzin (in
20:1)? To figure this it out, we'll need to 'work backwards'. 
 The two chapters that precede the "mei meriva" incident contain only
mitzvot (whic previous story in Sefer Bamidbar was the incident with
Korach. But nowhere in that narrative are we told WHERE that story
took place. [That is what allows Ramban & Ibn Ezra to argue about it.]
Therefore we must work our way backwards again to the story of the
"meraglim" in Parshat Shlach which took place in KADESH BARNEA. 
 In other words, the last PLACE (in Chumash) before Miriam's death
that Bnei Yisrael were 'spotted' was in KADESH BARNEA. But the Torah
never tells us WHEN they left Kadesh Barnea, and what they did (and
how longed they traveled) until they arrived at Midbar Tzin!
 However, if we return to the story of the "meraglim", we can bring a
very strong proof that they must have left Kadesh Barnea soon after.
Recall that immediately after the chet ha'meraglim God commands them
to leave Kadesh Barnea and head SOUTH:
  "... the Amalekites and Canaanites are sitting in the valley,
TOMORROW turn around and travel into the desert towards the Red Sea."
(14:25)
 
 Despite this warning the "ma'aplilm" decide to attack anyhow (and are
defeated/ see 14:39-45), but that defeat would not be a reason for
Bnei Yisrael to stay in Kadesh Barnea.  That incident would only be an
additional reason for them to travel into the desert - to the south-
AWAY from Eretz Canaan.  If they would stay near Kadesh Barnea, there
would be fear of an attack by Canaanites who most likely are already
on guard because of the 'rumors' about Bnei Yisrael's plan to conquer
'their' land.
 Now Parshat Shlach stops right here without telling us if, when, or
how they actually left Kadesh Barnea; but according to "pshat", based
on 14:25 (quoted above), it would be safe to assume that they left
immediately, just as God commanded them to!
 
 As Sefer Bamdibar continues, the next time an encampment is recorded
is in Parshat Chukat, as Bnei Yisrael arrive at Kadesh Midbar Tzin
(see 20:1). What happened in the meantime. How many year elapsed? Did
they travel to (or toward) the Red Sea as God commanded them?
 At least partial answers to these questions are found in Parshat
Masei and in Sefer Devarim.
 
THE 18 STOP JOURNEY IN PARSHAT MASEI
 Parshat Masei provides with a detailed list of Bnei Yisrael's journey
through the desert (see 33:1-49).  Even though that account mentions
many locations that are not mentioned elsewhere in Chumash (and skips
many locations that are mentioned - such as Kadesh Barnea itself!) -
it will still be helpful for our discussion.
 Let's pick up Parshat Masei as it records Bnei Yisrael's journey from
Har Sinai (see 33:16). From Sinai they travel to Kivrot ha'taava, and
then to Chatzerot, and then to Ritma. Now Kivrot ha'taava and
Chatzerot have already been mentioned in Parshat Bha'alotcha (see
11:34-35), but Ritma is not. However, Parshat Bha'alotcha tells us
that they camped next in Midbar Paraan (see 12:16), and from there
Moshe sent the meraglim (see 13:3) from an area known as KADESH BARNEA
in Midbar Paraan.
 [Parshat Shlach never mentions Kadesh Barnea itself, but everywhere
else in Chumash when chet ha'mergalim is mentioned, it states
explicitly KADESH BARNEA - see Bamidbar 32:8 and Devarim 1:3,19; 2:14;
and 9:23! Most likely "Kadesha" mentioned in 13:26 refers to (and is a
short form of) Kadesh Barnea.]
 
 Therefore, Chazal identify Ritma with Kadesh Barnea, and its 'new
name' reflects the events which took place there (see Rashi 33:18).
Then Parshat Masei mentions an additional 18 stops from Ritma until
Bnei Yisrael arrive in Midbar Tzin (see 33:18-36), which were not
mentioned anywhere else earlier in Sefer Bamidbar.
 [Now you can read the first part of the Chizkuni on 20:1 and better
understand what he's talking about.]
 
 Now among the 18 locations we find Yotvata and Etzion Gaver, sites
which almost for sure are somewhere in the SOUTHERN Negev, not far
from the Red Sea (i.e. near Eilat). Most likely, this journey
SOUTHWARD was a fulfillment of God's command to leave Kadesh Barnea
towards the Red Sea (see again 14:25).
 
 Then, Parshat Masei tells us that Bnei Yisrael travel from Etzion
Gaver and arrive at Kadesh Midbar Tzin (see 33:36-38/ compare with
20:1), but does not tell us on what year they arrived. 
 [However, it is quite clear that they LEAVE Kadesh Midbar Tzin in the
fortieth year, for from Kadesh they travel to Hor Ha'Har to bury
Aharon - and that event for sure took place in year 40 as the pasuk
itself testifies (33:38).]
 
 So was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LAST stop after a long 38 year journey
wandering through the desert, OR was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LONG
stopover where Bnei Yisrael may have spent MOST of the years while
waiting for the first generation to die?
 Enter Parshat Devarim!
 
 Recall that in Moshe Rabeinu's first speech in Sefer Devarim
(chapters 1->4), he explains why forty years had elapsed since Bnei
Yisrael SHOULD have entered. Therefore, the first part of that speech
includes the story of chet ha'meraglim, for that was the primary
reason for the forty year delay.
 
WILL THE REAL 'KADESH' PLEASE STAND UP
 That story states specifically that the meraglim were sent from
KADESH BARNEA (see 1:19), and also includes God's commandment that
Bnei Yisrael must immediately leave and travel back into the desert
toward the Red Sea (see 1:40). But after the story of the "ma'apilim"
(see 1:41-45) there is one small, but very important pasuk: 
 "va'teshvu ba'KADESH yamim rabim, kayamim asher ya'shavtem."
 [And you settled (or sat) in KADESH many days - as the days that you
settled (or sat) there."  (1:46)
[Note the difficulty in translating this pasuk! See for example JPS
and its footnote.]
 
 So what KADESH is this pasuk referring to? There are two
'candidates':
 1) KADESH BARNEA - where the meraglim were sent from
 2) KADESH MIDBAR TZIN - where the Mei Meriva story took place
 
 But based on our analysis above, it CANNOT be Kadesh Barnea! After
all, God commanded them to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea - "machar" -the NEXT
DAY. Why then would they stay there for a long time?
 [It cannot be because the ma'apilim lost their battle, since that
defeat is only more reason to retreat to a safer location farther
away. Most likely the Canaanites have heard rumors of Bnei Yisrael's
impending attack and now that they are camped so close [Kadesh Barnea
borders on eretz canaan (see Bamidbar 34:4)] - God commands that they
move to the south for their own safety. Otherwise they will be
attacked and God is no longer 'with them' to protect them in battle.]
 
 So why do almost all of the commentators explain that KADESH here
means KADESH BARNEA? [see Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni]
 After all, in this very same chapter Kadesh Barnea has already been
mentioned twice (see 1:3 & 1:19 and 2:14) and each by its full name
KADESH BARNEA! Why then would Moshe refer to it now simply as KADESH -
especially when there is another location called KADESH (i.e. Kadesh
Midbar Tzin) which is always referred to simply as KADESH?!
 
THE EVENTS FROM MERAGLIM TO ARVOT MOAV
 Most probably, the reason why everyone explains KADESH here as KADESH
BARNEA is because of the immediate context of this pasuk.
 [Before continuing, you must review 1:40->2:14 on your own, and
attempt to follow the flow. Compare them with the parallel account in
Bamidbar 20:14->21:4, and especially 20:16 & 21:4! Pay careful
attention to Dvarim 2:14 as well.]
 
 Let's follow the flow:
   * the story of chet ha'meraglim (1:19-40)
   * God's command to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea -> Yam Suf (1:40)
   * The "ma'apilim" are defeated, Bnei Yisrael cry (1:41-45)
  ** -- AND YOU SETTLED IN KADESH FOR MANY DAYS (1:46)
   * "Then we turned and travelled into the DESERT towards YAM SUF, as
GOD HAD COMMANDED US, and we circled Har Seir for many days". (22:1 /
this pasuk is KEY)
   
 The last pasuk which we quoted is the KEY to understanding what
happened, [and its most likely what Ramban was referring to when he
said "ha'mikraot m'furashim"]. 
 As Chizkuni (on 2:1) explains - the travel described in this pasuk is
precisely the same 18 stops described in Parshat Masei from Ritma to
Kadesh Midbar Tzin. Most likely, he reaches this conclusion for the
following reason:
 Since God commanded Bnei Yisrael to travel towards Yam Suf in 1:40,
it only makes sense that this pasuk describes HOW Bnei Yisrael
fulfilled this command. In fact the pasuk states explicitly "as God
had commanded us" (2:1) - i.e. his command in 1:40. Furthermore, that
journey took "many days" - therefore it coincides perfectly with the
18 stop journey from Ritma to Kadesh as described in Parshat Masei. If
so, then KADESH which is mentioned in the previous pasuk (1:46) CANNOT
be Kadesh Midbar Tzin, since Bnei Yisrael had not arrived there yet,
since they only arrive there after the journey described in 2:1.
Therefore, KADESH in 1:46 must be KADESH BARNEA, and it would seem
that Bnei Yisrael remained for a long time in Kadesh Barnea, most
probably feeling quite devastated by the events of the meraglim and
ma'apilim.
 But what about God's command of "machar, pnu u'su lachem" (1:40)?
Should they not have left right away?
 On the other hand, 2:1 must be talking about the 18 stop journey, for
that is the only journey when Bnei Yisrael travel for 'many days' in
the direction of Yam Suf. [Isn't it?]
 Therefore all of the commentators prefer this explanation of 2:1, and
prefer to overlook the problem with "machar" (in 1:40) -and hence
KADESH in 1:46 must be KADESH BARNEA and therefore, they only arrive
in Kadesh Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year.
 [I'm almost sure that this is how all of the rishonim understood
these psukim, if anyone has heard a different explanation - please
write me.]
 
NOT SO FAST!
 However, there is one small 'hole' in this interpretation. The
assumption that 2:1 refers to the 18 stop journey was based on two
very strong points:
 1) they travelled south to Yam Suf/ at that was only once.
 2) just as God had commanded / in 1:40
 
 But one can argue with both of these points. [It's a bit complicated,
so follow carefully with your Tanach in hand.]
 Note how the next set of psukim in Sefer Devarim (see 2:2-8) relate
BACK to the journey described in 2:1. Let's explain how:
 "Then God said to me saying: You have been circling this mountain for
too long - turn to the NORTH. And command the people saying: You are
passing now along the border of your brother Esav... then we passed
thru the land of 'bnei Esav' along the way of the ARAVA from Eilot &
Etzion Gaver and then we passed Moav... until we reached Nachal
Zared."
       (see 2:2-14)
 
 Now this journey CANNOT be the 18 stop journey from Ritma to Kadesh,
since this journey ends in Transjordan, in the land of Moav. In fact,
this is the final journey of the end of the fortieth year when Bnei
Yisrael pass thru Seir, Moav, and Amon and fight with Sichon & Og and
camp in Arvot Moav. In other words, this is no the journey of 33:16-36
in Parshat Masei, rather it is the last leg of the journey described
in Parshat Masei, i.e. 33:40-49, AFTER they leave Kadesh Midbar Tzin.
 And if the journey described in 2:2-13 is from Kadesh Midbar Tzin to
Arvot Moav, then (based in its context) so must be the journey
described in 2:1!
 And if 2:1 describes this last leg of the journey, the KADESH
mentioned in 1:46 must be Kadesh Midbar Tzin - just as its name
implies!
 But how about our two anchors? How can this last leg of the journey
be considered a travel TOWARDS YAM SUF, and how could it be referred
to "as God had commanded us" (see 2:1)?
 The answer is simple. Go back to Parshat Chukat and the parallel
account of Bnei Yisrael's departure from KADESH Midbar Tzin:
 "And Moshe sent messengers from KADESH to the King of Edom saying:...
we are now in Kadesh - a city on your border - let us pass thru your
land..."  (see Bamidbar 20:14-21)
 
 But Edom [=bnei Esav] did not allow Bnei Yisrael to pass. But God
COMMANDED them not to attack Edom, but instead to CIRCLE the land Edom
by travelling south TOWARDS YAM SUF, and then crossing the ARAVA
towards the east, and then turning north towards Moav!
 And this is exactly what Parshat Chukat tells us in the next chapter:
 "And we left Hor ha'Har (next to Kadesh), and travelled TOWARDS YAM
SUF, to CIRCLE the land of EDOM..." (21:4)
  [From there they travelled north (see 21:10-20) thru Moav etc.
ending up in Arvot Moav. Compare this journey with the second leg in
Parshat Masei (33:38-48/ you'll see that its the same journey! 
 
 So lo and behold we find a SECOND journey, commanded by God, where
Bnei Yisrael travel TOWARDS YAM SUF and CIRCLE HAR SEIR. It is this
journey, described in Parshat Chukat and detailed in Parshat Masei
(33:38-48) that Devarim 2:1 could very easily be referring to! And
hence, this SECOND journey as well fulfills both criterions mentioned
above ("derech Yam Suf" and "as God commanded")- and KADESH in 1:46
can still be KADESH Midbar Tzin -and all of the psukim work out
perfectly!
 
 The final proof that Bnei Yisrael must have left Kadesh Barnea
immediately and not waited there for too long is from Devarim 2:14:
 "And the days that we travelled from KADESH BARNEA until we reached
NACHAL ZARED (border with Moav) were 38 YEARS..."
 
 This pasuk states explicitly that Bnei Yisrael LEFT Kadesh Barnea in
YEAR 2, and therefore, they could not have stayed there for "yamim
rabim" [which implies many years / see Breishit 24:55].
 
IN CONCLUSION / & SOME REMARKS
 So "l'mai nafka minah" - what difference does it make when Bnei
Yisrael first arrived in KADESH.
 
 If we understand that they arrive in Kadesh Midbar Tzin only in year
40, the Mei Meriva takes place in year 40 and begins the events of
that final year, and Miriam dies at an age well over 130!
 If we understand that they possibly could have arrived in Kadesh
Midbar Tzin only several years after chet ha'meraglim, i.e. after the
18 stop journey towards Yam Suf back, then back north to Kadesh (which
could have taken several years and served as a precaution against any
further Canaanite attacks); then Moshe's sin at Mei Meriva could have
taken place only a short time after chet ha'meraglim and the story of
Korach. If so, this would fit in thematically very nicely with our
shiurim on Bhaalotcha, Shlach, and Korach, which all indicate a slow
but definite gap between Moshe and people and hence the collapse of
his leadership. [It would also have Miriam's death at an age under
120.] 
 
 There are several other implications, but he main purpose of the
shiur is simply to study Chumash, trying to figure out all of the
possibilities. Once again, it could be I missed something, since I'd
expect to find the possibility in one of the commentaries. [I haven't
looked that much yet, so if anyone finds something, please write. Also
if anyone finds a mistake in the shiur or another source that I
overlooked, please write.]
 In the meantime, it's a two hours before sunset in Israel and want to
send it out before shabbat (at least for those of you in the western
hemisphere).  As you must have noticed, the shiur is  a very rough
draft, hopefully, after hearing your comments, by next year we'll have
an edited and updated version. Till then,
   
       shabbat shalom,
       menachem
 
==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
 
A. Note also from Bamidbar 34:4 that Kadesh Barnea is located on the
SOUTHERN border of Eretz Canaan, and that's exactly why the meraglim
are sent from there. (Today, this area is identified just over the
Egyptian border with Israel in the Negev, about 20 kilometers east of
Sdeh Boker and south of Nitzana.]
 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20070719/c90abec6/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39959 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20070719/c90abec6/attachment-0001.pdf