Midrasch zu Dewarim 16:7

(Ib. b) R. Elazar said: "Those who go on a religious mission, will not meet with evil either going to, or from, their duty." R. Elazar was in accord with the opinion of the Tanna, Issi b. Juda, who taught: "Since the Torah says (Ex. 34, 24) Yet shall no man desire thy land, it is to be implied that the cow shall feed in the pasture and no beast shall harm it, the chicken shall dig in the rubbish and no weasel shall harm it." Now, can this not be inferred a fortiori? If, regarding the things which are exposed to injury, it is promised that no harm will occur, how much the more so regarding things that are usually not exposed to injury? This conclusion I could only arrive at with reference to protection while on the way to perform [a meritorious act]. Whence, however, do we infer that even on the return, no harm will occur? It is said (Deu. 16, 7) And thou shall turn in the morning and go unto thy tents. From this passage we may learn that Thou wilt go and find thy tents in peace. Since even on the return [he will meet no evil], wherefore is it necessary to mention [the protection] on the way going to perform the religious duty? We must therefore say this statement is necessary for the reference to what R. Ami said: "Every man who has land is in duty bound to visit Jerusalem during the festivals, but a man who has no land need not visit Jerusalem during the festivals." R. Abin b. R. Adda said in the name of R. Isaac: "Why was there not Gennesar-fruit in the land of Israel? Lest those who visit Jerusalem during the festivals should say, 'Had we come here merely to enjoy of the Gennesar-fruit, it would have been sufficient. Hence their visit would become not as a matter of duty." The same said R. Dastoe b. Janai: "Why are not the hot springs of Tiberias located in Jerusalem? For the simple reason that those who visit Jerusalem during the festivals, should not say, 'Were it for nothing else than to bathe ourselves in the hot springs of Tiberias that we visited Jerusalem, it would have been sufficient.' Thus their visiting Jerusalem would turn out to be not as a matter of duty."

"uvashel": "bashel" (here refers to flesh that was) roasted (before, the understanding being that it is forbidden to cook it even if it had been roasted previously), as in (Devarim 16:7) "And you shall cook (i.e., roast) it and you shall eat it," and (II Chronicles 35:13) "And they cooked (i.e., roasted) the Pesach in fire as prescribed; and the holy (offerings) they cooked in pots, cauldrons, and pans, and they dispatched them to all the people." From here R.Yoshiyah said: If one takes a vow not to eat "mevushal," roasted (flesh) is (also) forbidden to him. "but roasted in fire": What is the intent of this? I might say: What is (more) fit for roasting should be roasted. It is, therefore, written "but (i.e., exclusively) roasted in fire,"

..."Do not fear him" - this is [the meaning of] that which Scripture stated (Proverbs 28:14), "Happy is the man who always fears." And this is the trait of the righteous: even though the Holy One, blessed be He, reassures them, they do not relinquish fear. And so [was it] with Jacob - "and Jacob feared" (Genesis 32:8). Why did he fear? He said, "Maybe I have been tarnished by something [when I was] with Laban... so the Holy One, blessed be He, abandoned me." And so too did Moses take hold of fear corresponding to his [fore] father. And why did he fear? He said, "Maybe Israel misappropriated [some goods] in the war with Sichon or became tarnished with a sin." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Do not fear"...

(Numb. 21:25:) “Israel took all these towns….” This text is related (to Is. 61:8), “Because I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with a burnt offering.”¹⁵²Numb. R. 19:30. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (in Deut. 2:9), “Do not trouble Moab.” Now Heshbon had been part of Moab, since it is stated (in Numb. 21:26), “For Heshbon was a city of Sihon king of the Amorites,” but he had fought against the former king of Moab [and taken all his land away from him as far as the Arnon]. When Israel came, they took Heshbon, which belonged to Sihon and whatever [else] he had taken from the king of Moab. For if they had taken it from him [directly], they would have had major robbery on their hands. Instead Sihon took it from Moab, and Israel took it from Sihon. Thus they were acquitted from [the charge of] robbery. Therefore it is written (in Numb. 21:26), “For Heshbon was a city of Sihon.” (Numb. 21:27:) “Therefore those who speak in parables say.” This refers to Balaam and his father, whom Sihon had hired to curse Moab. And it was they who had said (Numbers 21:27-8), “[Come to Heshbon,] let it be built; let the city of Sihon be established. For a fire has come forth from Heshbon, [a flame from the city of Sihon]. It has devoured Ar [of Moab].” Thus they cursed Moab so that they might deliver it into [Sihon's] hand. (Numb. 21:29-31:) “Woe be to you, O Moab…. Yet we have cast them down; Heshbon has perished…. Thus Israel dwelt (in all the cities) [in the land of] the Amorites.” [Only] Jazer survived.¹⁵³Numb. R. 19:31. (Numb. 21:32:) “So Moses sent to spy out Jazer.” These spies were zealous. They said, “We have confidence in the prayer of Moses. [Yet] he has already sent messengers [that were] spies in the past and they brought a catastrophe. But we shall not do so. Rather, we will trust in the Holy One, blessed be He, and make war.” They then did so and slew the Amorites who were in [the city]. (Numb. 21:33), “Then they turned and went up […].” What is the meaning of “Then they turned and went up?” R. Johanan says, “The wars of Sihon took place in Elul. Then they celebrated the festival in Tishri,¹⁵⁴Numb. R. 19:32. then after the festival came the war with Og. [Just as you say with regard to the festival of Passover] (in Deut. 16:7), “and in the morning you shall turn to your tents.” (Numb. 21:33, cont.:) “And Og king of Bashan came out against them, he and all his people,” for the Holy One, blessed be He, had gathered [them all] before [Israel] in order to deliver [Og and his people] into their hand.

(Numb. 21:33): THEN THEY TURNED AND WENT UP. Some say the war of Sihon took place in Elul. Then they celebrated the festival in Tishri,²⁰⁹Numb. R. 19:32. then after the festival came the war with Og. [Just as you say] (in Deut. 16:7): AND IN THE MORNING YOU SHALL TURN,²¹⁰In the biblical context the turning denotes Israel turning to their tents after celebrating Passover. while it is written (in Numb. 21:33): THEN THEY TURNED AND WENT UP. Gezerah shawah (a verbal analogy): Just as <the turning comes> after the festival below (in Deut. 16:7), so also here (in Numb. 21:33): THEN THEY TURNED AND WENT UP. <Because of the similar use of the word TURNED, the contexts must have been similar; therefore the turning here in Numb. 21:33 must have taken place> after the festival.

(Bamidbar 29:35) "On the eighth day, a withholding ("atzereth") shall there be for you": Scripture "withheld" him from leaving. If one brought his offerings from Beth Paggai (outside of Jerusalem) to Jerusalem, I might think that he could eat them in Jerusalem and sleep in Beth Paggai. It is, therefore, written "On the eighth day, an atzereth shall there be for you" — Scripture withheld him from leaving (until the morning of the next day [viz. Devarim 16:7]). "atzirah" connotes confinement, as in (Jeremiah 36:5) "I am atzur; I cannot go to the Temple of the L-rd" and (Ibid. 33:1) "Then the word of the L-rd came to Jeremiah a second time while he was still atzur in the prison yard." This tells me only of the last day of the festival that he is forbidden to leave. Whence do I derive (the same for) the first day? It follows inductively, viz. Since both are called "a calling of holiness," just as it is forbidden to leave the first day, so it is forbidden to leave the last day.