Parshat HaShavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion

This parasha series is dedicated
in memory of Michael Jotkowitz, z"l.

PARASHAT MASEI

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

In loving memory of our cousin Jeremy Steinberger, Yirmiahu Ben Moshe by Ellen and Stanley Stone, and their children.

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

This shiur is dedicated to the memory of Rabbi Aaron Wise z"l (whose yahrzeit was Tamuz 21), by the Wise and Etshalom families. Yehi Zikhro Barukh.

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

The Epilogue

By Rav Yair Kahn

1. The Journeys

The parasha begins with a recap of Benei Yisrael's journey through the wilderness with a comprehensive list of all the stops along the way. At first glance this record would appear to introduce nothing new: our impression is that this parasha should be viewed as a summary and conclusion of the entire sefer. Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine that there is nothing to be learnt from this detailed list. In general, our assumption is that all sections of the Torah, even the seemingly repetitive or redundant, come to teach us something new. Is there nothing at all that we derive from the first 49 verses of our parasha? This question was posed by Maimonedes, who writes in his Guide to the Perplexed (3, 50):

If we want to understand this issue, a closer look at the list of journeys is in order. Upon examination, we find a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies, which undoubtedly contain a message. On one hand, the list of journeys in our parsha does not always correspond to the description of the events as they previously appeared in the course of the narrative. For instance, in parashat Masei we read:

Undoubtedly, these discrepancies are meant to shed new light on those specific points of the journey (see Ramban Bemidbar 33:41). However, what concerns us here is not the discrepancies between the stops as detailed in our parasha and the description found in other parshiot, but rather an inner inconsistency within our parasha itself, which is most instructive in understanding this section as a whole.

This inner inconsistency is addressed by Ramban:

The Ramban questions why certain events, such as the lack of water in Refidim, are mentioned in the review of the journeys, while seemingly similar events - such as the lack of water at Mara – are totally ignored. His solution - that more significant events warrant mention, while relatively minor events do not – is difficult to accept. After all, we find not a hint of such events as the Revelation at Sinai, the sin of the golden calf, and the sin of the spies. Does the the lack of water at Refidim surpass the importance of these momentous events? And is it reasonable that such an obvious argument eluded the Ramban? In order to attain a better appreciation for what he is saying, let us examine the verses, paying special attention to what the Torah chooses to mention and specifically to any deviation from the standard form: "They journeyed from… and encamped at …"

Even a cursory glance at the above, reveals that the entire middle section, verses 15-35, follows the standard format. All the deviations are concentrated in the first 14 verses and in the 14 verses at the end. The deviations – additions, elaborations – emphasize the departure from Egypt and entering the uninhabited desert, on one hand, and then finally, after a lengthy stay in the desert, once again returning to civilization, specifically Eretz Yisrael. Within this context, we find a specific focus on water, hinted at in the mention of the three-day journey to Mara (verse 8, see Shemot 15:22) and Kadesh (verse 36), and mentioned explicitly at Eilim (verse 9) and Refidim (verse 14).

In other words, the beginning of parashat Masei is not merely a list of all the places where Benei Yisrael set up camp. It is a narrative, relating a story of courage and faith as Am Yisrael leave a civilized and irrigated land and follow the clouds of glory into the wilderness, armed only with a promise that they will eventually be taken to the Land of Israel. Seforno writes:

In addition, it is a testament to Divine providence, as God sends Benei Yisrael into the desert, miraculously tends to all their needs for forty years, and then leads them out of the wilderness and to the border of Eretz Yisrael. In his Moreh Nevukhim, Rambam explains the message of the list of stops as follows:

Ramban quotes the Rambam in his commentary; it is therefore reasonable for us to interpret the Ramban from this perspective as well. Accordingly, the Ramban never asks why the Revelation at Sinai, or the sin of the spies, is omitted from the list. His question focuses on the contrast between Refidim and Mara. In both places, Benei Yisrael suffer due to lack of water, yet regarding Mara there is only a hint, while explicit mention is made of the problem in Refidim. The giving of the Torah, however important, is not part of the narrative describing the miraculous nature of the journey in the wilderness, and is therefore not relevant in this context.

2. The Elders of the tribe of Yosef

Following the list of stations, we find several sections that deal with the conquest of the land of Israel and its division among the tribes. Sefer Bemidbar then concludes with the account of an exchange that took place between the elders of the tribe of Yosef and Moshe regarding the inheritance of Tzelafhad's daughters. The location of this section is quite curious: it would seemingly have been more appropriate in parashat Pinchas, immediately after the daughters' request for an inheritance is granted. These two sections are two halves of the same story, and it would seem natural for them to be juxtaposed. Instead, this exchange is postponed to the very end of Sefer Bemidbar. Is this a fitting end to the Sefer? Does it not seem more logical that the Sefer should conclude with the wrap-up of the journeys? Perhaps the Torah preferred to end Sefer Bemidbar with a view towards the conquest and inheritance of the land of Israel. But does the anti-climactic quibbling over the specifics of that inheritance qualify as an appropriate conclusion? Would it not have been more fitting to end with the inheritance of the entire nation than with the specific dilemma of an individual family? Apparently, this section contains a message relevant to the conclusion of Sefer Bemidbar. It is our job to try to discover that message.

Let us examine the issue presented by the elders of the tribe of Yosef. Having established themselves as his heirs, the daughters of Tzelofchad had a legal right to his portion of the land. The elders were concerned that the daughters would marry out of the tribe and as a result, Tzelofchad's portion would be inherited by the husbands or by their children, who would be members of a different tribe. God agrees with the elders and instructs the daughters of Tzelofchad to marry within their tribe.

There seems to be a basic discrepancy between the daughters' request and that of the elders. The daughters are concerned with a purely legal issue relating to the laws of inheritance: who inherits the property of a person who had only daughters and no sons? God responded that, under these circumstances, the daughters are the legal heirs. The elders of the tribe, on the other hand, who have a broader perspective of tribal relations on the national level, are concerned with potential tensions that may build up as a result of the application of this law, but seem to have no legal basis for their request. In fact, the response to the daughters of Tzelofchad forms the basis for the laws of inheritance that apply throughout the ages, while the response to the elders was binding only during the actual division of the land, and eventually became obsolete (see Ta'anit 30b). Nevertheless, we find a parallel response to both requests, using exactly the same term - "ken" ("indeed," or "correct").

Perhaps the position of the elders was also rooted in a legal right - that of the tribe. After all, the land was divided not only among families, but also among the tribes. The ruling on the petition of the daughters of Tzelofchad created a legal dilemma between these competing rights. The implementation of the ruling meant that a portion of the inheritance belonging to the tribe of Menashe and divided among its members, would in effect end up belonging to another tribe. Therefore, the daughters of Tzelofchad are told to marry within their tribe, in order to resolve the tension between the individual and tribal rights.

In other words, the concluding section of the Sefer is, in effect, a reaffirmation that the tribal system will remain intact even after Benei Yisrael cross the Yarden. Although one could have imagined the tribal system was relevant only as long as Benei Yisrael traveled through the desert, the Torah explicitly maintains this system for the future settlement of Eretz Yisrael as well.

From this perspective, the exchange between Moshe and the elders is a very fitting conclusion to the Sefer. After all, we have already noted that the counting of each individual within the tribal context, with which the Sefer begins, comes to stress the importance of respecting tribal independence as well as individual uniqueness. The Torah is concerned with retaining both personal singularity and tribal identity, not out of pragmatic concerns specific to the journey through the wilderness, but on the ideological level, preferring harmony over uniformity (see the shiur on parashat Bemidbar). This idea is revisited in the closing section of the Sefer, during the preparations for the crossing of the Yarden. The Torah, within the context of a local dispute that emerges from a conflict between personal and tribal rights, stresses once again the importance of individual autonomy on the one hand and tribal authority on the other.

There may be an additional reason why this particular section was chosen to conclude Sefer Bemidbar. The Torah emphasizes that these elders were the descendants of Yosef, even though the tribal issue relates only to the tribe of Menashe:

Rashi notes a similar phenomenon in the first half of the story, as recorded in parashat Pinchas:

However, in parashat Pinchas, the basic reference is to the family of Menashe who is identified as the son of Yosef. In our parasha, the direct reference is to the family of Yosef's children. Moreover, in our parasha, Moshe responds, "The tribe of the sons of Yosef has spoken well" - describing the elders as representing the "tribe of Yosef's children."

In addition to the focus on Yosef, let us recall where we first met the children of Makhir, the son of Menashe. At the end of Bereishit, we learn:

According to Rashi (based on the Targum), Yosef helped to raise his great-grandson. If so, the childhood of the sons of Makhir began in Egypt, prior to th