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

Thu Jun 26 03:30:06 EDT 2014

*********************************************
****************

        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/attachments/20140626/5b04d7fc/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/attachments/20140626/5b04d7fc/attachment-0001.pdf>