Comentário sobre Números 20:1

כל העדה [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — The congregation in its entirety, for those who were to die in the wilderness in consequence of their sin had already died, but these had been expressly mentioned for life (cf. Rashi on v. 22).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION, CAME INTO THE WILDERNESS OF ZIN. “The congregation — an upright congregation, for those who were [punished] with death in the wilderness [on account of sinning in the matter of the spies] had already died, and these were designated to live” [i.e., they were the new generation which was to enter the Land]. This is Rashi’s language, and such is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, why was it necessary to mention this [same expression: even the whole congregation] when they came afterwards unto Mount Hor?⁶⁸Further, Verse 22: And they journeyed from Kadesh,; and the children of Israel, ‘even the whole congregation,’ came unto Mount Hor. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [there] that Scripture mentioned it because Edom had come out to fight them,⁶⁹Ibid., Verse 20. therefore it mentions that none of them was missing when they came back from the city of Edom. But this is not correct, since Israel turned away from him [Edom]⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 21. and did not wage battle with them at all.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it is the Scriptural style to mention [“the whole congregation”] when speaking of complaints, [just as in the following verses]: And all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai;⁷¹Exodus 16:1. See ibid., Verses 2-3, that they murmured for food. And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, by their stages … and encamped in Rephidim⁷²Ibid., 17:1. There too it is related in Verses 2-3 that they quarrelled with Moses, saying, “Give us water.” — and Scripture thereby informs us that they all [participated] in the complaint. Similarly, And all the congregation lifted up their voice;⁷³Above, 14:1. In that case they were discouraged by the report of the spies, and wanted to return to Egypt. And on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured.⁷⁴Ibid. 17:6. There they complained about the death of Korach and his followers. Scripture uses that expression when they came to Mount Hor⁷⁵Further, Verse 22. in order to tell us that they all took part in the mourning for Aaron, the holy one of the Eternal,⁷⁶Psalms 106:16. just as it is said, and they wept for Aaron … all the house of Israel,⁷⁷Further, Verse 29. and it states [furthermore]: in the sight of all the congregation.⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 27. In Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah⁷⁹Bamidbar Rabbah 19:9. I have seen mentioned the text [quoted above by Rashi] — “an upright congregation etc.” — only in connection with the second verse [speaking] about Mount Hor [i.e., Verses 20 and 27 quoted above, which say that ‘the whole congregation came’ to Mount Hor, and that Moses and Aaron went up into Mount Hor ‘in the sight of all the congregation’], for in the case of the first verse [i.e., the present verse, the expression all the congregation] is used because [Scripture wants to indicate that they all joined in] the murmuring, as I have explained.

ויבאו בני ישראל, The children of Israel arrived, etc. Why did the Torah have to emphasise that כל העדה, "the whole congregation" arrived in the desert of Tzin? Who would have doubted that the whole people travelled together? We have learned (Bamidbar Rabbah end of Parshat Balak) on a previous occasion that whenever the Jewish people were on a moral/ethical high they are referred to as בני ישראל. On occasions when they were guilty of rebellious behaviour (such as Numbers 14,11 and many others) they are described as עם; the Torah wanted to inform us that at this time they were all entitled to the flattering description. There are also occasions when the Torah describes the people as עם בני ישראל, suggesting that though many of the people were not on the desired moral/ethical plateau at the time, many others were. This interpretation agrees with a statement by our sages that the words כל העדה, mean עדה שלמה, "a perfect congregation."

ותמת שם מרים, in the first month (Nissan) of the fortieth year. Aaron died after her in the fifth month as detailed in Numbers 33,38.

ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צין, “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived at the wilderness of Tzin.” Nachmanides refers to Rashi as well as to Ibn Ezra who see in the words כל העדה an allusion to the nation now being “whole,” seeing that all the people upon whom death in the desert had been decreed had died by now. He queries that if this indeed were so the words כל העדה need not have been written again in verse 22 when the people arrived at הר ההר. Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the Torah repeated the expression כל העדה in verse 22 is that seeing that Edom had begun to war against Israel, the Torah wanted to inform us that no casualties were suffered on account of that. Nachmanides questions this also, disputing that there had been any confrontation between Israel and Edom, seeing that the Torah tells us that the Israelites backed down from their request to cross the Edomites’ territory as we have been informed already in verse 21. Nachmanides therefore arrives at the conclusion that it is customary for the Torah to describe the Israelites as having arrived “whole,” in paragraphs which precede complaints by the people, as in Exodus 16,1, 17,1, Numbers 14,6 Numbers 17,6, etc. The reason that the Torah used the term כל העדה in verse 22 is to inform us that the entire people participated in eulogizing Aaron and mourning him, seeing that he had died there.

כל העדה מדבר צן, “the entire congregation to the desert of Tzin.” The reason the Torah speaks of כל העדה, “the whole congregation,” is because in the interval all the people who had to die in the desert had already died and the congregation was “whole” again. Now, in the first month of the fortieth year since the Exodus the new generation was about to enter the land of the Canaanites. You should remember that the Torah basically reports only what had transpired during the first year and during the last year of the Israelites’ wanderings.

Those who were to die in the desert had already perished. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Since the Torah writes “Bnei Yisroel” it is obvious that it was the “entire community.” He answers that “those who were to die in the desert had already perished,” [i.e., “the entire community” refers to those who were not destined to perish in the desert.]

Kap. 20. V. 1. ויבאו וגו׳, der Beisatz כל העדה kann schwerlich sagen wollen, dass das ganze Volk in die Wüste Zin kam und keiner zurückgeblieben war. Abgesehen davon, dass gar keine Veranlassung zu dieser ausdrücklichen Prädizierung des Dorthinkommens von der Gesamtheit des Volkes vorliegt, so würde es auch in diesem Falle nur ויבאו כל עדת בני ישראל wie Schmot 16, 1 heißen, und auch dann würde die Bezeichnung des Gesamtvolkes als עדה ihr besonderes Motiv haben (siehe daselbst). Hier wird aber dieser Begriff ganz eigentlich hervorgehoben. Nachdem bereits בני ישראל genannt sind, werden sie noch besonders als כל העדה charakterisiert. Die בני ישראל, ל welche in die Wüste Zin kamen, waren die כל העדה, waren die "Gesamtgemeinde", sie waren die nun für die gemeinsame Bestimmung — das liegt ja in עדה — Vereinigten, das Kap. 14, 29-35 ausgesprochene Verhängnis war bereits vollzogen. Alle, die in die Wüste Zin kamen, waren die עדה, die nun die neue Zukunft antreten sollten. עדה השלמה, wie מ׳׳ר zu demselben Ausdruck V. 22 (siehe daselbst) erläutert, עדה נכנסה לארץ לפי שמתו יוצאי מצרים ואלו מן אותן שכתוב בהן חיים כולכם היום.

ויבאו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel arrived, etc.;” the arrival of which the Torah speaks were was during the fortieth year of their wanderings. Their lengthy detour around the territory of Edom who had denied them passage and whom G-d had not allowed them to harass in any way, had now been completed. It had commenced at Kadesh Barnea, and was concluded in the desert of Tzin. The Torah summarises this period here although it comprised 18 separate moves during which the Tabernacle had been erected and taken apart each time. In Numbers 33, 1936, the details of these moves have been recorded for posterity. The first encampment was at a place called Ritmah, the last at the edge of the desert of Tzin. Concerning that period we read Moses recalling in Deuteronomy 2,5: ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים, “we turned around and journeyed toward the desert in the region of the sea of reeds and marched around Mount Seir, for many years.” That period concluded there in verse 8 with: “we detoured our brethren the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, from the way of the Aravah from Eilat to Etzion Gaver.” From there they arrived at Kadesh, boundary of the Kingdom of Edom, as stated in Numbers 33, 36: “they journeyed from Etzion Gaver and encamped at the desert of Tzin, at Kadesh. What is missing here is only G-d’s warning not to harass the people of Edom (Compare Deuteronomy 2,5).

ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — Why is the section narrating the death of Miriam placed immediately after the section treating of the red cow? To suggest to you the following comparison: What is the purpose of the sacrifices? They effect atonement! So, too, does the death of the righteous effect atonement! (Moed Katan 28a).

VAYEISHEV HA’AM’ (AND THE PEOPLE ABODE) IN KADESH. The intention thereof is to tell us that when they had entered the wilderness of Zin as far as Kadesh, Miriam died. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred [here] when he commented: “[Scripture states vayeishev ha’am, meaning ‘the people dwelt,’ and does not say vayachanu — ‘and they pitched’] because they stayed there for a long time, for so it is written.”⁸⁰The verse is found in Deuteronomy 1:46: So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there. Rashi there explains that the many days were in fact nineteen years. See the note that follows. [This is in error] because the place called Kadesh of which it is written, So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there⁸⁰The verse is found in Deuteronomy 1:46: So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there. Rashi there explains that the many days were in fact nineteen years. See the note that follows. is Kadesh-barnea,⁸¹Ibid., Verse 19: and we came to Kadesh-barnea. From there the spies were sent to see the Land (further, 32:8). As a result of their sin, it was decreed that the people would remain in the wilderness for the following thirty-eight years, and die therein. The first half of this period they spent in Kadesh, namely Kadesh-barnea. It is this Kadesh-barnea which Ibn Ezra equated with Kadesh [mentioned here], and that is an error, as explained. which is in the wilderness of Paran⁸²Above, 13:26. [and not in the wilderness of Zin, mentioned here]. It was from there that the spies were sent out [to see the Land] in the second year [after the exodus], and thence that they returned. But the Kadesh [mentioned] here is in the wilderness of Zin, and they [only] arrived there in the fortieth year [after the exodus], and there Miriam died. The verses are explicit [on this matter].

Why [is the portion concerning Miriam’s death] adjacent. Meaning that this portion does not belong here, for they made the golden calf in the first year following the exodus from Egypt and in the second year they burned the red cow. But, Miriam’s death occurred at the end of the forty years after the exodus.

Our sages apparently viewed the expression כל העדה as sufficient by itself to describe the Israelites in the most glowing terms. There are, after all, 70 different ways of interpreting the text. The reason that the Torah would choose the expression העדה here may be threefold. 1) We know that we will read shortly afterwards about the incident with the "waters of strife" which according to Devarim Rabbah was the reason for Moses' punishment. The reason given is that he addressed the Israelites as "listen you rebellious people!" It was important for the Torah to state that at this time the Israelites were all a holy congregation. Had this not been so the Torah could not have faulted Moses for addressing the Israelites as rebellious. 2) It was also designed to raise the image of Miriam in the eyes of the people by showing that although the people themselves were at their spiritual best at that time, their merit was not sufficient to ensure their water supply once Miriam had died (viz. Taanit 9). 3) The Torah informed us that contrary to Aaron's belief that the people assembled in order to show their last respects for Miriam, they actually assembled in order to quarrel with Moses and Aaron (compare Yalkut Shimoni 763 and Tanchuma). Considering the conduct of the Israelites in the verses immediately following our verse there was reason to assume that they had already descended from their spiritual high before Miriam died; the Torah therefore had to describe the Israelites in glowing terms to prevent us from making that mistake. This leaves us with the question of why the Israelites did not pay Miriam the kindness Aaron had assumed they were showing her. According to Moed Katan 28 the manner in which the Torah described Miriam's death as immediately followed by her burial without a word about anyone mourning her showed that due to the failure of the well the people immediately suffered thirst. This preoccupied their minds more than the respect they should have shown Miriam by mourning her properly. The Torah makes this even plainer by stating immediately after reporting Miraim's burial that there was no water "for the congregation."

בחדש הראשן, in einer Zeit, die den Boden von Menschen bewohnter Länder in Frucht verheißendem Aufblühen zeigt.

וישב העם בקדש, “the people had settled down at Kadesh;” they remained there for four months until the month of Av when they arrived at Mount Hahar, where Aaron died. This was not the same Kadesh as the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 1,46, as at that Kadesh they stayed for many years. (19 years according to our sages.) It was the Kadesh from where the spies had been dispatched on their ill fated expedition.

ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — She, too, as Moses and Aaron, died by a Divine Kiss. But why is it not said with reference to her: she died “by the command (lit., mouth) of God”, (this being the Biblical expression from which is derived the Midrashic statement that they died by the Divine Kiss)? Because this would not be a respectful way of speaking about the Most High God, as it would have reference to a woman. But of Aaron it says in the Sedrah אלה מסעי (Numbers 33:38), “By the mouth of the Lord” (Moed Katan 28a).

Just as sacrifices bring atonement. You might ask: Was the red cow a sacrifice? Surely they did not offer any part of it [on the altar]! The answer is based on Rashi’s alternative interpretation above (19:9), that the Torah calls it a sin-offering in order to say that it is like the holy sacrifices in that it is forbidden for one to personally benefit from it. From there we learn that it is like a sacrifice.

וישב העם בקדש. The people stayed in Kadesh. The Torah mentions this in order to inform us that the people stayed there for an extended period. This is confirmed in Deut. 1,46. The word ישב always suggests something of relatively long duration.

וישב העם בקדש nicht ויחן, wie das temporäre Rasten in den Wanderstationen immer bezeichnet wird, sondern וישב, der Ausdruck bleibenden Niederlassens, wie Kap. 21, 25 und 31. Kadesch wird V. 16 עיר קצה גבולך, eine Grenzstadt des edomitischen Landes genannt, und wenn sie auch wahrscheinlich noch nicht in der Stadt Kadesch selbst waren, so waren sie doch in deren Gebiet, das schon ihren Namen trug. Das Volk glaubte sich daher bereits an dem Ende ihrer Wüstenwanderung, um nach vierzigjährigem Wandern endlich in Kadesch wieder bewohnbare und von Menschen bewohnte Stätten zu betreten. וישב העם בקדש in diesem Gefühle ließen sie sich dort nieder. Sie glaubten sich am Ziele.

ותמה שם מרים, ”Miriam died there;” seeing that the dying of the people condemned to die as a result of their acceptance of the spies’ majority report had commenced there, Miriam’s death as well as Aaron’s, is also reported at this juncture.

So do the death of the righteous… You might ask: According to this, shouldn't the Torah have juxtaposed her death to the sacrifices themselves? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the red cow because they are similar. The deaths of the righteous are not sacrifices, and the red cow is also not a sacrifice per se. Thus we learn one from the other, just as this one brings atonement, so too that one brings atonement.

ותמת שם מרים, Miriam died there, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word שם, "there?" Our sages in Moed Katan 28 say that the people buried Miriam near the place where she died. This interpretation is based on the words ותקבר שם, "she was buried there." Seeing the Torah mentioned the death of this righteous woman it also was concerned with the honour due to the body of such a righteous woman stating she was interred on the spot. We learned in Berachot 18 that the righteous are called "alive" even after they have died a physical death. When the Torah said שם, it wanted to remind us that Miriam was "dead" only "there," i.e. on earth, whereas she lived on in another region, the region reserved for the souls of the righteous. G'd views the righteous as if they were pearls reposing in a jewel box. Whenever it pleases Him He takes out one of these pearls and enjoys looking at it only to replace it at His leasure or to place it in another of His various jewel boxes. A different scholar on the same folio in Moed Katan uses the word שם in our verse as a גזרה שוה, a form of exegesis based on similar words being used in different contexts as proof that Miriam too experienced death in the form of a Divine kiss, i.e. painlessly. All of these explanations are equally valid.

ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם. Da starb dort Mirjam und ward dort begraben. Sie hatte ihre Mission auf der Erde vollendet. Ihr Grab in Kadesch mochte noch den späteren Geschlechtern sagen, dass sie die Erde nicht eher verließ, bis das neue Geschlecht zum Antritt der verheißenen Zukunft bereit stand. Und wenn in der langen, an trüben Erfahrungen so reichen Wanderung an den wiederholten verzweiflungsvollen Abfällen von Gott eben die Frauen am, wenigsten sich beteiligten, die Frauen am meisten das heitere Vertrauen und die ausharrende Hingebung an Gott bewahrten, die Frauen daher auch — nach מ׳׳ר Bamidbar 27, 1 — in das Verhängnis des Aussterbens in der Wüste nicht mitbegriffen waren, und nun in diesem neuen Geschlechte für die neue Zukunft Großmütter und Mütter in das Land der Verheißung mit hineinzogen, die das lebendige Gedächtnis der ägyptischen Vergangenheit und der großen Erlebnisse der Wanderschaft durch die Wüste unter Gottes Schutz und Gottes Führung mit hinüber nahmen in diese neue Zukunft und Enkel und Urenkel mit dem Geiste dieser Gott- schauenden Erlebnisse zu tränken vermochten: so dürfte an dieser ganzen früheren und tieferen Ausrüstung der jüdischen Frauen mit jüdischem Geiste der Wirksamkeit Mirjams, die ihnen als Prophetin voranleuchtete, nicht der geringere Anteil zuzuschreiben sein (siehe zu Schmot 15, 20). Nicht umsonst aber geht wohl diesem Kapitel, das so kurz und schmucklos den Tod der Geschwister Mirjam und Aharon enthält, das große פרה אדומה-Kapitel der jüdischen Unsterblichkeitslehre voran. Dieses Kapitel selbst ist eine große Einleitung zu diesen Toten und sagt: Was in Mirjam Mirjam, was in Aharon Aharon war, das ist mit ihrem Tode nicht gestorben, wie ihr Wirken hienieden in allen Folgegeschlechtern ihrer Nation unsterblich fortlebt, so ist ihr eigenstes Wesen selbst aus irdischer Vergänglichkeit zu Gott, dem Urquell alles Lebens in die Ewigkeit zurückgekehrt. Und wenn das Wort der Weisen (Mo'ed Katan 28 a) lehrt: למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת, dass die Zusammenordnung dieser beiden Kapitel lehre, dem Tode der Gerechten wohnt eben eine solche sühnende Kraft inne, wie dem חטאת־פרה אדומה, so möchte dies wohl auch in diesem Sinne eine Wahrheit sein, dass, wie die פרה אדומה-Institution die Unsterblichkeit und damit die sittliche Freiheit des göttlichen Menschenwesens lehrt, so lehrt beides unmittelbar auch der Tod des Gerechten. Denn wahrlich, der muss geistig blind sein, dem das Sterben eines Gerechten nicht zur lautesten Unsterblichkeitspredigt wird, der in dem, was nun reglos und Verwesungsspuren tragend vor ihm liegt, das noch zu erblicken wagt, was noch soeben in so geistiger Kraft und in sittlich freier Macht Denken und Wollen betätigte, der in der Leiche des Gerechten etwas anderes erblicken kann, als den in den Winkel geworfenen Mantel eines von dannen geschiedenen Mannes. —

By the Divine kiss. Since it is written here שם ["there"], and concerning Aharon it is also written “Aharon died שם ["there"].” Because if it were not for the gezeirah shavah [Scriptural comparison] why does the Torah write “שם” ["there"] twice regarding Miriam. Perforce it was for the gezeirah shavah, to teach that just as there [Aharon died] by the Divine kiss, as it is written, “By the mouth of Hashem,” so too here it was by the Divine kiss.

Why then is it not said concerning her, “By the mouth of Hashem.” There are those who ask: What was Rashi’s difficulty? Didn't he explain that we learn a gezeirah shavah from Aharon through the word שם ["there"]? The answer is that Rashi is asking: Why is the gezeirah shavah necessary? Let the Torah write, “By the mouth of Hashem” explicitly. For we are forced to say that it is not a full gezeirah shavah, because if it is, why is it necessary to write “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon in order to teach that he died by the Divine kiss? We could have learned the gezeirah shavah with the word “there” from Moshe. Rather it is certain that this is not a full gezeirah shavah and therefore the Torah writes “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon. Consequently it should have also written “By the mouth of Hashem” for Miriam. Nonetheless, the Gemara (Moed Katan 28a) explicitly states that we learn the gezeirah shavah from Moshe. Accordingly one must say that Rashi is saying as follows: “She too died by the Divine kiss” meaning that one learns a gezeirah shavah from the word “there” [stated] regarding Moshe. However, regarding Aharon it says, “By the mouth of Hashem,” thus it is not necessary to learn this from Moshe. This was why Rashi says ובאהרן ["However, concerning Aharon"] rather than שבאהרן ["That was [said] about Aharon"].