ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף דברים 21:7

(1) We must make a distinction between G'ds reasons and Israel's motivations. Israel was very interested in avoiding a major detour around the land of Edom, an inconvenience, which as we have seen in this chapter, resulted in many complaints. Therefore, the Torah credits Moses with the despatch of messengers, (20,14) i.e. G'd did not prevent the people from trying diplomatic means to secure passage through the country. He knew of the futility of the excercise, and that is why all the reasons are listed that could have persuaded the Edomites to grant Israel's request. Edom, in common with many other countries, had two kinds of roads that traversed it. The one used by armies would be far away from the built up areas so as to ensure that whoever travelled that route would not cause damage or interfere with either agriculture or civilization. The other road, the derech messilah, the paved main highway, was the link between the built up areas. On that route would be found suppliers of water and food for travellers. Israel first offered to travel the first kind of road. When refused, Israel suggested using the other type of road, offering economic benefits to the host country by using and paying for the facilities available. In the latter event, they wanted to reassure Edom that they would not cause destruction or damage in their wake, something the Edomites had reason to be afraid of, considering the size of Israel's army. (2) Aaron's death may have been reported, since he was able to see his son Eleazar take over his position, a zechut, merit, that might well have been the reason Moses wished himself a death such as that of Aaron had been privileged to experience. (Sifri Parshat Ha-azinu) He was not buried where he died, since there was concern that Edom might desecrate his grave, were the grave to be situated close to Edom's borders. When we read in Deut. 10,6, "there Aaron died and was buried," the word "there" does not necessarily describe an exact location, just the general area. (3) The absence of the tzaddik Aaron was felt, but not to the extent that lives were actually lost. After Israel had made the vow to destroy the Canaanite cities, the prisoners were freed as a result of renewed fighting. (4) The displeasure of the people was occasioned through the tedious detour around Edom, a march away from the direction of their eventual destination. The general dissatisfaction also led to the search for complaints against the manner of G'ds Providence. Their complaint was that all their provisions, both bread and water were due only to miraculous, supernatural means. They did not feel assured of the continuance of these supplies, and longed for a normal existence based on natural law. The appearance of the snakes reminded the people that an existence based on natural law would be precarious indeed, and that they therefore had no reason to quarrel with G'ds Providence. They realised this when they begged Moses to pray for renewed hashgachah peratit. (21,7) Actually, ever since the blessing Noach had received after he had offered the thanksgiving offering for having survived the deluge with his family intact, snakes ought to have been afraid of humans. (Genesis 9,2) An attack by snakes on humans, therefore, is an extraordinary phenomenon. However, the blessing bestowed on Noach, and through him on mankind, is conditional on mankind retaining its tzelem elokim, reflecting the Divine image accorded by its Creator. When man does not live up to the moral stature expected of him, the animals sense this and act accordingly. As long as Israel lived on a morally high plateau in the desert, the animals had kept their distance. However, as soon as they failed to maintain their standards, the predators also failed to keep their respectful distance. Animals who observe humans provided for by G'd, certainly are afraid to molest such humans. Reliance on help from above, just like during the first battle against Amalek, was demonstrated symbolically by the copper snake on a high pole. When our sages say that Moses actually threw the copper snake up into the air, and that it remained suspended there, that is precisely the point that they were making, namely that help comes only "from up there."

It is part of civilised behaviour to giftwrap offerings. Already Joseph's brothers giftwrapped their father Jacob's gift at the time they had been invited to lunch with Joseph. (Genesis 43,25) "They prepared the gift until Joseph would arrive at noon." Therefore, halachah, Jewish law requires that when a variety of species are brought as bikkurim, they must be suitably separated and presented species by species. The basket itself is also an integral part of the whole offering. "And you shall proceed to the place" (26,2) indicates, that personal attention is preferable to despatch of a delegate to perform this mitzvah. Since the delegate could not have recited the whole passage of the prayer, (due to the nature of its wording) it is clear that the proper way to perform this mitzvah is by doing it personally. The whole procedure then is a practical demonstration of the "you have enthroned G'd" syndrome, a realisation of the verse "For I will proclaim the name of the Lord, render greatness to our Lord." (Deut.32,3) The processional described by the Tossephta, has great psychological significance then. When reading through the statement made on the occasion of presenting the first fruit, it becomes clear that possession of the land is not the result of military conquest, but that the land was a gift from G'd. The priest accepts the basket in the middle of the declaration, i.e. he interrupts the declaration, so as to show that our gratitude needs to be expressed both in general terms (possession of the land) and in specific terms (our personal share of the bounty G'd bestows on this land) (2) The "you will answer" is to be understood as the stage following deposition of the basket of fruit before the altar. At that time, the donor invites the people to acknowledge the gift of the land, after which he himself acknowledges the personally experienced bounty of the Lord. (4) The "confession" containing a reference to Laban, is to contrast our descent to Egypt with our Exodus. Had it not been for the fact that Jacob had married four daughters of Laban, and that he referred to himself as a blood relation of Laban "the brother of my mother," the hatred and jealousy that existed between the brothers (Jacob's sons and Joseph) could not have been accounted for. As it was, it may have been somewhat hereditary, maternally, since all the brothers were grandsons of the envious and jealous Laban. Had it therefore not been for that blood relationship, Joseph would not have caused his family's eventual bondage in Egypt. He would never have come to Egypt in the first place. Whereas the brothers' descent into Egypt then was caused in no small measure by their own inadequacies, their descendants' exodus had nothing to do with their abilities. However "the Lord took us out from there." It was all G'ds doing. (5) The admission that even the source of individual success flows from the altar, which far from consuming our wealth is its true source, is emphasized by the swinging over the altar of the bikkurim'm the various directions. The word arami, is the word rama-i reversed. Laban is called the arami, since a swindler "reverses" the truth. Just as one appreciates a precious stone more if it had been the gift of a high ranking person, its inherent value being enhanced by the recipient's knowledge that he is held in high esteem, so something similar occurs in the case of bikkurim. When the farmer's efforts are crowned with success, he feels as if he is a recipient of a gift from His Maker, the master of the universe. A gift which originates from on high, is doubly treasured. Harvests therefore are celebrated. Vesamachta bechol hatov, you shall rejoice with all the good. (26,11) The way this joy is expressed in practice includes the Levite, the stranger etc. whose status re ownership of the land precludes him from participating directly in this bounty. The generosity displayed at such a time by the Jewish landowner is described in our opening Midrash as the floral contribution made by the bride to the home she establishes with her groom. The groom will, of course, respond by further increasing and matching the gifts already contributed by his bride.

The fact that this interpretation causes the verse to be divided into two, as if it were related by two people, should not be seen as problematic. There are many examples of such verses. In several instances, our Sages would analyze a verse and divide it, saying “The one who related these words, did not relate these.” (See Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim, sec. 58.)³⁸That source quotes the Sages’ interpretation of Shoftim 5:28-31: “ ‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?’… ‘Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder…’ So may all Your enemies perish, O God.” Our Sages state:
Three statements are found, one next to another. The one who made one did not make the other. “Why is his chariot so long in coming?” was said by Sisera’s mother. “Surely, they have found and are dividing the plunder,” was said by Sisera’s wife and daughters-in-law, and the spirit of prophecy concluded, “So may all Your enemies perish, O God.”
Similarly, regarding Devarim 21:7-8: “Our hands have not shed this blood… Atone for Your people Israel… and the blood will be atoned for them.” The elders say, “Our hands have not shed this blood.” The kohanim say, “Atone for Your people Israel.” And the spirit of prophecy says, “The blood will be atoned for them.”
In the same vein, regarding Bereishis 38:25-26: “‘Please, recognize whose seal…’ ‘She is correct. It is because of me…’ He did not cease knowing her.” Tamar said, “Please recognize whose seal.” Yehudah said, “She is correct. It is because of me,” and the spirit of prophecy said, “He did not cease knowing her.”
The Midrash continues to provide several other examples of Scriptural verses that involve different speakers.