<!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> Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>for PARSHAT CHUKAT[& Parshat
Devarim]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> BETWEEN KADESH & KADESH
BARNEA<BR> (or When did the Mei Meriva incident take place?)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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. <BR>
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!
<BR> 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.<BR>[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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> 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).<BR> 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: <BR>"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)<BR>
<BR> - 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:<BR>"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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note however that Rashbam's
assumption is based on "parshanut" (exegesis) and not on a "masoret"
(tradition).<BR> <BR>
<BR> / see Rashi 20:1). <BR> However, one could
suggest that it would be safe to assume that conclusion is based on
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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?<BR> Let's double check
this assumption by taking a closer look at that pasuk in Parshat
Chukat:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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?<BR> Most of the classical
commentators deal with this question. Let's start with Rashbam's explanation (on
20:1):<BR> Rashbam's logic is quite straightforward. Since later in this
same chapter we <BR>[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"]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the commentary of Ibn Ezra
(to Bamidbar 20:1), we find a very similar conclusion:<BR>"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."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.]<BR> 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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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<BR>"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!"<BR>[Note that the "girsa" in Torat Chaim's Ramban is
"u'mikraot mfurashim HEYM" while Chavel's edition has: "u'mikraot mfurashim
SHAM"!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now Ramban tells us that the psukim are
explicit, but he doesn't say which psukim he is referring to!<BR>[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).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.<BR>[I suggest that you see that Chizkuni
inside, but AFTER you are 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 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. </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 (in 20:1)? To figure this
it out, we'll need to 'work backwards'. <BR> 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. <BR> 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!<BR> 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:<BR> "... the
Amalekites and Canaanites are sitting in the valley, TOMORROW turn around and
travel into the desert towards the Red Sea." (14:25)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.<BR> 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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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?<BR> At
least partial answers to these questions are found in Parshat 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 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.<BR> 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.<BR> [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.]<BR> <BR> 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.<BR> [Now you can read the first part of the
Chizkuni on 20:1 and better 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 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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.
<BR> [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).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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?<BR> Enter Parshat
Devarim!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.</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
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: <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 you settled (or sat) there." (1:46)<BR>[Note the difficulty
in translating this pasuk! See for example 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 '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 all, God commanded them to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea - "machar"
-the NEXT DAY. Why then would they stay there for a long time?<BR> [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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So why do almost all of the commentators
explain that KADESH here means KADESH BARNEA? [see Ibn Ezra &
Chizkuni]<BR> 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?!<BR> <BR>THE EVENTS
FROM MERAGLIM TO ARVOT MOAV<BR> Most probably, the reason why everyone
explains KADESH here as 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 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.]</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 SUF, as GOD HAD COMMANDED US,
and we circled Har Seir for many days". (22:1 / this pasuk is
KEY)<BR> <BR> 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"]. <BR> 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:<BR> 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.<BR> But what about God's command of "machar, pnu u'su lachem"
(1:40)? Should they not have left right away?<BR> 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?]<BR> 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.<BR> [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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NOT SO FAST!<BR> 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:<BR> 1) they travelled south to
Yam Suf/ at 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 complicated, so follow carefully with your Tanach in
hand.]<BR> 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:<BR> "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."<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 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.<BR> 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!<BR> 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!<BR> 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)?<BR> The answer is simple. Go back to Parshat Chukat and the parallel
account of Bnei Yisrael's departure from KADESH Midbar Tzin:<BR> "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)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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!<BR> And this
is exactly what Parshat Chukat tells us in the next chapter:<BR> "And we
left Hor ha'Har (next to Kadesh), and travelled TOWARDS YAM SUF, to CIRCLE the
land of EDOM..." (21:4)<BR> [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!
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The final proof that Bnei Yisrael must have
left Kadesh Barnea 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 NACHAL ZARED (border with Moav) were 38
YEARS..."<BR> <BR> 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].</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 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 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!<BR> 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.]
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.]<BR> 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,<BR> <BR> shabbat
shalom,<BR> menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>==========================<BR>FOR FURTHER
IYUN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>