[Par-lite] for Parshat Chukat - re: Chronology & Kadesh

Wed Jul 2 17:05:44 EDT 2008

********************************************************
*****
        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.]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1530 -
Release Date: 7/2/2008 8:05 AM

-------------- 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/20080702/e8a9fa68/attachment-0001.pdf 