Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

“And I prayed before G-d at that time” (Devarim 3:23). At which time? “After I conquered the land of Sichon and Og” (Rashi). What did conquering that land, on the eastern side of the Jordan River, have to do with Moshe's request to cross over and see the land on the western side? “I thought that perhaps the vow (not allowing me to get to the Promised Land) had been undone (ibid). Most understand Moshe's hope that G-d would now allow him to cross the Jordan to be based on his giving the Tribes of Reuvein and Gad (and half of Menashe) their portion on the eastern side, thereby bestowing the land with the status of “Eretz Yisrael” (the Land of Israel). Once Moshe was already inside “Israel,” he hoped to be able to cross further into Israel. However, the wording of Rashi (and the parable used in the Sifri, which is Rashi's source) strongly indicate that it was not assigning the land to specific Tribes that led Moshe to think that he might be able to cross the Jordan, but the fact that he had conquered the land on the eastern side.

Even had he not conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, Moshe would apparently have still been able to enter the land on the eastern side of the Jordan. He had asked Edom permission to pass through the northwestern corner of their land to get to Moav, and asked Moav permission to pass through their land to get to the Plains of Moav (“Arvos Moav”), from where the nation would enter the Promised Land. When Edom (and Moav) refused to give passage rights, the Children of Israel traveled around Edom until they reached the land of Sichon, whereupon Moshe asked Sichon permission to pass through this land. Had Edom (and Moav) or Sichon granted them permission, Moshe would have led his nation to Arvos Moav, bid them farewell, and ascended Mt. Nevo. Getting to Arvos Moav doesn't seem to have been an issue had it still belonged to Moav or Sichon; it was only after conquering it that Moshe thought that perhaps he could go farther and cross the Jordan. This is borne out by Rashi saying that Moshe thought the vow had been rescinded after he had “conquered” Sichon and Og, not after he “entered” it. Besides, if entering the land that would eventually become part of Eretz Yisroel was the trigger, entering the land that had been occupied by Sichon should have been enough; there would be no reason to include Og's land as part of why Moshe thought things might have changed.

What was it about conquering the lands of Sichon and Og that led Moshe to believe that he might be able to cross the Jordan River? And why was it only after conquering both Sichon and Og (and not just Sichon) that Moshe thought he might be able to do so?

The conversation between Moshe and the Tribes of Reuvein and Gad, and the implementation of their request, raises several issues as well. Their initial “request” (Bamidbar 32:1-4), was not really a request, but a relaying of information; they had a lot of cattle, and the land they had conquered was perfect for cattle. They didn't ask for it explicitly, but seemed to hope that upon being informed of the “match” between their needs and that land, Moshe, Elazar and the Tribal Chiefs would realize on their own that the land should be given to them (and would offer it to them). But they didn't. Instead, the paragraph describing the first communication ends.

Then, in a new paragraph (Bamidbar 32:5-15), they bring up the subject a second time, asking for the land to be given to them as their inheritance. Why didn't Moshe (et al) respond the first time the topic was brought up?

Rashi (32:24) explains the back and forth between Moshe and Reuvein/Gad to include fighting at the front lines until the land on the west side of the Jordan is conquered, and waiting to return until after the land has been divided and the other Tribes know which portions they are getting. Why was waiting for the land to be divided so important, and why is doing so described as being “for G-d?” This issue becomes even more puzzling when we take into account Rashi's comments regarding the division of the land (Bamidbar 26:54, which parallel Rashbam's comments on Bava Basra 122a, see also Ramban on 26:55 and Rashi on 33:54), describing the “lottery” which affirmed the division of the land made via the Urim v'Tumim. We would have expected only 10 Tribes to need the lottery to determine which land they would inherit, but instead there were slips with the names of all 12 Tribes and another 12 slips upon which the 12 areas were written. Since Reuvein and Gad already received their portions of land, why were their names/portions included in the lottery? Additionally, why, if only Reuvein and Gad had requested that their portion of the land be on the eastern side, did Moshe include, seemingly out of nowhere, half the Tribe of Menashe, and also give them their portion on the eastern side of the Jordan?

What would have happened had Reuvein and Gad not asked for the land on the eastern side? Would they have received a portion on the western side, with everybody else? What would have been done with the land on eastern side? (I have previously suggested that had the Eirav Rav survived, perhaps they would have received this land. Even if this were true, since they don't seem to have survived, what would have been done with it had Reuvein and Gad not asked for it?) Would each Tribe get a portion of it? How would they deal with having some land on the east side, unconnected with their land on the west side? Would it become their vacation spots? Some understand the Ramban (Bamidbar 21:21) to mean that this land would remain desolate, but it is clear from the context that this would only be until the land on the western side of the Jordan was conquered. It is unclear what would have happened to the land of Sichon and Og had Reuvein and Gad not asked for it as their inheritance. I am going to suggest the possibility that even had they not asked, Reuvein and Gad would have received the exact same land. Even though only the land on the western side is considered the “land flowing with milk and honey” (as we shall discuss shortly), there are advantages to the land that was conquered by Moshe (not Yehoshua), where Moshe taught them Torah, and where the manna fell (see www.aishdas.org/ta/5766/sukkos.pdf). If the advantages of the land on the eastern side related better to Reuvein and Gad than those of the eastern side, it would not be as if they were being shortchanged by getting “Eiver HaYarden” (“the other side of the Jordan”), and the lottery would make it clear that their land was as appropriate for them as the other portions were for the other Tribes. After being on the land that was going to be theirs, Reuvein and Gad could feel the connection between themselves and the land. Not just because it served their needs by being able to sustain their large amounts of cattle, but because this was really their land and they could sense that.

From this perspective, let's reexamine the conversation between Reuvein/Gad and Moshe (et al). Moshe knows that the land just conquered will eventually be given to Reuvein and Gad (and half of Menashe). Had they not conquered it, everybody (besides Moshe) would cross the Jordan, conquer the seven nations on the western side, and then conquer the land on the eastern side that did not belong to Edom, Amon or Moav. At that point, Yehoshua and Elazar would conduct the lottery (etc.), and each Tribe would be given their appropriate portion. However, now that it was conquered, Moshe is faced with a dilemma. If he gives the land just conquered to the Tribes that will eventually get them anyway, it's not fair to the other Tribes, who have to wait to get their land, and will have to fight against the nations in Canaan while Reuvein and Gad are already settling their land. On the other hand, if he doesn't give Reuvein and Gad (and half of Menashe) their land now, that means that they will have to shlep their families and all of their belongings over the Jordan (see Bamidbar 32:5), live in temporary dwellings until the land is conquered and divided up, and then shlep everything back over the Jordan to their permanent homes. There is another factor to be taken into account as well.

Rambam (Hilchos Terumos 1:2-3) describes the difference between land conquered by individuals (“kibush yachid”) and land conquered by the nation (“kibush rabim”), and what qualifies for each category. Even land on the western side of the Jordan would not be fully considered “Eretz Yisroel” if conquered by individuals rather than by the whole nation. Yehoshua, knowing the land wouldn't be fully conquered in his lifetime, therefore divided it up before he died (even before it was fully conquered). This way, when each Tribe conquered their own territory after he died, it would be based on the nation's will, not just the Tribe's, and would qualify as being “Eretz Yisroel” in every regard. Land that is not officially part of Eretz Yisroel can become Eretz Yisroel, provided it was conquered by the nation after Eretz Yisroel was fully conquered and divided/settled (see Hilchos Melachim 5:6). Based on this, Rabbi Peretz Steinberg, shlita (Pri Eitz Hachayim on Bamidbar 32:1-2, published in 5766) suggests that had Reuvein and Gad returned before the rest of the land was divided (even if it were after the western side of the Jordan was conquered), their land would not be considered Eretz Yisroel (for mitzvos such as terumah and maaser). This would be another reason not to give the land to Reuvein and Gad before everyone else gets theirs.

When Reuvein/Gad asked for the land, there was no offer of fighting on the western side (and therefore no indication of waiting until after the land was divided). The first time they brought it up, Moshe didn't respond, hoping they would think things through, and offer to fight on the western side (etc.). But they didn't, even when they brought it up the second time. It would be bad enough if the other Tribes would have to fight Canaan without the help of all 12 Tribes, especially if the two Tribes that wouldn't fight were the ones with the best warriors. If the two Tribes that didn't join them had requested not to fight (by asking for the land on the eastern side), it would be that much worse. Therefore, Moshe laces into them, comparing the damage done if they don't fight to the damage done by the spies. Reuvein and Gad get the message, and offer not only to join the fight on the western side, but to lead it. And they promise not to return “home” until the rest of land is divided, so that their land will be considered Eretz Yisroel. Moshe tells them that their leading the war was necessary if they want to keep the land on the eastern side (the “tenai kaful”), but asks them to keep the other part of their promise too, not to return until the land is divided (see Rashi on 32:24). This won't affect keeping the land, but will affect its status regarding mitzvos, and is therefore worth keeping “for G-d.”

Once Moshe was willing to give Reuvein and Gad their portions, he was faced with another dilemma. Can he give Reuvein and Gad their land now, but not give Menashe theirs? Menashe must have also felt a connection to their land, with Menashe's son Machir even naming his son Gilad (Bamidbr 26:29), the name of the land they felt connected with. (Gilad was the name the area was known by since Yaakov and Lavan built the pile (“gal”) of stones that was witness (“eid”) to their covenant, and was where the caravan that brought Yosef to Egypt originated from.) Menashe may not have been as bold as Reuvein and Gad to ask for their portion now, but that doesn't mean they didn't want it now too. How could Moshe make half the Tribe of Menashe shlep their families and possessions across the Jordan to live in Gilgal until the land is divided, and then shlep everyone and everything back, if Reuvein and Gad didn't have to? Therefore, when Moshe allowed Reuvein and Gad to stay on what would become their land anyway and start building its infrastructure, he also gave Menashe the land that they were going to get on the eastern side.

Before the land was divided, the laws of Shemita didn't apply even to the land on the western side of the Jordan (see Sifri on Vayikra 25:2). This is learned from the wording of the verses, which tells us that Shmita laws won't start until “you come to the land that I am giving you” (25:2) and you work on “your field” and “your vineyard” (25:3), i.e. the one assigned to you. The Sifri (here and on 23:10 regarding the Omer offering) explains the words “the land” to mean “the special land,” i.e. the land that flows with milk and honey, and the words “that I am giving you” to exclude the portions of Reuvein and Gad, which wasn't “given to them” but they asked for. This difference may have practical implications regarding Bikurim (first fruits), as according one one opinion in the Yerushalmi (Bikurim 1:8), Bikurim can be brought from Menashe's portion on the eastern side of the Jordan, but not from Reuvein and Gad's portions. The topic of which land-based laws apply where and when is a very complex one, but the points to take from them that are relevant to us are that the laws aren't necessarily the same for all of the land on the eastern side of the Jordan, non of the land-based laws applied there before the land (on the western side) was divided, none would have applied there had Reuvein/Gad not waited to return until after the division, and not all of them applied to the western side before the division took place.

Had permission been granted to get to Arvos Moav without having to conquer any land first, Moshe would not have thought that his being able to enter land that will eventually become Eretz Yisroel meant he could cross the Jordan. Even after the land of Sichon was conquered, since this became necessary in order to get to Arvos Moav, there was no indication that anything had changed. (This may be why Moshe “feared” Og, as his land wasn't necessary for access to the Promised Land.) However, once Og's land was conquered too, Moshe thought that things might have changed, as now he was standing on land that would become Eretz Yisroel, and was conquered for that purpose. Even though there is a difference between the land on the eastern side of the Jordan and the western side, those differences would be minimized after the land was divided, and not all of the mitzvos applied on the western side either until then.

Therefore, after conquering both Sichon and Og, Moshe asked if he could cross over to the western side of the Jordan. Not necessarily to stay there forever, but at least before the land was divided and all the mitzvos applied there, he should be allowed to “cross over and see it” (Devarim 3:25). After all, he was already standing on land that would become Eretz Yisroel once the land was divided.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

“And you dwelled in Kadeish for many years” (Devarim 1:46). Rashi , based on Seder Olam Rabbah (8), tells us that of the 40 years spent in the wilderness, 19 of them were spent living in Kadeish. This works out to be the same amount of years as their “wandering,” i.e. traveling just to fill out the full 40 years decreed upon them (Bamidbar 14:33-34). The decree was made after their “crying” on Tisha B’Av, the fifth month of the second year, and much of the 40^th year was spent traveling around Edom, past Moav, conquering Sichon/Og, and reviewing the Torah with Moshe at Arvos Moav, leaving 38 years of “wandering” just for the sake of “wandering.” Dwelling in Kadeish for 19 years means there were “only” 19 years of true “wandering.”

Which years were spent “wandering” and which years were spent “dwelling in Kadeish” depends on a number of factors, including which “Kadeish” these 19 years were spent at. This issue was raised several years ago by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (www.Tanach.org), and despite also working on a deadline, I would like to expand upon some of his thoughts.

The context of the verse indicating that the Children of Israel stayed at Kadeish “the same amount of days that you dwelled” during the rest of the wanderings (see Rashi on Devarim 1:46) indicates that this occurred before the wandering started, as it comes immediately after Moshe reminds them of the sin of the spies (1:22-45) and before they “turned and traveled to the desert by way of the Sea of Reeds (2:1) and, after being told they’ve wandered enough (2:3), going north past Eisav (2:-3-8) and Moav (2:8-18), and conquering Sichon (2:24-36). However, there are other indications that they left right after the decree, and didn’t hang around for years after the decree was made.

The Torah tells us explicitly (2:14) that it took 38 years from the time they traveled from Kadeish Barnaya (the “Kadeish” that the spies were sent from) until they crossed the Zered Stream (east of Moav, almost parallel to the bottom of the Dead Sea). If the 38 years started from when they “traveled from Kaseh Barneya,” they obviously must have left right away, not 19 years later. Nevertheless, the Chizkuni addresses this issue by telling us that “it doesn’t means only [years of] travel, but [the years it took] between [both] standing (i.e. staying put) and traveling.” Once the decree was made and they knew that they wouldn’t be able to enter the Promised Land for more than 38 years (and wouldn’t enter from where they were, but would have to travel to a different point of entry), the fact that they hadn’t physically left yet didn’t change the fact that they hadn’t yet reached their final destination, and it was considered as if they were “traveling” for the whole 38 years.

After telling them that they weren’t going to enter the Promised Land now, G-d told them they would have to travel away from there (the original point of entry, Kadeish Barneya) “tomorrow” (Bamidbar 14:25). It would seem difficult to say that they stayed in Kadeish Barneya for 19 years if G-d told them to leave “tomorrow.” However, several commentators (i.e. Chizkuni) point out that “tomorrow” doesn’t have to mean literally “the next day;” it sometimes means “some time in the future.” The Netziv and the Panim Yafos (in Devarim) suggest that originally they were going to have to “wander” for the full 38 years (starting “tomorrow”), but their prayers not to have to “wander” helped cut that part of the decree in half, so they only had to “wander” for 19 years, and the “tomorrow” part was nullified. (It could be suggested that this addresses the previous issue as well, as since their prayers nullified 19 years of the “wandering,” it was still considered as if they “traveled” for all 38 years.)

Although Rashi does tell us (Bamidbar 32:8) that there were two cities with the name “Kadeish,” the implication (see Gur Aryeh) is that the place the spies were sent from is referred to as “Kadeish Barneya,” while the city “by the edge of the border of Edom” (Bamidbar 20:16), where Miryam died and Moshe hit the rock, is referred to as just plain “Kadeish.” If so, it was not at Kadeish Barneya that they stayed for 19 years, but at Kadeish. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of commentators understand it to be Kadeish Barneya where they stayed for 19 years, before the “wandering” started, perhaps because the spies did return “to Moshe and to Aharon and to the entire congregation of the Children of Israel to the Paran Desert, at Kadeish” (13:26).

Despite saying explicitly in Devarim that the Kadeish they stayed at for a long time was Kadeish Barneya, in Bamidbar (20:1) Ibn Ezra says that it was at the Kadeish where Miryam died that they stayed for a long time. However, Ibn Ezra doesn’t follow Chazal’s approach that the “long time” was 19 (or 18, see Midrash HaGadol) years, as he says explicitly that they arrived at Kadeish, where they stayed for a long time, in the 40^th year. Rabbeinu Bachye also says (in Bamidbar) that it was the Kadeish where Miryam died that they stayed for a long time, but in Devarim he follows Chazal and says that the “long time” was in fact 19 years. This would explain why the Torah doesn’t tell us that they arrived at Kadeish in the 40^th year, as they really arrived in the 21st year. [Even though the Torah doesn’t tell us that Miryam died in the 40^th year either, Rabbeinu Bachye does say it was in the 40^th year, with all three of the generation’s leaders (Miryam, Aharon and Moshe, at the ages of 127, 123 and 120 respectively) passing away in that final year before the nation entered the Promised land. That Miryam died in the 40^th year seems to be accepted by all; see Seder Olam Rabbah 9.] According to Rabbeinu Bachye they did leave right away (“tomorrow”) from Kadeish Barneya, and it took 38 years (even if they stayed for 19 of them in Kadeish) until they crossed The Zered Stream. The only real difficulty in the verses is the one we started with, as the context indicates that the long stay in “Kadeish” occurred right after the decree, before they left the place where the decree was issued. Based on the Netziv and Panim Yafos, it could be suggested that since the initial decree was that they couldn’t enter the Promised Land for 39 more years and that they would “wander” for 38 of them, and it was their prayers that allowed them to stay in one place for 19 of those years, Moshe mentioned the 19 year stay here because having to wait those 19 years was still part of the decree, as “G-d did not answer your cries” to reverse the decree (Devarim 1:45), although he did cut the years of “wandering” in half, “enabling you to stay in Kadeish,” 19 years later, for 19 years.

It is interesting to note that one of the differences between the way Rashi quotes Seder Olam Rabbah and the way our version reads relates directly to whether the 19 years in Kadeish occurred right after the decree or 19 years after the decree; Rashi has the 38 years as “19 of them in Kadeish and 19 years traveling and being harried,” while our version has the 19 years traveling and being harried first. Rather than ascribing each version to the two opinions cited above, however, both versions are problematic. Our version of Seder Olam Rabbah is problematic because the 19 years were spent at “Kadeish Barneya,” not at “Kadeish;” if the 19 years of staying in one place occurred after the 19 years of “wandering,” they had to have been at “Kadeish, “ not at “Kadeish Barneya.” Rashi’s version adds one additional thought, “and they returned to Kadeish,” strongly implying that they returned to the same place they had stayed for 19 years after their 19 years of wandering. Yet, Rashi had told us (Bamidbar 32:8) that there were two different places called “Kadeish,” so how could he say that “Kadeish Barneya” and “Kadeish” were the same place?

Sefer Eileh Masay (pgs. 94-96; published in 2000 by Dun Schwartz) suggests that the two words that add this thought (“v’chuzru l’Kadeish”) must be a mistake (even though he cites a manuscript that includes them, and acknowledges that the Raavad had this version of Seder Olam Rabbah). Midrash Esfa (Batei Midrashos I, pg. 213, quoted by Torah Shelaimah, Bamidbar 20:9) says that the nation was thrilled to return to Kadeish, the same place they had dwelled peacefully for 19 years, after having wandered for 19 years. Therefore, no matter how we address the contradiction in Rashi (and it’s clear from his commentary on Bamidbar 34:4 that he had in inaccurate map of the area, with “Kadeish” being south of Edom rather than on the eastern side close to the north), we have to address a third opinion, that “Kadeish Barneya” and “Kadeish” are really one and the same (see Mizrachi on Beraishis 14:7, also see Or Hachayim on Bamidbar 13:26).

Although there are numerous “deserts” that the Children of Israel traveled through (or near), such as the Paran Desert (from where the spies were sent), the Tzin Desert (where the southern border of Israel passes through, and where “Kadeish” is) and the Sinai Desert, the Talmud (Shabbos 89a) indicates that they are all one desert. Tosfos (ibid) explains that it is one very large desert that encompasses the Sinai Peninsula (although, like Rashi, Tosfos didn’t realize it was a peninsula, which is why they said that the nation didn’t “cross” the split sea leaving Egypt, but came out on the same side they came in) and goes all the way up north (on the eastern side of the peninsula) until just below the Dead Sea. A similar thought is put forth by the Maharal (Gur Aryeh on Bereishis 14:7). It is therefore not problematic if “Kadeish Barneya” is described as being in the Paran Desert while “Kadeish” is in the Tzin Desert, as they are really the same (large) desert. (Atlas Daas Mikre, in its map on pg. 101, has the two deserts overlapping, with the two names criss-crossing each other!) Although from the maps I’ve seen “Kadesh Barneya” and “Kadeish” are over 100km apart from each other, it should be noted that the nation never (or probably never) camped at either location. Kadeish Barneya is mentioned when the southern border of Israel is described (Bamidbar 34:4), but the border is south of it, meaning that Kadeish Barneya is inside the Land of Israel. Since Moshe never stepped foot into Israel (nor did the rest of the nation, except the spies), they must not have camped at Kadeish Barneya, but near it (see Sefornu on Bamidbar 13:26). Similarly, Kadeish, if it was a “city,” was within the borders of Edom (which is how most maps have it); how could Moshe have asked permission to pass through Edom if they were already there? The Israelite camp was quite large, and likely couldn’t fit in any already inhabited city; it is much more likely that they camped near Kadeish, not in Kadeish, and that Moshe was telling Edom that we are near one of your northern-most cities, and won’t need to pass through much of your land. (See Gittin 6a, where Rekem, the Aramaic translation of Kadeish, is considered the border of Israel but not part of Israel.) It is therefore possible that both times, before sending out the spies and before asking Edom permission to pass through to Moav (if they wanted to go into Israel from there, Edom is in the wrong direction), they camped in the same area, southeast of Kadeish Barneya and southwest of Kadeish. When they were planning to enter Israel from the south, the nearby location of Kadeish Barneya is mentioned; when asking permission from Edom, the nearby city of Kadeish is mentioned. They are two different locations, but the nation returned to the same basic area 19 years after having left it. There would therefore be no problem if Moshe called it “Kadeish,” not “Kadeish Barneya” even when discussing events that occurred right after the spies were sent.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

Besides the 12,000 soldiers sent to enact revenge against Midyan for trying to corrupt the Children of Israel, both spiritually (“for the matter of Pe’or,” i.e. causing them to worship Pe’or) and morally (“and for the matter of Kuzbi,” Bamidbar 25:18), Moshe also sent Pinachas (31:11) as the Kohain Gadol anointed for wartime. Rashi quotes three reasons why Pinachas went rather than Elazar (his father), with the second being “that he went to enact the vengeance of his grandfather (meaning a grandparent on his mother’s side), Yosef.” Yosef had been sold as a slave to Egypt by Midyanite merchants (Beraishis 37:36), and his great-grandson Pinachas was going to “even the score” by leading the war against Midyan.

The commentators raise several issues regarding this reason for sending Pinachas. For one thing, Yosef was sold as a slave 270 years before this war was fought; are we supposed to hold a grudge for hundreds of years? Secondly, it was only those merchants that sold Yosef; why is the entire nation of Midyan held accountable for something done only by one caravan of merchants? Additionally, selling things bought in one location for a higher price in a different location is how merchants make a living, and slaves were a normal commodity; why are these merchants considered to have done anything wrong if this was their profession?

The Maharal (on Chumash and on Soteh 43a) says that the point is not really Pinachas taking revenge for what had been done to his great-grandfather, but that Pinachas, his makeup and what he represented, was the appropriate foil for Midyan. They were extremely immoral, which is why they sent their daughters to seduce Israel, while Yosef, who overcame the temptation of Potifar’s wife, and Pinachas, who took a strong stand against the immoral behavior going on when he killed Zimri and Kuzbi, were completely removed from immorality. Whereas the immorality of Midyan had been victorious over Yosef when they sold him, Pinachas reversed the situation when he destroyed Midyan in this war.

Others only address how merchants can be blamed for doing what merchants normally do. The Taz says that the Midyanites realized Yosef’s potential for greatness, and in order to prevent him from ever attaining such greatness, purposely sold him to Egypt, where slaves were never allowed to leave. However, Rashi had told us (Beraishis 37:25) that G-d arranged for the caravan that brought Yosef to Egypt to be carrying pleasant-smelling perfumes and spices, rather the foul-smelling wares they usually sold, and the verse says explicitly that this caravan’s destination had been Egypt even before Yosef became part of their cargo. Even if they were happy that this was their destination because it meant Yosef would never be able to get out, Pinachas likely didn’t know that, and couldn’t blame them for not changing their itinerary once Yosef was sold to them. Besides, the brothers knew where the caravan was headed before they sold Yosef to them, which is how they knew to look for him in Egypt when they went down to buy grain during the famine (see Rashi on Beraishis 42:13); it would be the other Tribes that Pinachas should “enact vengeance upon,” not the merchants who were heading to Egypt anyway. [It should be noted that according to Sefer Hayashar the brothers planned on selling Yosef to the caravan (they knew to be) heading for Egypt, but ended up selling him to the Midyanite merchants who pulled him out of the pit. When the Midyanites regretted buying Yosef (fearing retribution from the powerful “Hebrews”), they sold him to the caravan that the brothers had first spotted, who brought Yosef to Egypt. Nevertheless, this sale was made out of fear, not to subject Yosef to Egyptian slavery. (Since the brothers knew where Yosef was, they must have found out from these merchants that they sold Yosef to the caravan heading for Egypt.) Either way, Pinachas shouldn’t have blamed the merchants for causing Yosef to be sold to Egypt.]

The Netziv (in his commentary on the Sifri, which is Rashi’s source), says that Yosef surely told them who he was, and that they would get paid even more money if they returned him to his family. Because they preferred selling him as a slave over making more money, they were not being “merchants,” and were held accountable for Yosef being sold as a slave. (Rabbi Peretz Steinberg, shlita, makes a very similar suggestion in “Pri Eitz Hachayim,” which he published in 1991.) Although Sefer Hayashar (which the Netziv references) says that the Midyanite merchants recognized that Yosef was too dignified (etc.) to be a slave, and that Shimon identified himself and his brothers as being the sons of Yaakov, they feared suffering repercussions for having Yosef, and probably did not think they could sell him back to his family for a large profit. It’s also hard to imagine that they would believe their captive slave’s claim that they could get a better deal from his family, as the captive would likely say anything to get back to his family.

Midyan was one of the sons of Keturah (Beraishis 25:2), the wife Avraham married after Sarah died. The people of Midyan were therefore relatives of the Children of Israel, but more than being related, Midyan should have been aware of who the Children of Israel were and what their status was. Lavan, the grandson of Avraham’s brother (Nachor), knew that Avraham was “blessed of G-d” (Beraishis 24:31), and they (Nachor’s family) were honored to have their daughter/sister marry into this blessed family. What perspective of Avraham’s (other) family (Yitzchok’s grandchildren) was embedded in the consciousness of the nation of Midyan? Did they respect Israel’s mission of fulfilling G-d’s word? Did they ignore it (or forget about it)? Or, did they resent it? Had Midyan taught his children about their ancestry, that they also descended from Avraham, who brought monotheism (back) to the world, they would have been in awe of Yaakov and his sons, and respected them. Even the merchants would know of them, and would never consider selling one of them as a slave. Either the special status of Israel never made an impression on Midyan (the nation), or they resented it, thus allowing these merchants to deal with Yosef as they would with any other business dealing (or worse). It wasn’t just the merchants that had “sinned” against Yosef, but the entire nation, starting from Midyan himself, for not valuing Avraham’s message or the people who were carrying it out.

When they tried corrupting Israel, getting them to worship another deity and to engage in illicit behavior, it became apparent that Midyan didn’t just ignore Israel’s special status, but resented it. In retrospect, it showed that ignoring Yosef’s pleas was more than just a result of not valuing Avraham’s message and the mission of the Children of Israel; they wanted to help thwart that mission, and selling Yosef to Egypt (they thought) would help accomplish that. Therefore, when sending an army to destroy the nation that would otherwise continue trying to thwart the mission of the Children of Israel, Moshe included Yosef’s great-grandson, who understood the danger Midyan posed, and would make sure that the war against them would end successfully.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

     “And Moav was very afraid because of the nation, for they were many, and Moav felt disgusted because of the Children of Israel” (Bamidbar 22:3). There are numerous approaches to explain each aspect of this verse, and therefore an even more numerous combination of ways to read the verse in its entirety. The different parts of the verse that need explanation are: (1) Why were they afraid; (2) Why did they feel disgusted; (3) Were they disgusted with (or by) the Children of Israel, or were they disgusted with themselves because of the Children of Israel (or is there a better definition for the word translated as “disgusted”); (4) Why are there two ways of describing the Israelites (“the nation” and “the Children of Israel”); and (5) Why is “nation” used in conjunction with “fear” and “Children of Israel” used in conjunction with “disgust.”

     Since the mighty armies of Sichon and Og had just been wiped out by the Israelites, the starting point should be that Moav was afraid that they would be next, and that the Israelites would take over their land too, “licking up all that is around them like an ox licks up the vegetation of the field” (22:4). However, the Israelites had sent a request to Moav to be allowed to pass through their land (Shoftim 11:17), a request that was refused. Rather than going to war with Moav, the Israelites moved on, requesting to pass through Sichon's land instead. When Sichon refused, and sent his army to fight , the Israelites defeated him and took his land (Bamidbar 21:25). The Israelites hadn't gone to war with Moav because G-d specifically prohibited them from doing so (Devarim 2:9); the commentators therefore assume that Moav realized that the Israelites were prohibited from taking their land, and discuss why they were still afraid. The standard approach (Rashi on Devarim 2:9, based, as usual, on Chazal) is that even though the Israelites were prohibited from waging war against Moav, they could still bully them, and even take some of their possessions forcefully (just not their land). Therefore, after being intimidated and perhaps even pillaged, having them as next door neighbors would certainly scare them.

     The Ramban understands the “disgust” to be an additional level of “fear,” with Moav being afraid because of how many more Israelites there were than Moavites, and even more afraid because of all the amazing things that had been done for them and their ancestors. Based on this, we can easily understand why they are referred to as “the nation” regarding their size, as this “fear” would apply to any “nation” that was large, and why they are referred to by their specific name, the “Children of Israel” regarding the unique things that happened to them. The Ramban then explains what they were afraid of, if they knew that the Israelites wouldn't attack them or take their land; since Israel would become the region's superpower, every other country would have to follow their directives, including paying taxes to them. Even though Moav had been subservient to Sichon until now (see Malbim on 22:4), it can be suggested that being subservient to a nation because they have a strong king (i.e. Sichon) was not as upsetting as being subservient to the holy Nation of Israel; when the strong king dies, his power dies with him and they could hope to attain independence, but a nation whose power comes from their holiness could stay in power for eternity. (This could be another reason why the name “Children of Israel,” which refers to their special status, is emphasized.) If this was Moav's fear, the purpose of hiring Bilam to curse the Children of Israel would have been to affect their level of holiness, thus preventing them from becoming, or maintaining, their regional power.

     The Chasam Sofer suggests two other approaches, approaches that the Rinas Yitzchok asks several questions on – some of which he leaves unanswered. In both approaches the Chasam Sofer assumes that Moav knew that the Children of Israel would not wage war against them or take their land, and (as many commentators do, both here and elsewhere) understands the term “the nation” to refer to the “Eirev Rav,” the mixed multitude of people that left Egypt with the Children of Israel during the exodus (see Shemos 12:38) while “Children of Israel” refers to the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov/Yisroel. In his first approach, the Chasam Sofer suggests that Moav was afraid that even though the Children of Israel wouldn't wage war against them, the Eirev Rav might, and were also concerned that the Children of Israel might pillage them. In his second approach, he suggests that Moav was afraid that the Eirev Rav would conquer their land, and that afterward the Children of Israel would conquer it from the Eirev Rav, much like they were allowed to conquer what had been Moav's land from Sichon after Sichon took it from them.

     The first question the Rinas Yitzchok asks is why Moav should be more afraid of the Eirev Rav than of the rest of the nation, since the prohibition against going to war against Moav (and taking their land) applied to the Eirev Rav as well. However, I'm not sure that Moav knew that the Eirev Rav had the exact same obligations as the “Children of Israel,” especially since the Children of Israel were covered and protected by the “Clouds of Glory” while the Eirev Rav was not (see Meshech Chochma on 11:1), which could be easily misunderstood to mean that they were not part of the nation and therefore not subject to the same prohibitions. (See www.aishdas.org/ta/5768/shlach.pdf, where I suggested that the Torah had to reiterate, several times, that the laws applied equally to converts because the Children of Israel didn't think that the Eirev Rav were full converts; if this point had to be made numerous times to the Children of Israel, how could it be assumed that Moav knew that all prohibitions also applied to the Eirev Rav?)

     The Rinas Yitzchok suggests that, according to the Chasam Sofer, Moav may have thought that the prohibition against conquering their land only applied to those that would get a share in the Promised Land; since the Eirev Rav wouldn't, they would be allowed to take land from Moav. He then wonders why, if that were the case, the prohibition applied to the Tribe of Levi, since they didn't get a portion in the Land either. However, they got other things instead, such as tithes (see Bamidbar 18:21) and their own cities (see Vayikra 25:32-34), while the Eirev Rav did not, so it does not seem farfetched to suggest that even though the Levi'im were included in the prohibition against conquering land from Moav, the Eirev Rav were not.

     The (other) questions on the Chasam Sofer that the Rinas Yitzchok leaves unanswered are how the Children of Israel could be permitted to conquer the land from the Eirev Rav, and why it would matter to Moav if they did, since either way they wouldn't have their land anymore. However, if Moav didn't think the Eirev Rav was part of the Nation of Israel, we can understand why they would think that the land could be conquered from them, just as it had been conquered from Sichon; as long as it wasn't taken directly from Moav, the prohibition wasn't being violated. And if part of Moav's concern was not being able to reconquer the land from the holy Children of Israel, we can understand why they would be more worried about Israel conquering it from the Eirev Rav than had it remained in the possession of the Eirev Rav.

     According to the approach(es) of the Chasam Sofer, aside from trying to affect the level of holiness of the Children of Israel, Balak wanted Bilam to curse the Eirev Rav so that they couldn't conquer Moav's land. The Sifsay Kohain (Bamidbar 14:12-20) says that the Eirev Rav died out in the desert, with none of them making it to the Promised Land. Although the Chasam Sofer understands part of Moav's fear to be based on the vast numbers of the Eirev Rav, according to the Sifsay Kohain the Eirev Rav died out slowly over the 40 years in the desert (see www.aishdas.org/ta/5769/shlach.pdf, page 2). Yalkut Reuveini (Bamidbar 1:21 and 25:24) says that the 24,000 that died in the plague after the sin of Pe'or (Bamidbar 25:9) were the children that had been born to the Eirev Rav. It is fair to speculate that these would have been the last “members” of the Eirev Rav, as within a few months the Children of Israel would enter the Promised Land, and according to the Sifsay Kohain, no one from the Eirev Rav made it there. If so, then Bilam accomplished both of the goals that Balak had set for him, as the sin of Pe'or affected the holiness of the Children of Israel, and the resulting plague wiped out what was left of the Eirev Rav. [I would further speculate that had the Eirev Rav survived, they would have settled in the lands conquered from Sichon and Og, so that the “nation” that Moshe brought out of Egypt (see Rashi on Shemos 32:7) would dwell in the land conquered by Moshe. Only after the Eirev Rav died out did the Tribes of Reuvein and Gad approach Moshe to ask if they could take that land as their inheritance.]

     The discussion until now was operating under the assumption that Moav could not be afraid that the Children of Israel would conquer their land, since they weren't attacked after permission to pass through was denied. However, there is an approach in Chazal (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:2 and Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 2) that has Moav afraid that the Children of Israel would attack them directly and take their land, as they didn't realize that it was only because Sichon had conquered it first that the Children of Israel were allowed to take it. The question this raises (which is what the commentators wanted to avoid) is why did Moav think the Children of Israel didn't just attack them instead of going to war with the more powerful Sichon?

     There are additional questions surrounding the request to pass through the land of Moav as well. For one thing, why was this request (and denial) only mentioned in Shoftim, in the conversation between Yiftach and the king of Amon? The Torah told us about the requests made of Edom and Sichon and their refusal; why didn't the Torah also tell us about the request made of Moav and their refusal? Additionally, why did Yiftach mention the request of Moav to the king of Amon? Amon was claiming that the Children of Israel had taken their land, with the crux of Yiftach's answer being that they didn't take it from Amon, but from Sichon. What relevance does Moav's refusal have with conquering land that used to belong to Amon? Although it could be suggested that Yiftach was explaining that they wouldn't have conquered the land that used to belong to Amon had either Edom or Moav allowed them passage, I would like to offer a different suggestion, one that answers all of these questions, as well as explaining the wording of Yiftach's message to Amon.

     The assumption most work with is that had Edom allowed the Children of Israel to pass through their land, they would have gone straight into the Promised Land (from the south). However, in both Bamidbar (20:17-19) and Shoftim (11:17), no mention is made of entering the Promised Land after passing through Edom. The request of Sichon, on the other hand, includes passing through “until we cross the Jordan (River) to the land that Hashem our G-d is giving to us” (Devarim 2:29). In Shoftim as well (11:19), the request of Sichon was to “pass through your land until my place.” It would seem, then, that the intention was never to enter the Land from the south; the plan had always been to enter across from Yericho, from the Plains of Moav. The problem was having to pass through Edom and Moav to get there, so Moshe asked both countries, at the same time, “while Israel lived at Kadesh” (see Shoftim 11:17), permission to do so. Once Edom refused, Moav's answer was irrelevant, and there was no need to record it (or the request) in the Torah.

     At the time of the request, Sichon hadn't yet conquered the land from Moav, which is why permission was needed from Moav to cross from their land. However, their refusal sealed their own fate, as if they wouldn't allow the Children of Israel to cross voluntarily, it would be done against their will. Since the Children of Israel weren't allowed to conquer land from Moav, G-d had to arrange for Sichon to do so, thus paving the way for that land (and specifically the crossing point at the Plains of Moav) to be conquered by Israel. At the time, the descendants of Lot all lived together, as one country (see Malbim, Torah Or, on Devarim 23:4), and were only separated (geographically, if not yet governmentally) when Sichon conquered the large swath of land in the center, with those that descended from the older daughter of Lot (i.e. Moav) in the south and those from the younger daughter (i.e. Amon) in the north(east). Therefore, when Moshe sent the message to Moav, it was also to “the sons of Amon,” and Yiftach was telling the king of the now-separate country that permission had been asked of his country to pass through, but was denied.

     If the permission to pass through Moav had only been requested when the Children of Israel were still in Kadesh, and the answer became irrelevant when Edom refused to let them get to Moav, there was no way for Moav to know that G-d had prohibited the Children of Israel from attacking them or conquering their land. Therefore, Moav was afraid of being attacked, and disgusted by the thought of having such holy, powerful neighbors.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

 

            “And G-d said to Moshe and to Aharon, 'because you did not have faith in Me, to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them'” (Bamidbar 20:12). Although the Torah never tells us explicitly what Moshe and Aharon did wrong, the commentators suggest numerous possibilities. Nevertheless, there is one standard approach, that of Rashi (20:11-12), which is based on numerous Midrashim (e.g. Midrash Yelamdeinu, quoted by Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Agada and Midrash Lekach Tov): Moshe was commanded to “speak” to the rock, but he hit it instead.

 

            Questions on this explanation abound, questions strong enough that many commentators felt the need to offer more innovative explanations (ground-breaking when they were first suggested, even if all these years later they seem “old hat”). Some of the questions asked are more difficult than others; let’s take a closer look at what led so many commentators to abandon the “standard” approach and try one of their own. It should be noted that many commentators work with the basic idea that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni, Sefornu) and try to address many of these issues; by no means should the fact that so many propose alternative approaches indicate that the “standard” has changed.

 

            The most obvious question asked is why, if the whole point was to speak to the rock and not hit it, did G-d command Moshe (20:8) to “take the stick” with him? Doesn’t the necessity to bring his stick indicate that hitting the rock is either what G-d wanted, or that it was at least an option? Additionally, if the problem that resulted from Moshe’s sin was G-d’s name not being sanctified (20:8), the implication is that had Moshe spoken to the rock instead of hitting it, the desired sanctification would have occurred. Since rocks are inanimate objects, water coming out of them after being hit is just as great a miracle as water coming out after being spoken to. How was there such a difference in the level of sanctification because Moshe hit the rock rather than speaking to it? Another major issue that needs to be addressed is how Aharon gets blamed for Moshe’s actions. Both Moshe and Aharon are punished by not being allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land (20:12), and Aharon’s death (i.e. not being allowed to enter the land) is directly attributed to his “rebelling against G-d’s word” (20:24). If the sin was hitting the rock instead of talking to it, why is Aharon culpable for something that only Moshe did?

 

            Which stick did Moshe “take” with him? He hit the rock with “his stick” (20:11), so that must have been the stick he took, the one he followed G-d’s command by taking (20:9), right? However, Moshe wasn’t told to take “his stick,” but “the stick” (20:8), i.e. the “known stick,” the one that was placed in the Mishkan next to the Aron (ark) that held the “Ten Commandments” (17:25), the stick that was “before G-d” (20:9, compare with 17:22-24). As the Rashbam (20:8-10) and Chizkuni (20:8) point out, G-d wanted Moshe to take this stick, the one that blossomed, flowered, and produced almonds, “to show, through it, [the nation’s] difficult rebelliousness, as it says (17:25), [it was kept next to the Aron in the Mishkan] 'for safeguarding as a sign for those who are rebellious. '” G-d didn’t ask Moshe to “take the stick” to hit the rock; it was needed to address “the rebels.”

 

            Although we now know why G-d commanded Moshe to take the stick, we have a different issue to deal with instead. The “stick” proved that Aharon and his sons were chosen by G-d to be the Kohanim (see Rashi on 17:25) and/or that the Tribe of Levi was chosen to serve in place of the first-born (see Ramban). This “rebellion” (if we are to use such a harsh term) was about the conditions in the desert (not enough water), not about who was given the role of serving in the Mishkan. Yes, they asked Moshe and Aharon why they “brought the nation into this desert to die” (20:4), and even why they brought them out of Egypt (20:5), questioning whether this was really G-d’s idea or Moshe and Aharon’s. And it can be suggested that just as “the stick” proved that Moshe didn’t choose Aharon, or the Tribe of Levi, himself, but was only relaying G-d’s commandments, it could, by extension, be a “hint” that Moshe didn’t make the travel plans himself, but was following G-d’s orders. Nevertheless, just showing the nation “the stick” doesn’t really address the aspect they were “rebelling” about; the only real way to address it was to provide them with the water they so desperately needed (which G-d did). Why then did G-d command Moshe to “prove” that Aharon was really chosen to be Kohain and/or the Tribe of Levi to replace the first-born, if that wasn’t what the commotion was about?

 

            “When Miriam died, they did not eulogize her and did not bury her [publicly]. Rather, Moshe [was] at the head and Aharon at the foot, and they went and buried her” (Yalkut Shimoni 787). Wait a second! How could Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, have been Miriam’s pallbearer if even a “regular” Kohain can’t become “tamay” (ritually impure) for a married sister? Tosfos (Kesubos 103b) discusses whether a Kohain would have been allowed to be involved in the burial of Rebbe HaKadosh, and based on this, the Panim Yafos suggests that if it’s true that there are righteous people whose corpses are not “tamay,” there would be no problem with Aharon being involved in Miriam’s burial. After all, the Talmud (Bava Basra 17a) tells us that Miriam was one of only six people that didn’t succumb to the “Malach Ha’muves” (angel of death); her death came through “G-d’s kiss” (as it were), so she would certainly qualify. R’ Eli Steinberg (Minchas Eliyahu) takes it a step further, quoting the Ramban (19:2) who says explicitly that those who die via “neshika” (G-d’s kiss) are not “tamay” since it is the “bite of the snake” (the Malach Ha’muves) that causes the “tumah.” Therefore, Miriam’s body was not “tamay,” and Aharon was allowed to help bury her.

 

            Okay, so now we know that there was no problem with Aharon burying Miriam. But did everyone else know this? What did they think when they heard that Miriam had died and only Moshe and Aharon buried her? They must have wondered how Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, could become “tamay.” When they had no water, and wondered how G-d could lead them to a place where they would die of thirst, the old doubts started to return. Maybe it wasn’t G-d that made Aharon and his sons Kohanim, so there was no issue with his burying Miriam. And maybe G-d didn’t tell Moshe to take the nation out of Egypt and bring them into the desert. The two issues merged together, and G-d was going to deal with each one of them. First He commanded Moshe to take out “the stick,” the one that was “before G-d,” to remind them of the “stick test” that was done 37 years earlier that proved that Aharon was divinely chosen for the Kehuna. Once that was done, all He had to do was provide water, and everyone would know that it was G-d who brought them into the desert.

 

            Did Moshe know this? Did he realize that once the issue of Aharon being chosen Kohain was gone, the “rebellion” against his leadership would also dissipate? Or, did he think that the only “rebellion” the “stick” was meant to neutralize was the one against Aharon? Based on his telling the congregation, “listen up, rebels” before getting the water to start pouring out of the rock, we can assume that Moshe thought that a “rebellion” was still going on, even after having shown them “the stick.”

 

            G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to "gather the assembly" (20:8). However, rather than gathering the "assembly" ("aidah"), we are told (20:10) that they "gathered the congregation" ("kahal"). The word "kahal" is the same word used for "gather," implying that it is a group comprised of individuals that are gathered together, while the word "aidah" (with the root letters of yud-ayin-daled) means "pre-arranged." It is the same word used for meeting together ("va'ad") and "holiday" ("mo-aid"), which is a previously appointed time when people get together. In other words, an "aidah" is a group of people that share a common purpose, an entity onto itself, whereas a "kahal" is a conglomerate of individuals with varying agendas. G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to gather together the nation in order to solve a communal problem (having no water), but they called together all the individuals that comprised the nation, since they viewed them as individuals with personal complaints.

 

            G-d tried to give Moshe another hint that he and Aharon didn’t need to “prove” that their leadership had divine approval, by telling them that after the “rock gives forth its waters,” i.e. on its own after being spoken to, the end result will still be that “you will [have been] the one that brought out water for them from the rock, and you will [have been] the one to give them and their animals to drink” (Bamidbar 20:8). Moshe didn’t need to directly address the validity of his and Aharon’s leadership; once the nation’s needs were met, they would no longer be any reason to doubt whether traveling through the desert was their idea or G-d’s.

 

            Unfortunately, Moshe and Aharon didn’t get the message. They gathered the “kahal,” not the “aidah.” Moshe called them “rebels.” Then came the big moment, the time to actually bring water out of the rock. Moshe and Aharon speak to the rock, but nothing happens. If the only issue is getting water, it makes little difference if it comes out immediately, as long as it comes out. However, if there’s a “rebellion” to deal with, this is devasting. Feeling the need to prove themselves, Moshe and Aharon decide to go to plan “B,” hitting the rock the way Moshe did 38 years earlier. But that doesn’t work either. It’s as if G-d gave them a chance to reconsider their decision to hit the rock, and go back to talking to it. Instead, they decide to hit the rock a second time (20:11). By now, if water doesn’t come out, it would be embarrasing, and people really might start to question their leadership again, so G-d brings out “lots of water” despite the rock being hit rather than spoken to.

 

            Midrash Lekach Tov understands “speaking to the rock” to be, “you (plural) should say to it in My name, 'this is what G-d says: 'give forth your waters. '” Rashi seems to be following this approach (based on his quoting Midrash Agada), as the “sanctification” that would have occurred had Moshe spoken to the rock was the nation saying, “if this rock, which doesn’t speak, can’t hear, and doesn’t have any financial needs, fulfills G-d’s word, how much more so should we (fulfill G-d’s word).” Hitting the rock indicates that the waters were taken out by force, whereas had the waters come out after G-d’s request was relayed, the desired lesson could be learned (see Mizrachi). All hitting the rock proved was that Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was legitimate. Speaking to the rock, besides validating their leadership, would have inspired the nation, and they might not have had similar complaints the next time they had to face the desert’s harsh conditions (21:4-5). (See Sefornu for his explanation as to how hitting the rock was a “category two” miracle while speaking to the rock would have been a “category three” miracle, and what that means.)

 

            The nation was thirsty, and coupled with seeing Aharon bury Miriam, they started to doubt his and Moshe’s leadership. Rather than calmly reassuring them that G-d would take care of them, they fled to the Mishkan (20:6). This implied lack of confidence could have been reversed by calmly speaking to the rock rather than angrily hitting it, but because they wrongly assessed the situation and thought there was still a “rebellion” to contend with, they decided that hitting the rock instead was warranted. Aharon was an integral part of the decision to hit the rock (rather than trying again to speak to it), and together with Moshe had concluded that there was still a rebellion to deal with, not just a communal need. As a result, even though the nation’s needs were met, and any question about Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was resolved, the level of sanctification that could have occurred did not. And because of this, both Moshe and Aharon were not allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land.

Ambassador Oren on Colbert talking about the flotilla

http://bit.ly/9MTfW4

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    After Dusun and Avirum refuse Moshe’s request that they meet with him face-to-face (Bamidbar 16:12), they verbally attack him (16:13-14). Their refusal is then punctuated with these enigmatic words (pardon my opening translation): “Will you gouge out the eyes of those men? We will not go up (i.e. appear before you)!” What do these words mean? Did they really think that Moshe might gouge out anyone’s eyes?

    Rashi understands these words as one statement; “even if you send someone to gouge out our eyes if we do not go up to you, we will not go up.” Even though the eyes being gouged out belonged to “them,” they really meant themselves, but they didn’t want to talk about themselves being harmed. The commentators explain why Rashi uses this approach, including how what seems to be a question can be a statement (see Gur Aryeh), Nevertheless, unless they thought that Moshe might actually physically blind them, the choice of the perceived threat, and the graphic means used to describe how he would blind them, seems a bit peculiar. The Or Hachayim says that they were using an example of the kind of pain and suffering they would prefer to endure rather than having to appear before Moshe. Still, there must be a reason why they chose this specific example.

    Rashbam is among the numerous commentators (e.g. Midrash Agada and Chizkuni) that explain these words metaphorically; “Do you think that these men complaining against you have no eyes to see?” They aren’t blind, and can see what you have done to them (and haven’t done for them), bringing them out of a very good land (Egypt), promising them a better one but only bringing them into the desert to die. Rabbeinu Bachye quotes a similar approach (likely referring to the Tur), but instead of “them” referring to those complaining, it refers to those that came out of Egypt (even those that aren’t actually complaining). Other variations on this include the approach of the Tzaidah LaDerech, where the blindness they are accusing Moshe of trying to cause would be brought about by bribing them; “will you cause them to turn a blind eye by giving them prominent leadership positions?” In order to address the issue of it being “them” that will be blinded (and not “us,” i.e. Dusun and Avirum), the Tzaidah LaDerech suggests that they are saying “even if you bribed us, causing us to disregard what you have done, will you be able to blind all the others” that are part of the rebellion? Ibn Ezra suggests that the “them” are the elders that had remained on Moshe’s side (see 16:25), with Dusun and Avirum telling Moshe that eventually he will lose all of his support. Tzror Hamor understands the “them” to be the Levi’im, i.e. even if you could blind them, convincing your own Tribe that they “have plenty” and shouldn’t want the Priesthood too, we (Dusun and Avirum) cannot be blinded, and will not “go up” (see Alshich). Similarly, the Malbim says that Dusun and Avirum were saying that even if you could fool everyone else, you can’t fool us.

The Kesav Sofer suggests that Dusun and Avirum’s response to Moshe was a long accusation that he craved leadership and did things in order to attain and maintain it; he took them out of Egypt so that he could be their leader, and, knowing that he wouldn’t be their leader once they reached the Promised Land, conspired to delay them for decades in the wilderness. Doing so prevented the next leaders, the “eyes” of the nation, from taking over, so they were accusing Moshe of “gouging out” (keeping down) the “eyes” (leaders) of “those men” (the rest of the nation).

    After giving two ways of understanding the words of Dusun and Avirum metaphorically (either they are stating that even a blind person can tell that Moshe has little substance to back him up or they are asking if Moshe plans to blind them so that they won’t understand the wrong being done to them), the Pa’anayach Raza (one of the later Tosafists) suggests that the “them” refers to the nations living in Canaan, i.e. “even if you blind those in Canaan (such as with the poison of the hornets, see Rashi on Shemos 23:28) we will not be able to go up and conquer them because they are so strong.” (HaKesav VeHaKabbala understands Targum Yonasan to be saying this as well.) This is also the second approach suggested by R’ Chaim Paltiel; his first is that until Moshe is able to blind the nations in Canaan (i.e. conquers them), they will not answer his summons. Targum Yonasan also understands the “them” as being the nations in Canaan, but takes a slightly different approach with some understanding the suggestion to be that Dusun and Avirum were saying that Moshe won’t be able to blind those living in Canaan, and therefore will be unable to conquer it. The Rokayach gives a fourth variation on this theme, suggesting that the Amori’im (one of the primary nations living in Canaan) will blind the eyes of the Children of Israel, i.e. they will prevent them from “going up” and conquering the land.

    The Rokayach’s second approach is also interesting; Dusun and Avirum will not meet with Moshe, in essence gouging out the eyes of Moshe and Aharon by refusing to answer his summons. The Ran (Moed Katan 16a), Midrash Hacheifetz, and Midrash Lekach Tov also explain the “them” to be referring to Moshe and Aharon, with Yalkut M’or Afeila suggesting that Dusun and Avirum didn’t use the word “them” (but said “your eyes,” i.e. Moshe’s); the Torah itself changed it to “them” in deference to Moshe.

    The term for “gouging out eyes” (“nikur einayim”) is used elsewhere in Tanach, and, as Rav Elchanan Samet (www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/38korach.htm) points out, it is meant literally (not metaphorically). Shimshon’s eyes were literally gouged out by the Pelishtim (Shoftom 16:21). When Nachash the Amoni threatened the city of Yavesh Gilad (Shemuel I 11:1), he would only agree not to attack them if everyone gouged out their right eye (11:2; see Rashi who explains it both literally and metaphorically). In Mishlay (30:17), Shelomo HaMelech speaks of the eyes of a disobedient son being gouged out by a raven. Quoting Shemuel Rubinstein’s “Kadmonius HaHalacha,” Rav Samet suggests that having a gouged out eye was a symbol of slavery, as evidenced by what was done to Shimshon, what Nachash wanted to do to the people of Yavesh Gilad, and Nevuchadnetzar blinding Tzidkiyahu HaMelech before locking him up in chains and bringing him to Bavel (Melachim II 25:7). [This gives added perspective to the Torah setting a slave free if his eye is knocked out by his master (Shemos 21:26); whereas other cultures maimed their slaves in order to brand them, the Torah not only forbids maiming slaves, but makes it have the exact opposite affect, as the slave attains freedom instead.] Based on this, Rav Samet says that Dusun and Avirum were paralleling their earlier statement against Moshe’s leadership (Bamidbar 16:13) by asking (rhetorically) whether Moshe planned on gouging out their eyes, i.e. treating them as slaves.

    Another approach suggested by Rav Samet is based on Professor Moshe Weinfeld writing (in “Olam HaTanach”) that gouging out the eyes “was a common punishment for rebellion in the ancient east (and especially in the areas of the Hittites). Indeed, one Hittite document contains a threat of putting out eyes for failure to appear before the ruler: ‘When you receive the letter, present yourself immediately; if not – your eyes will be put out.’” Although Rav Samet does not suggest that Dusun or Avirum really feared that Moshe would do this to them (or they would have obliged), he does say that it is part of their attack on Moshe’s leadership, as they were asking (rhetorically) if Moshe was going to treat them as others rulers treat those that disobey them.

    Based on these suggestions, I would like to take it a step further. If gouging out an eye was the norm for branding someone as a slave, it makes sense that the punishment for disobeying the ruler was to be treated as less than a peasant, to be maimed the way a slave was, to show that this “rebel” is really the ruler’s subject. Dusun and Avirum knew that Moshe wouldn’t do this, but were continuing their verbal attack by comparing Moshe’s edicts with those of the native (primitive?) cultures. “You (Moshe) claim that your teachings, your laws and edicts (such as Aharon being the Kohain Gadol, the first born being replaced by the Levi’im, and Yosef getting Reuvein’s double-portion in the Promised Land), come directly from the Creator, and are therefore superior (intellectually and morally) to every other system of law, but we deny that. We think you are no different than any other ruler, making laws as you see fit (including giving family members better positions).” And, to drive the point home, they added “will you treat us in the same barbaric way as other rulers, gouging out our eyes for refusing to present ourselves before you? Your edicts are no different (or better) than theirs anyway, so why should the way you treat those that disagree with you be any different?” Although they knew that Moshe would never do such a thing, the point they were making was evident. “You do not have the divine authority to order us around, so we will not go up (before you).

Important statement of support for Israel

http://bit.ly/9MTfW4

Parsha Thoughts by Rabbi Dov Kramer

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    “And My servant Kalev, as a result of there being a different spirit with him, and his following after Me completely, I will bring him [in]to the land that he came, and his descendants will inherit it” (Bamidbar 14:24). What about Yehoshua? Wasn’t he also an exception, whereby everybody else but he and Kalev died in the desert? Why didn’t G-d tell Moshe that his faithful student Yehoshua would also be allowed to enter the Promised Land?

    Okay, I know. Yehoshua is mentioned with Kalev later (14:30) as being the exceptions, but why did it take so long for G-d to let Moshe know this? Although the commentators do differentiate between Kalev and Yehoshua insofar as Moshe prayed for Yehoshua (see Rashi on 13:16) whereas Kalev had to pray for himself (see Rashi on 13:22), Kalev spoke up first (13:30) while Yehoshua only joined Kalev in disagreeing with the other spies later (14:7-9), and only Kalev had children and could actually inherit the land, it still seems awkward that Yehoshua was totally ignored initially, leaving his teacher and mentor (Moshe) not knowing (until later) that his student would also be allowed to enter the land.

     Which brings us to a different, perhaps even more difficult, question: Why was the decree against the nation repeated, as if Moshe didn’t already know that the generation was not going to make it to the Promised Land? First, G-d threatens to wipe out the entire nation completely and start a new one from Moshe (14:12). Moshe responds by arguing why G-d can’t (or shouldn’t) do so (14:13-16), followed by his prayer on their behalf (14:17-19). G-d relents (14:20), but only as far as not wiping out the entire nation and starting anew with Moshe (see Or Hachayim). G-d swears (14:21) that no one but Kalev will make it to the Promised Land (14:22-24), again, without mentioning that Yehoshua will also be allowed to go. After telling Moshe that they will therefore have to turn back towards the Sea of Reeds (14:25), the paragraph ends. The tragic story seems to have been told; except for Kalev, the generation will not be allowed to complete their journey.

     But then, in a new paragraph, G-d speaks to Moshe again (14:26), this time with Aharon, although Chazal tell us that that just means that Moshe told Aharon and then together they told the nation (not that Aharon received the message directly from G-d). G-d asks how long He must tolerate the complaints (14:27, compare with 14:11), and tells Moshe and Aharon to tell the nation that He swears that He will kill out the entire generation (14:28-29) so that none of them, except for Kalev and Yehoshua, will make it to the Promised Land (14:30). Why was this repetition necessary, and why was Yehoshua only mentioned the second time?

     As the Or Hachayim and the Netziv point out, the first “paragraph” was told only to Moshe, without any instructions for him to relay the information to anyone else. Only the second time is the word “laimor,” (“saying”) added, i.e. the permission or instruction to tell over what G-d told him to others. The question then becomes why didn’t G-d just tell Moshe that he could/should tell the nation what His decree was the first time? Why did there have to be two paragraphs, one just for Moshe’s ears and one to be shared with everyone else? By taking a closer look at the two paragraphs, an interesting picture emerges.

     When G-d first speaks to Moshe about destroying the nation (14:11), He asks, “until what point will this nation anger Me.” On top of the unwarranted complaining done when the journey to the Promised Land first started (11:1), the crying over the newly-forbidden relationships (see Rashi on 11:10), the insult of the heavenly manna (11:6), the craving for meat (11:4) and the indulgence in it after it was provided (11:32-33), the nation now believed the spies assessment that the inhabitants of Canaan were too powerful for G-d to drive out (see Rashi on 13:31). They cried all night (14:1), wishing they had either died in Egypt or in the desert rather than trying to conquer Canaan (14:2), and tried to organize themselves to head back to Egypt (14:4). The words “until what point” refer to the level of irritation they had brought G-d to (as it were). G-d was so fed up with them that he wanted to wipe them out and start a new nation with Moshe. In this private conversation between G-d and Moshe, after Moshe convinces G-d not to wipe them out there is no mention at all of G-d killing them (even over time). All that G-d says (and swears to) is that “all of those that went against Me will never make it to the Promised Land.”

     Before explaining the difference between not being able to enter the Promised Land and dying in the desert, let’s get back to Kalev and Yehoshua. If they never “went against G-d,” i.e. never angered Him, then they would not have been included with those that wouldn’t be allowed to enter the land. Rather than the question being why was Yehoshua being an exception omitted, the question is really why did G-d have to mention Kalev being an “exception to the rule” if he was never part of the “rule” in the first place (i.e. never angered G-d so wasn’t excluded from being allowed to enter the land).

     Rashi (11:24) tells us that at first Kalev did make it seem as if he agreed with the other spies, telling them that he was on their side (so that they would let him speak) even though he never really was. Malbim takes it a step further, saying that initially Kalev did agree with the rest of the spies, which is why he went to the burial place of the forefathers to pray to be saved from such an outlook. If Kalev initially was with the spies, that means that he had been against G-d. Even if he was never really “with” them (only pretended to be) was saying he was with them enough to be included with those who went against G-d, and therefore excluded from being allowed to enter the Promised Land? In order to make it perfectly clear that Kalev was not, G-d told Moshe that Kalev would cross into the land. Moshe already knew that Yehoshua was not part of that group, so G-d didn’t have to tell him that Yehoshua could go. That Kalev could, on the other hand, was not as obvious, so G-d pointed out that Kalev could go too.

     So G-d told Moshe that He listened to his prayer and he wouldn’t wipe the nation out, but He still wouldn’t let them enter the Promised Land. Does this mean they must die first? The assumption is that the only way for them to not enter the land is if they die before the rest of the nation crosses into it. But is that really true? Isn’t it possible for them to stay alive on the east side of the Jordan River while the rest of the nation crosses over to the west side? Moshe was forbidden from entering the land, but he conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, didn’t he? And the Tribes of Reuvain and Gad settled their families there before everyone else crossed, didn’t they? Had Reuvain and Gad not asked for their inheritance to be there, wouldn’t all 12 Tribes have shared equally on the eastern side (and the western side)? In the first paragraph, the private conversation with Moshe, once G-d agreed not to destroy the nation there is no mention of anyone dying. The rest of the conversation is only about entering or not entering the land.

     Immediately prior to telling Moshe that He wants to destroy the nation, “G-d’s glory appeared to all of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting” (14:10). The Yalkut Shimoni (643) tells us that G-d appeared to them hoping it would get them to repent. Although the context is getting to repent from throwing stones at Moshe and Aharon (or Kalev and Yehoshua; see Rashi), it could be suggested that G-d was hoping that they would also repent from the slander they had said/believed about Him and His land. Had they done so, although G-d had already sworn that they couldn’t enter His land, they wouldn’t have had to die prematurely, and/or in the desert. They could have joined the rest of the nation while they conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, and lived there until they died of natural causes. Their children would have crossed onto the western side of the Jordan and conquered Canaan while they stayed on the eastern side, thus keeping with G-d’s oath while letting them live out the rest of their lives. But, unfortunately, they didn’t repent, and continued to bemoan the thought of having to conquer.

     G-d had enough of their complaining, requiring a second communication with Moshe, this time to be repeated to the nation. G-d asked “how long” this evil congregation would keep complaining (14:27). Not “how much” (14:11, see Netziv), but “how long.” G-d had given them time to reconsider their attitude, but nothing had changed. How long did G-d wait before losing His patience (as it were) and upping the decree from not entering the land to “dying in the desert” (14:29 and 32, as if to drive the point home that now death was part of the decree, whereas it wouldn’t have been had they repented)? “And the men that spoke badly about the land died on the seventh day of Elul” (Targum Yonasan, 14:37). That’s a full month after the spies came back with their report. Some (see Tur/Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 580:2) say it was the seventeenth of Elul, which makes for an interesting symmetry of having 40 days to repent for the 40-day mission. Either way, though, initially G-d swore that they couldn’t enter the land, but didn’t say that they needed to die in the desert. Perhaps they didn’t even need to wander for 40 years in the desert, as this part of the punishment is also only mentioned in the second paragraph. After giving them plenty of time to repent, G-d told Moshe to tell them that now it’s too late. Not only wouldn’t anyone (besides Kalev and Yehoshua) be allowed to enter the land, but they would all die in the desert during the 40 years the nation would have to spend wandering. This way, G-d still kept his word that they wouldn’t die all at once, but they would get what they wished for (14:2), dying in the desert rather than crossing into the Promised Land.

    The commentators on the Tur/Shulchan Aruch ask why the seventeenth (or seventh) of Elul is a fast day based on the spies dying on that day if the death of the wicked is usually celebrated. Based on the above, we can understand not just why there are two separate paragraphs detailing the decree after the sin of the spies, and why Yehoshua is not mentioned as an exception in the first paragraph. If the nation had 30 or 40 days to repent and didn’t, it makes sense to try even more than usual to repent on that day. If nothing else, realizing the consequences of not repenting should help get us to improve our ways.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    “And two men remained in the camp; the name of the first was Eldud and the name of the second was Meidud” (Bamidbar 11:26). Rashi, based on Chazal, explains why they “remained in the camp” instead of “going out to the Tent [of Meeting]” (ibid). Moshe had chosen 72 elders, six from each of the 12 Tribes, and had devised a process for deciding which 70 of those 72 elders would make up the newly-forming Sanhedrin. Eldud and Meidud had made the cut to be part of the 72, but due to their humility, didn’t go to the Mishkan to take part in the lottery that would decide who the 70 would be and which two would be left out.

     Moshe’s dilemma was simple; the math didn’t work. G-d had told him to “gather 70 men from the elders of Israel” (11:16), and with 12 Tribes there could not be the same amount of elders from each Tribe. In order to avoid (or limit) the tension and jealousy that might arise as a result of having two Tribes contribute fewer elders, Moshe used a lottery system. He wrote the word “elder” on 70 (or, according to some, 72) slips of paper (or parchment) and added two blank slips, putting all of the slips into a box. Each perspective elder took a slip out of the box, and “whomever took [a slip that said] “elder” became sanctified (as a member of the Sanhedrin), and whomever took [a slip that was] blank, [Moshe] said to him, ‘G-d does not want you” (Rashi).

If two perspective elders took blank slips (implied by Rashi, and explicit in the Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 1:4), and Eldud and Meidud didn’t take any slips, then there were only 68 finalists who got a slip that said “elder” on it. Yet, Moshe gathered 70 elders and had them stand around the Mishkan (11:24), and they received G-d’s divine spirit through Moshe (11:25). Who were the other two elders? How could there be 70 if only 68 qualified? Did the Sanhedrin end up with two members whom G-d really didn’t want?

The Mizrachi and the Or Hachayim suggest that according to one opinion in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 17a) Eldud and Meidud were actually the two that didn’t qualify. Nevertheless, because they stayed back on their own, they were rewarded with an even higher level of prophecy than the 70 elders. If so, then the other 70 of the original 72 were the ones “chosen by G-d” to become members of the Sanhedrin. However, even they acknowledge that according to the other opinion in the Talmud, Eldud and Meidud were originally supposed to be in the Sanhedrin; if they backed out, we are still left with two “unwanted” members. The Bechor Shor understands that (first) opinion to be saying that Eldud and Meidud were supposed to be part of the Sanhedrin, but explains the second opinion to be that, in order to avoid anyone being embarrassed, they backed out before the lottery even took place. If there never was a lottery, then none of the 72 “finalists” were ever told that they were “unwanted.” However, this is inconsistent with how most understand that opinion, and the issue of having two “unwanted” members of Sanhedrin must still be addressed according to the first opinion. Besides, according to Rashi, both opinions in the Talmud have Eldud and Meidud as qualifying for the Sanhedrin; the only difference between them is whether they stayed back out of humility or out of fear of being embarrassed (see Maharsha).

The Yalkut Shimoni (736), quoting a “lost” Midrash (known as “Midrash Esfa” because it is discussing the verse where Moshe is told to “gather” the elders), provides the names of the 70 elders. Actually, there are two versions quoted, with many names overlapping and others unique to each version. In the second version, Eldud and Meidud are listed as being part of the new Sanhedrin. Rather than having to explain how two that were “unwanted” became part of the Sanhedrin, the question becomes how there were 70 “around the Tent” (11:24) if two of the 70 “remained in the camp.” Numerous reasons are given as to why there were 70 elders (not more or less, see Baal Haturim and Ramban); one reason given (Midrash Hagadol) is based on the perimeter of the Mishkan. The north and south sides of the Mishkan each had 20 beams, and each beam was a cubit and a half wide, so each of those sides had a length of 30 cubits. The western side had eight beams, for a length of 12 cubits, but two of those cubits covered the sides of the western-most beams of the north and south walls, leaving only 10 cubits (internally) on the western side, for a total of 70 cubits (the eastern side didn’t have any beams, just pillars to support the curtain of the doorway). The elders took their respective positions “around the Tent,” each one standing in the cubit they correlated to, but since they were on the outside, they really needed to cover 72 cubits (12, not 10, on the western wall). Midrash Esfa (quoted in Yalkut 737) says that the “Tent [of Meeting]” does not refer to the Mishkan, but to Moshe’s tent, where he still spoke to G-d, which was outside of the nation’s encampment and was also called “the Tent of Meeting” (see Shemos 33:7). [Since we are told explicitly (Shemos 25:22 and Bamidbar 7:89) that G-d spoke to Moshe from the Mishkan, I am assuming that when G-d initiated the conversation, it was from the Mishkan, but when Moshe initiated it, it was in this Tent.] This Tent had the same dimensions as the Mishkan, but without having to compensate for the thickness of any beams, the external perimeter would match the internal one. If Eldud and Meidud “remained in the camp,” the other 70 perspective elders were the ones “outside the camp” standing in their respective cubits around Moshe’s “Tent of Meeting.” If you take a close look at the verse (11:24), it does not say that “the” 70 elders stood around the Tent, but that “70 men, from the elders of the nation” did. The final determination hadn’t been made yet, so all 70 that showed up took their places “around the Tent.” (Had Eldud and Meidud shown up, perhaps they would have combined with the other 72 to represent the 72 cubits of the Mishkan’s external perimeter; even without the thickness of the beams, the space taken up by the bodies of the elders could necessitate 12 on the western side.) The next verse, however (11:25), says that the divine spirit was given to “seven men, the elders,” i.e. the 70 who actually made up the new Sanhedrin. True, only 68 of those “around the Tent” were given that divine spirit; the other two, Eldud and Meidud, the two that had “remained in the camp,” had the divine spirit rest upon them where they were. In the end, though, according to this Midrash, only the 70 “wanted” elders became part of the Sanhedrin.

This only works if Eldud and Meidud were, in fact, part of the Sanhedrin. But they are only included in the second list of names in the Midrash, not the first list (or a third list, in a manuscript in the Vatican quoted as also being part of Midrash Esfa by the Vilna Gaon’s son, R’ Avraham, in “Rav Pe’alim,” pgs. 149-150). Rashi himself (and the opinion in the Talmud he is quoting) would seem to not include Eldud and Meidud in the Sanhedrin, as Yehoshua’s request that Moshe “destroy them” (11:28) is understood as “give them the responsibilities of public service.” Moshe’s response that it would be preferable if the whole nation were prophets seems to indicate that he did not inhibit their prophecy by appointing them to the Sanhedrin, i.e. give them public responsibilities. If Eldud and Meidud should have been on the Sanhedrin but declined, and the two elders that replaced them took a slip without the word “elder” out of the box, necessitating Moshe telling them that G-d didn’t want them, how could two members of Sanhedrin be those that were “unwanted by G-d?”

There is much discussion (e.g. Iyun Yaakov on Sanhedrin 17a) about why Moshe used 72 slips, rather than 12 (since each Tribe would have five “elders,” and the only question was which would have five and which would have six). The very fact that all 72 were put into the same box indicates that all 72 were worthy of being members of the Sanhedrin (not that the first 60 were more worthy than the 12 of whom 10 would make it). We have already discussed how the elders corresponded to the number of cubits of the Mishkan’s perimeter; the 72 pre-qualified elders could be said to correspond to the Mishkan’s outside perimeter. In Meseches Sofrim (2:6), when it lists the amount of lines each “page” in a Torah scroll can have, one of the possibilities is 72, “corresponding to the 72 elders.” Not 70, but 72.We are therefore “forced” to say that when Moshe told them (or would have told them) that they were “unwanted by G-d,” it was in the context of “you’ve already been chosen as one of the 72, and are worthy of being on the Sanhedrin; however, in relation to the other 70 finalists, they are more worthy, and therefore more wanted by G-d.”

Many lessons about leadership can be learned from the appointment of the new Sanhedrin. Included is the necessity of risking being turned down in order to qualify for leadership, as well as taking on the role (when it is given) even when not the first choice.