[Par-reg] Korach / Chukat - shiur #2

Thu Jun 25 07:57:30 EDT 2009

**********************************************************
***
        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 --------------
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/attachments/20090625/5c161a77/attachment-0001.pdf 