<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>************************************************************<BR>THE
TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]<BR> In Memory of Rabbi
Abraham
Leibtag<BR>************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> PARSHAT CHUKAT - <BR> WHEN DID THE MEI
MERIVA INCIDENT TAKE PLACE?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To test a new theory, I'd like to share with
you a shiur concerning <BR>WHEN the events at Mei Meriva took place, and I would
appreciate your <BR>feedback. The theory may sound a bit 'radical' at first and
I'm not at <BR>all convinced that its correct, but I'd like to share it with you
since <BR>it's very interesting and maybe someone can help me prove or disprove
<BR>it. <BR> [To follow the shiur you'll definitely need a Tanach in hand;
in <BR>fact using two would help out when we compare psukim. A "mikraot
<BR>gdolot" will come in handy as well.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> Just about everyone takes for
granted that the Mei Meriva incident <BR>takes place in the 40th year. The
reason for this is quite simple - Mei <BR>Meriva takes place immediately after
the death of Miriam (see Bamidbar <BR>20:1), and Miriam died in the first month
of the FORTIETH year - didn't <BR>she?<BR> Let's double check this
assumption by taking a closer look at that <BR>pasuk:<BR>"And Bnei Yisrael [the
entire congregation] arrived at MIDBAR TZIN <BR>on the first month, and the
people settled down in Kadesh, there <BR>Miriam died and was buried."
(20:1)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note, that we are only told that this took
place on the first <BR>month, but there is no mention of the year at all! So why
does everyone <BR>assume that it is year FORTY?<BR> Most of the classical
commentators deal with this question. Let's <BR>start with Rashbam's explanation
(on 20:1):<BR> "And Miriam died there: On the first month at the end of the
FORTY <BR>years - for Aharon died on the fifth month of the fortieth year, as it
<BR>states [explicitly] in Parshat Masei."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Rashbam's logic is quite straightforward.
Since later in this same <BR>chapter we learn about Aharon's death (see
20:22-29), AND since Parshat <BR>Masei states explicitly that Aharon died on the
fifth month of the <BR>FORTIETH year - then [most likely] Miriam died (four
months earlier) <BR>during that SAME year. <BR> Note however that Rashbam's
assumption is based on "parshanut" <BR>(exegesis) and not on a "masoret"
(tradition).<BR>[In other words, Rashbam doesn't say that we have a tradition
that <BR>tells that Miriam died in the 40th year, rather, one can deduce
<BR>this date from the psukim. Therefore, if by using the same tools of
<BR>"parshanut" [i.e. by carefully studying all of the psukim involved] <BR>one
arrives at a different conclusion, it is permitted to suggest <BR>(and discuss
and debate) other possibilities as well - better known <BR>as "la'asok b'divrei
Torah"./ "v'akmal"]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>IBN EZRA in his pirush (on 20:1) gets right to the
point:<BR>"In the first month: In the FORTIETH YEAR. And (thus) behold that
<BR>there is neither a story nor a prophecy in the Torah other than in <BR>the
FIRST year and in the FORTIETH year."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Ibn Ezra makes a very bold statement. He
claims that from the <BR>moment that God decreed the punishment of forty years
(after chet <BR>ha'meraglim) Chumash goes into a 'coma' for 38 years, no
stories, no <BR>mitzvot - we learn about nothing until the fortieth year, and
those <BR>events begin here in chapter 20!<BR>[One could ask concerning the
story of Korach which would seem to <BR>have take place in the interim, but
recall that Ibn Ezra himself <BR>claims that narrative to be 'out of order' and
places it BEFORE <BR>Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai! See his pirush to Bamidbar
16:1 and <BR>Ramban's refutation as well.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> However, Ibn Ezra does not explain here how
he arrives at that <BR>conclusion. [We'll return to a possible source later in
the shiur, but <BR>most probably he would explain as Rashbam does.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> RAMBAN too agrees that Bnei Yisrael first
arrive at Midbar Tzin in <BR>the fortieth year. [Later we'll see how and why he
argues here with Ibn <BR>Ezra.] But most important is how he concludes his
pirush to 20:<BR>"But this KADESH is located in MIDBAR TZIN, and [Bnei Yisrael]
<BR>arrived there in the FORTIETH year, and there Miriam died, and the
<BR>psukim are EXPLICIT!"<BR>[Note that the "girsa" in Torat Chaim's Ramban is
"u'mikraot <BR>mfurashim HEYM" while Chavel's edition has: "u'mikraot mfurashim
<BR>SHAM"!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now Ramban tells us that the psukim are
explicit, but he doesn't <BR>say which psukim he is referring to!<BR>[Note again
how neither Chavel's Ramban nor Torat Chaim's provide a <BR>footnote to explain
what psukim Ramban is referring to (even though <BR>you would expect them
to).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Most likely, Ramban is referring to psukim in
Moshe's first speech <BR>in Sefer Devarim. In fact, in CHIZKUNI's parallel
explanation (on 20:1/ <BR>he concurs that they arrive at Midbar Tzin in the
fortieth year), he <BR>attempts to reconciliate these psukim with parallel
psukim both in <BR>Parshat Masei and in Sefer Devarim.<BR>[I suggest that you
see that Chizkuni inside, but AFTER you are <BR>familiar with those
sources.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To figure out what Ramban is referring to we
must first take a step <BR>back and try to follow the flow of events, and then
take inventory of <BR>all of the related sources in Chumash that describe this
leg of Bnei <BR>Yisrael's journey. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN TILL NOW?<BR> Where were
Bnei Yisrael before they arrive at KADESH Midbar Tzin <BR>(in 20:1)? Let's work
backwards to figure it out. <BR> The last story in Chumash was the incident
with Korach. But no <BR>where in that narrative are we told WHERE that story
took place. [That <BR>is what allows Ramban & Ibn Ezra to argue about it.]
Therefore we must <BR>work our way backwards again to the story of the
"meraglim" in Parshat <BR>Shlach which took place in KADESH BARNEA. <BR> In
other words, the last PLACE (in Chumash) that Bnei Yisrael were <BR>'spotted'
was in KADESH BARNEA. But they couldn't have stayed there <BR>very long. Recall
that immediately after the chet ha'meraglim God <BR>commands them to leave
Kadesh Barnea and head SOUTH:<BR>"... the Amalekites and Canaanites are sitting
in the valley, <BR>TOMORROW turn around and travel into the desert towards the
Red <BR>Sea." (14:25)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Bnei Yisrael don't listen, and the
"ma'aplilm" decide to attack <BR>anyhow (and are defeated/ see 14:39-45), but
that defeat would not be a <BR>reason for them to stay in Kadesh Barnea. God
wants them to travel into <BR>the desert - to the south- AWAY from Eretz Canaan,
for if they stay <BR>near Kadesh Barnea most likely they will be attacked by
Canaanites who <BR>most likely are already on guard because of the 'rumors'
about Bnei <BR>Yisrael's plan to conquer 'their' land.<BR> Now Parshat
Shlach stops right here without telling us if, when, or <BR>how they actually
left Kadesh Barnea; but according to "pshat", based <BR>on 14:25 (quoted above),
it would be safe to assume that they left <BR>immediately, just as God commanded
them to!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As Sefer Bamdibar continues, the next time an
encampment is <BR>recorded is in Parshat Chukat, as Bnei Yisrael arrive at
Kadesh Midbar <BR>Tzin (see 20:1). What happened in the meantime? How many years
elapsed? <BR>Did they travel to (or toward) the Red Sea as God commanded
them?<BR> At least partial answers to these questions are found in Parshat
<BR>Masei and in Sefer Devarim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE 18 STOP JOURNEY IN PARSHAT
MASEI<BR> Parshat Masei is our most comprehensive source for it lists all
48 <BR>locations in which Bnei Yisrael encamped (see 33:1-49).<BR> [The
problem with Parshat Masei is that it mentions locations that <BR>are not
mentioned anywhere else in Chumash, but skips many locations <BR>that are
mentioned elsewhere (such as Kadesh Barnea itself)! But that <BR>should not
affect our shiur too much. Chazal claim that Ritma is Kadesh <BR>Barnea - see
Rashi on 33:18.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's pick up Parshat Masei as it records
Bnei Yisrael's journey <BR>from Har Sinai (see 33:16). From Sinai they travel to
Kivrot ha'taava, <BR>and then to Chatzerot, and then to Ritma. Now Kivrot
ha'taava and <BR>Chatzerot have already been mentioned in Parshat Bha'alotcha
(see <BR>11:34-35), but Ritma is not. However, Parshat Bha'alotcha tells us that
<BR>they camped next in Midbar Paraan (see 12:16), and from there Moshe <BR>sent
the meraglim (see 13:3) from an area known as KADESH BARNEA in <BR>Midbar
Paraan.<BR>[Parshat Shlach never mentions Kadesh Barnea itself, but everywhere
<BR>else in Chumash when chet ha'mergalim is mentioned, it states <BR>explicitly
KADESH BARNEA - see Bamidbar 32:8 and Devarim 1:3,19; <BR>2:14; and 9:23! Most
likely "Kadesha" mentioned in 13:26 refers to <BR>(and is a short form of)
Kadesh Barnea.]<BR> <BR> Therefore, Chazal identify Ritma with Kadesh
Barnea, and its 'new <BR>name' reflects the events which took place there (see
Rashi 33:18). <BR>Then Parshat Masei mentions an additional 18 stops from Ritma
until <BR>Bnei Yisrael arrive in Midbar Tzin (see 33:18-36), which were not
<BR>mentioned anywhere else earlier in Sefer Bamidbar.<BR>[Now you can read the
first part of the Chizkuni on 20:1 and better <BR>understand what he's talking
about.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now among the 18 locations we find Yotvata
and Etzion Gaver, sites <BR>which almost for sure are somewhere in the SOUTHERN
Negev, not far from <BR>the Red Sea (i.e. near Eilat). Most likely, this journey
SOUTHWARD was <BR>a fulfillment of God's command to leave Kadesh Barnea towards
the Red <BR>Sea (see again 14:25).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Then, Parshat Masei tells us that Bnei
Yisrael travel from Etzion <BR>Gaver and arrive at Kadesh Midbar Tzin (see
33:36-38/ compare with <BR>20:1), but does not tell us on what year they
arrived. <BR>[However, it is quite clear that they LEAVE Kadesh Midbar Tzin in
<BR>the fortieth year, for from Kadesh they travel to Hor Ha'Har to <BR>bury
Aharon - and that event for sure took place in year 40 as the <BR>pasuk itself
testifies (33:38).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LAST stop after
a long forty year <BR>journey, OR was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LONG stopover where
Bnei Yisrael <BR>may have spent MOST of the years while waiting for the first
generation <BR>to die?<BR> Enter Sefer Devarim!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Recall that in Moshe Rabeinu's first speech
in Sefer Devarim <BR>(chapters 1->4), he explains why forty years had elapsed
since Bnei <BR>Yisrael SHOULD have entered. Therefore, the first part of that
speech <BR>includes the story of chet ha'meraglim, for that was the primary
reason <BR>for the forty year delay.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WILL THE REAL 'KADESH' PLEASE STAND
UP<BR> That story states specifically that the meraglim were sent from
<BR>KADESH BARNEA (see 1:19), and also includes God's commandment that Bnei
<BR>Yisrael must immediately leave and travel back into the desert toward
<BR>the Red Sea (see 1:40). But after the story of the "ma'apilim" (see
<BR>1:41-45) there is one small, but very important pasuk: <BR> "va'teshvu
ba'KADESH yamim rabim, kayamim asher ya'shavtem."<BR>[And you settled (or sat)
in KADESH many days - as the days that <BR>you settled (or sat) there."
(1:46)<BR>[Note the difficulty in translating this pasuk! See for example
<BR>JPS and its footnote.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So what KADESH is this pasuk referring to?
There are two <BR>candidates:<BR> 1) KADESH BARNEA - where the meraglim
were sent from<BR> 2) KADESH MIDBAR TZIN - where the Mei Meriva story took
place</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> But based on our analysis above, it CANNOT be
Kadesh Barnea! After <BR>all, God commanded them to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea -
"machar" -the NEXT <BR>DAY. Why then would they stay there for a long
time?<BR> [It cannot be because the ma'apilim lost their battle, since that
<BR>defeat is only more reason to retreat to a safer location farther away.
<BR>Most likely the Canaanites have heard rumors of Bnei Yisrael's <BR>impending
attack and now that they are camped so close [Kadesh Barnea <BR>borders on eretz
canaan (see Bamidbar 34:4)] - God commands that they <BR>move to the south for
their own safety. Otherwise they will be attacked <BR>and God is no longer 'with
them' to protect them in battle.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So why do almost all of the commentators
explain that KADESH here <BR>means KADESH BARNEA? [see Ibn Ezra &
Chizkuni]<BR> After all, in this very same chapter Kadesh Barnea has
already been <BR>mentioned twice (see 1:3 & 1:19 and 2:14) and each by its
full name <BR>KADESH BARNEA! Why then would Moshe refer to it now simply as
KADESH - <BR>especially when there is another location called KADESH (i.e.
Kadesh <BR>Midbar Tzin) which is always referred to simply as
KADESH?!<BR> <BR>FOLLOWING THE FLOW FROM MERAGLIM TO ARVOT
MOAV<BR> Most probably, the reason why everyone explains KADESH here as
<BR>KADESH BARNEA is because of the immediate context of this
pasuk.<BR> [Before continuing, you must review 1:40->2:14 on your own,
and <BR>attempt to follow the flow. Compare them with the parallel account in
<BR>Bamidbar 20:14->21:4, and especially 20:16 & 21:4! Pay careful
<BR>attention to Dvarim 2:14 as well.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's follow the flow:<BR>
* the story of chet ha'meraglim (1:19-40)<BR> * God's
command to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea -> Yam Suf (1:40)<BR> * The
"ma'apilim" are defeated, Bnei Yisrael cry (1:41-45)<BR> ** -- AND
YOU SETTLED IN KADESH FOR MANY DAYS (1:46)<BR> * "Then we
turned and travelled into the DESERT towards YAM <BR>SUF, as GOD HAD COMMANDED
US, and we circled Har Seir for many days". <BR>(2:1 / this pasuk is
KEY)<BR> <BR> The last pasuk which we quoted is the KEY to
understanding what <BR>happened, [and its most likely what Ramban was referring
to when he <BR>said "ha'mikraot m'furashim"]. <BR> As Chizkuni (on 2:1)
explains - the travel described in this pasuk <BR>is precisely the same 18 stops
described in Parshat Masei from Ritma to <BR>Kadesh Midbar Tzin. Most likely, he
reaches this conclusion for the <BR>following reason:<BR> Since God
commanded Bnei Yisrael to travel towards Yam Suf in 1:40, <BR>it only makes
sense that this pasuk describes HOW Bnei Yisrael <BR>fulfilled this command. In
fact the pasuk states explicitly "as God had <BR>commanded us" (2:1) - i.e. his
command in 1:40. Furthermore, that <BR>journey took "many days" - therefore it
coincides perfectly with the 18 <BR>stop journey from Ritma to Kadesh as
described in Parshat Masei. If so, <BR>then KADESH which is mentioned in the
previous pasuk (1:46) CANNOT be <BR>Kadesh Midbar Tzin, since Bnei Yisrael had
not arrived there yet, since <BR>they only arrive there after the journey
described in 2:1. Therefore, <BR>KADESH in 1:46 must be KADESH BARNEA, and it
would seem that Bnei <BR>Yisrael remained for a long time in Kadesh Barnea, most
probably <BR>feeling quite devastated by the events of the meraglim and
ma'apilim.<BR> But what about God's command of "machar, pnu u'su lachem"
(1:40)? <BR>Should they not have left right away?<BR> On the other hand,
2:1 must be talking about the 18 stop journey, <BR>for that is the only journey
when Bnei Yisrael travel for 'many days' <BR>in the direction of Yam Suf. [Isn't
it?]<BR> Therefore all of the commentators prefer this explanation of 2:1,
<BR>and prefer to overlook the problem with "machar" (in 1:40) -and hence
<BR>KADESH in 1:46 must be KADESH BARNEA and therefore, they only arrive in
<BR>Kadesh Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year.<BR>[I'm almost sure that this is
how all of the rishonim understood <BR>these psukim, if anyone has heard a
different explanation - please <BR>write me.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NOT SO FAST!<BR> However, there is one small
hole in this interpretation. The <BR>assumption that 2:1 refers to the 18 stop
journey was based on two very <BR>strong points:<BR> 1) they travelled
south to Yam Suf, and that was only once.<BR> 2) just as God had commanded
/ in 1:40</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> But one can argue with both of these points.
[It's a bit <BR>complicated, so follow carefully with your Tanach in
hand.]<BR> Note how the next set of psukim in Sefer Devarim (see 2:2-8),
<BR>relates BACK to the journey described in 2:1. Let's explain how:<BR>"Then
God said to me saying: You have been circling this mountain <BR>for too long -
turn to the NORTH. And command the people saying: <BR>You are passing now along
the border of your brother Esav... then <BR>we passed thru the land of 'bnei
Esav' along the way of the ARAVA <BR>from Eilot & Etzion Gaver and then we
passed Moav... until we <BR>reached Nachal
Zared."<BR> (see 2:2-14)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now this journey CANNOT be the 18 stop
journey from Ritma to <BR>Kadesh, since this journey ends in Transjordan, in the
land of Moav. In <BR>fact, this is the final journey of the end of the fortieth
year when <BR>Bnei Yisrael pass thru Seir, Moav, and Amon and fight with Sichon
& Og <BR>and camp in Arvot Moav. In other words, this is not the journey of
<BR>33:16-36 in Parshat Masei, rather it is the last leg of the journey
<BR>described in Parshat Masei, i.e. 33:40-49, AFTER they leave Kadesh
<BR>Midbar Tzin.<BR> And if the journey described in 2:2-13 is from Kadesh
Midbar Tzin <BR>to Arvot Moav, then (based in its context) so must be the
journey <BR>described in 2:1!<BR> And if 2:1 describes this last leg of the
journey, the KADESH <BR>mentioned in 1:46 must be Kadesh Midbar Tzin - just as
its name <BR>implies!<BR> But how about our two anchors? How can this last
leg of the journey <BR>be considered a travel TOWARDS YAM SUF, and how could it
be referred to <BR>"as God had commanded us" (see 2:1)?<BR> The answer is
simple. Go back to Parshat Chukat and the parallel <BR>account of Bnei Yisrael's
departure from KADESH Midbar Tzin:<BR>"And Moshe sent messengers from KADESH to
the King of Edom <BR>saying:... we are now in Kadesh - a city on your border -
let us <BR>pass thru your land..." (see Bamidbar 20:14-21)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> But Edom [=bnei Esav] did not allow Bnei
Yisrael to pass. But God <BR>COMMANDED them not to attack Edom, but instead to
CIRCLE the land Edom <BR>by travelling south TOWARDS YAM SUF, and then crossing
the ARAVA <BR>towards the east, and then turning north towards
Moav!<BR> And this is exactly what Parshat Chukat tells us in the next
<BR>chapter:<BR> "And we left Hor ha'Har (next to Kadesh), and travelled
TOWARDS YAM <BR>SUF, to CIRCLE the land of EDOM..." (21:4)<BR> [From
there they travelled north (see 21:10-20) thru Moav etc. <BR>ending up in Arvot
Moav. Compare this journey with the second leg in <BR>Parshat Masei (33:38-48/
you'll see that its the same journey! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So lo and behold we find a SECOND journey,
commanded by God, where <BR>Bnei Yisrael travel TOWARDS YAM SUF and CIRCLE HAR
SEIR. It is this <BR>journey, described in Parshat Chukat and detailed in
Parshat Masei <BR>(33:38-48) that Devarim 2:1 could very easily be referring to!
And <BR>hence, this SECOND journey as well fulfills both criteria mentioned
<BR>above ("derech Yam Suf" and "as God commanded")- and KADESH in 1:46 can
<BR>still be KADESH Midbar Tzin -and all of the psukim work out
perfectly!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The final proof that Bnei Yisrael must have
left Kadesh Barnea <BR>immediately and not waited there for too long is from
Devarim 2:14:<BR> "And the days that we travelled from KADESH BARNEA until
we reached <BR>NACHAL ZARED (border with Moav) were 38
YEARS..."<BR> <BR> This pasuk states explicitly that Bnei Yisrael LEFT
Kadesh Barnea <BR>in YEAR 2, and therefore, they could not have stayed there for
"yamim <BR>rabim" [which implies many years / see Breishit 24:55].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>IN CONCLUSION / & SOME REMARKS<BR> So
"l'mai nafka minah" - what difference does it make when Bnei <BR>Yisrael first
arrived in KADESH.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> If we understand that they arrive in Kadesh
Midbar Tzin only in <BR>year 40, then Moshe's sin at Mei Meriva takes
place in the fortieth <BR>year, and Miriam dies at an age of approx.
130!<BR> However, based on our shiur we can entertain the possibility that
<BR>Bnei Yisrael arrived in Kadesh Midbar Tzin only several years after <BR>chet
ha'meraglim, i.e. after the 18 stop journey from Kadesh Barnea <BR>(southward)
towards Yam Suf back, and then back north to Kadesh Midbar <BR>Tzin. Now this
journey most likely took several years as it served as a <BR>precaution against
any further Canaanite attacks, but there is no <BR>reason why it should have
taken thirty eight years! If indeed this <BR>journey was only several years,
then Moshe's sin at Mei Meriva could <BR>have taken place only a short time
after chet ha'meraglim and the story <BR>of Korach. Consequently,
this would fit in thematically very <BR>nicely with our shiurim on Bhaalotcha,
Shlach, and Korach, which all <BR>indicate a slow but definite gap between Moshe
and the people and hence <BR>the collapse of his leadership. Then, the story at
Mei Meriva would <BR>form the conclusion of these events, rather than an
isolated incident <BR>that took place some 38 years later. [It would also
have Miriam's <BR>death at an age under 120.] </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> There are several other implications, but the
main purpose of this <BR>shiur was simply to study Chumash, trying to figure out
all of the <BR>possibilities. Once again, if you have any comments to help prove
or <BR>disprove this theory, please
write. <BR> shabbat
shalom, <BR> menachem<BR>==========================<BR>FOR
FURTHER IYUN<BR>A. Note also from Bamidbar 34:4 that Kadesh Barnea is located on
the <BR>SOUTHERN border of Eretz Canaan, and that's exactly why the meraglim
<BR>are sent from there. (Today, this area is identified just over the
<BR>Egyptian border with Israel in the Negev, about 20 kilometers east of
<BR>Sdeh Boker and south of Nitzana.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>