[Par-reg.w] For Parshat Chukat - Kadesh Midbar Tzin

[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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170629/0a9313b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170629/0a9313b3/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 57856 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20170629/0a9313b3/attachment-0001.doc>