The portion of Mass'ei discusses the enumeration in detail of the forty two travels of the Jewish people after the Exodus in the desert until they arrived on the east bank of the Jordan river before entering the land. The Torah states:[1] ‘These are the journeys of the children of Israel who left the land of Egypt in their legions, under the charge of Moses and Aaron.’ The question that arises is: why does the Torah repeat all the places of the encampment of the Jewish people in the desert when this has been enumerated in detail previously in the Torah in the book of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers?
The commentators starting from the ancient period, through medieval times, until the 19th century, have addressed this question, whereby ten reasons are given: a. to remind Israel and rebuke them for the provocations;[2] b. to recall and praise G-d for the miracles that occurred;[3] c. to pay tribute to the places that hosted Israel in their travels and the miracles that sustained them;[4] d. to illustrate G-d’s kindness that for most of the time they were not wandering[5] but at rest in one place;[6] e. to reflect the prophecy of Micah[7] that similar miracles will be performed in the final redemption;[8] f. to remove doubt that may arise in future generations about the authenticity of the miracles that occurred;[9] g. by Divine decree, for no reason;[10] h. to praise Israel for following G-d into the wilderness with love;[11] i. to highlight the places where events occurred, which indicate there were other destinations not recorded because no events occurred;[12] j. to make a distinction between necessary travels and travels that only became necessary after the sin of the spies.[13]
Rashi
Rashi in his commentary selects d and a, of the above commentaries: 1. The commentary by 11th century, Rabbi Moses Hadarshan, that argues the enumeration of the places is to reflect G-d’s kindness that Israel was not in a continuous state of wandering during the forty years. 2. Midrash Tanchuma about the provocations of the Jewish people. The commentary of the Midrash Tanchuma in the printed version of Rashi states:
R. Tanchuma expounds it in another way. It is analogous to a king whose son became sick, so he took him to a faraway place to have him healed. On the way back, the father began citing all the stages of their journey, saying to him, ‘This is where we slept, here we were cold, here you had a headache, etc.’[14]
The text as found in Midrash Tanchuma is:[15]
These are the journeys: It is analogous to a king whose son became sick, so he took him to a certain place to have him healed. On the way back, the father began to recount all the stages of their journey, saying to him, ‘This is where we slept, here we were cold, here you had a headache.’ So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Recount to them all the places where they provoked me.’ It therefore says: These are the journeys.
Variations in the manuscripts
While Rashi appears to follow the text of the Midrash Tanchuma, he seems to veer from its original intent in significant ways. This may be highlighted by an in depth analysis of the text of Rashi, in particular in light of how the text appears in six different formats in the manuscripts as found at Oxford’s libraries. The following is a detailed survey of the variations from nine Oxford Hebrew manuscripts of Rashi, compared to the printed version.
1. In CCCMS165,[16] MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225),[17] MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396), and MS. Huntington 425(1403),[18] it is as printed. Six variations in the manuscripts can be found as follows:
2. Instead of ‘we slept’ (yashanenu), MS. Huntington 389 (1301-1400),[19] MS. Michael 384 (1399),[20] MS. Canonici Or. 35 (1401-1425),[21] MS. Huntington 445 (1376–1400),[22] all have the word: ‘we sat’ (yashavnu).
3. Instead of ‘we were cold,’ MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408)[23] omits it completely, and MS. Michael 384 (1399),[24] replaces it with ‘here occurred to us a certain matter.’
4. Instead of the singular: ‘you had a headache’ (chashashta b’roshcha), MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408)[25] has the plural: ‘we had a headache’ (chashashnu rosheinu), similar to the other statements: ‘we slept’ and ‘we were cold.’
5. The Midrashic teaching in the printed version concludes with: ‘etc.’ In MS. Huntington 389 (1301-1400),[26] it includes from the Midrash: ‘So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Recount to them all the places where they provoked me. It addition, MS. Huntington 389 adds: ‘and how many miracles I performed for them in every journey.’
6. In MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408),[27] the introduction to the analogy: ‘R. Tanchuma expounds it in another way’ is omitted.
The question we would like to pose is what is the significance of these minor variations in the Rashi commentary, compared to how it is recorded in its source: the Midrash Tanchuma and Rabbah, and the printed version?
Mitigating the Midrash Tanchuma
The common denominator of the variations is that they aim to mitigate the Midrashic analogy that insists that at each station the Jewish people provoked G-d. This is problematic since Jewish teaching maintains that only on ten occasions did the Jewish people test G-d.[28] The mitigation of the text, moving it away from its purely critical emphasis, how it is found in Midrash Tanchuma, to a more inclusive reading, is presented by two commentators: Rabbi Judah Loew (1520-1609) and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn.
Rabbi Judah Loew in his commentary Gur Aryeh explains that the analogy is not saying that the Jewish people provoked G-d at every station but rather, ‘sleep’ refers to places where they were rested and had tranquillity, and ‘cold’ refers to lack of comfort. The ‘headache,’ on the other hand, refers to illness, or in the interpretation, a provocation of G-d. The purpose of relating the journeys, he writes, is to recall G-d’s love, despite occasional provocations, like a parent who cares for a sick child on a journey, who at times is fine and at times unwell. This analogy, he concludes, should inspire one to serve G-d wholeheartedly.
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn explains[29] that ‘sleep’ and ‘cold’ refer distinctly to two places where there were no provocations: the journey from Rameses to Sukkot,[30] where they stayed for one night, and the journey from Sukkot to Eitam where they travelled for the first time with the clouds of glory they received in Sukkot which protected them (kept them cool) from the heat.[31] The term ‘headache’ alludes to the third destination, Pi Ha’chirot, where they complained, but not for lack of food or water,[32] but rationally, alluded to in the analogy of ‘headache.’ The Jewish people complained:[33] ‘They said to Moses, Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt?’ In both these interpretations, one or two of these examples do not relate to provocations.
In summary, there are two ways to understand this Midrashic teaching: 1. Literal, that the Jewish people provoked G-d, 2. Highlighting various circumstances in general terms or specific places, but not solely focused on provocations. According to the former, the exact wording of the Midrash is important, as they are all terms that denote discomfort for a sick person: sleeping, cold and headache.[34] According to the latter, however, they are describing either the kind of circumstances they were in at a specific place - restful, uncomfortable or in danger (provocative), or relating to specific places. According to the latter (specific places), the first two descriptions - sleep and cold - are not related at all to provocation.
Understanding variations in Rashi’s manuscripts
Based on the above, we can understand the variations of the text of the Midrash Tanchuma in the manuscripts of Rashi compared to the printed text. If the context is the provocations of the Jewish people, the word ‘slept’ is applicable, as it refers to the condition of a person who is not well. If however, the emphasis is not provocation, the term ‘sat’– in the context of a temporary or tranquil stay – is also, and perhaps even more, appropriate.[35] This would explain the wording in most of the manuscripts[36] that has ‘yashavnu’ (we sat), instead of ‘yashanenu’ (we slept).[37]
Similarly, this may explain the manuscript[38] that instead of ‘here it was cold’ states: ‘Here occurred to us a certain matter.’ This appears to also avoid the use of a term that denotes discomfort and thus possibly could be interpreted as a provocation. Alternatively, this may refer to the specific provocation in the form of the worship of Peor or related promiscuity, as ‘matter’ is used in both contexts.[39] This would then suggest provocation in two of the three places. A third possibility is, this manuscript argues by the ambiguity (certain matter) that the examples are not indicative of provocations but rather mere illustrations of a variety of (random) events on a journey. In this context, the reason for the enumeration of the journeys is to recall the history of the Jewish people on their journey out of Egypt, as per the analogy.[40]
Based on the above premise that Rashi’s interpretation of the Midrash is to mitigate its negative meaning, the inclusion in one of the manuscripts[41] of the ending of the Midrashic text together with the addition about miracles is significant. In the majority of the manuscripts and the printed edition the conclusion of the Midrashic analogy is ‘etc.’ - expressly avoiding the conclusion. This may be understood by the way the ending is expressed in MS. Huntington 389, incorporating the wording of the Midrash Tanchuma regarding the provocations of the Jewish people during the travels, but adding: ‘and how many miracles I performed for them in every journey.’ This addition is meant to explain the manner by which Rashi is interpreting the Midrashic teaching in his commentary, alluded to by the ‘etc.’ in most of the editions: that in fact the recording of the journeys of the Jewish people in the desert for a second time in the Torah is to recount the journeys not in the context only of provocations but also the wondrous miracles that took place at every[42] journey, most of which did not involve provocations at all.
Finally, this explains also the variation in the manuscript where the introduction to the analogy: ‘R. Tanchuma expounds it in another way’ is omitted. According to Rashi’s interpretation of the Midrash Tanchuma that does not emphasise the provocations, but on the contrary, the kindness of G-d in providing tranquility and shade, and only one of the terms implying provocation, the second commentary in Rashi should not be seen as an alternative interpretation to Rabbi Moses Hadarshan’s commentary but as a single and complementary commentary, as it also focuses on G-d’s kindness.[43]
Conclusion
In conclusion, the seemingly superfluous repetition of the enumeration of the journeys of Israel in the end of the book of Numbers may be seen in two ways: a part of the rebuke of the Jewish people for their failings and provocations against G-d, and in this light a precursor to the rebuke that begins in the book of Deuteronomy before Moses’ passing. Alternatively, it may be seen as a sign of endearment and love for the Jewish people, expressed by the care and performance of miracles during their time in the desert. Indeed, a third perspective is to combine both perspectives: the kindness of the Al-mighty that allowed stability and peaceful existence for the majority of the period, alongside occasions where there was also provocation. The Rashi quotation of the Midrash Tanchuma, in light of the variations found in the manuscripts, seems to indicate this third perspective, as explained above. The overall analogy, then, of a parent who cares for a child on a faraway journey to find healing, despite challenges, is indeed suitable in this context.
Footnotes
[1] Numbers 33:1.
[2] Numbers Rabba 23:3 and Tanchuma Masei 3. See Numbers Rabba 19:24, cited by Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn of Horodna, (d. 1862), in his commentary Maharzu on the Midrash Rabba, to explain Numbers Rabba 23:3. Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi appears to understand the quotation of this Midrash in Rashi light of a rebuke of the provocations and the descriptions of all reflections of provocations..
[3] Rabbi Tobiah ben Eliezer (1050-1108) writes in Lekach Tov (Masei, p. 141), the reason for recording the journeys is that Israel should know what miracles were performed for them, where they provoked G-d and where they accepted the Mitzvot.
[4] Numbers Rabba 23:4: ‘Why were all these stations privileged to be recorded in the Torah? In return for their having received Israel, the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future give them their reward, as it is written: ‘Desert and wasteland shall rejoice over them, and the plain shall rejoice and shall blossom like a rose. It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice, etc.’ See Numbers Rabba 1:2, cited by Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn of Horodna, (d. 1862) in his commentary Maharzu on the Midrash Rabba, to explain Numbers Rabba 23:4. The Midrash commentary Maharzu makes a distinction between the desert and the sea and mountains that were not hospitable to the Jewish people, signified by the fact that the seal had to split and the mountains were flattened. The desert, on the hand, remained as a desert and recipient to the Divine miracles that allowed for the existence of the Jewish people. The conclusion of the Midrash is: ‘Now if the wilderness will be thus rewarded for having received Israel, is it not certain that one who receives scholars of the Torah into his house, he will be rewarded even more.’
[5] Polish Rabbi Ephraim Luntschitz (1550-1619) puts this in the context of the earlier verse (Numbers 32:13): ‘The anger of the Lord flared against Israel, and He made them wander in the desert for forty years until the entire generation who had done evil in the eyes of the Lord had died out.’
[6] 11th century Rabbi Moses Hadarshan, head of the Yeshiva in Narbonne, explains that the journeys are recorded to inform us of the kind deeds of the Omnipresent, for although He issued a decree to move them around from place to place and make them wander in the desert, you should not say that they were moving about and wandering from station to station for all forty years, and they had no rest, because there are only forty-two stages. Deduct fourteen of them, for they all took place in the first year, before the decree, from when they journeyed from Rameses until they arrived in Rithmah, from where the spies were sent, as it says, “Then the people journeyed from Hazeroth and camped in the desert of Paran (Numbers 12:16)”; “Send out for yourself men (Numbers 13:2),” and here it says, “They journeyed from Hazeroth and camped at Rithmah,” teaching us that it [Rithmah] was in the desert of Paran. Subtract a further eight stages which took place after Aaron’s death-from Mount Hor to the plains of Moab-during the fortieth year, and you will find that throughout the thirty-eight years they made only twenty journeys. Rashi on Numbers 33:1.
[7] Micah 7:15: ‘As in the days of your exodus from the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders.’
[8] Rabbi Tobiah ben Eliezer (1050-1108) in Lekach Tov, Masei (p. 141).
[9] Maimonides (1135-1204) in the Guide for the Perplexed (3:50) writes: the reason for recording the travels in the desert is so that, while the people who witnessed the miracles had no doubt, later generations would, saying that the journey of the Jewish people may have been in the desert, close to civilised surroundings or parts of the desert where food and water can be found. For this reason the Torah lists the places during the forty years to remove doubt that it was due to the Divine miracles that the Jewish people survived the forty years in the desert.
[10] Nachmanides (1194-1270) writes that the true reason for recording the travels is esoteric and due to the will of G-d, as it states (Numbers 33:2): ‘Moses recorded their starting points for their journeys according to the word of the Lord, and these were their journeys with their starting points.’
[11] Italian Rabbi Ovadia Sforno (1475-1550) commentary on Numbers 33:1.
[12] German 16th century Rabbi Simeon Halevi Oshenburg from Frankfurt (Devek Tov Biurei Rashi, p. 172, Published in England, 1914).
[13] Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar (1696-1743) in Ohr Hachaim on Numbers 33:1. He explains that the first category of praiseworthy travels is indicated in the verse (Numbers 33:1): ‘These are the journeys of the children of Israel who left the land of Egypt in their legions, under the charge of Moses and Aaron.’ The second category due to the sin of the spies is indicated in the following verse (Numbers 33:2): ‘Moses recorded their starting points for their journeys according to the word of the Lord, and these were their journeys with their starting points.’ The statement in the first verse: ‘These are the journeys’ is to make this distinction.
[14] Midrash Tanchuma Massei 3, Numbers Rabbah 23:3.
[15] Numbers Rabba 23:3 and Tanchuma Masei 3. See Numbers Rabba 19:24, cited by Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn of Horodna, (d. 1862), in his commentary Maharzu on the Midrash Rabba, to explain Numbers Rabba 23:3.
[16] Fol. 126.
[17] Fol. 97. The words ‘to heal him’ and ‘to recount’ was omitted and corrected in the margin.
[18] Fol. 69.
[19] Fol. 92.
[20] Fol. 117.
[21] Fol. 193.
[22] Fol. 63.
[23] Fol. 89.
[24] Fol. 117.
[25] Fol. 90.
[26] Fol. 92.
[27] Fol. 89.
[28] Numbers 14:22, Talmud Arachin 15a. Ethics of the Fathers 5:4.
[29] Likkutei Sichot 8:391.
[30] Exodus 13:20.
[31] Exodus 13:21. See Talmud Sukkah 11b; Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim 625 the connection between the definition of a Sukkah and a shade from the sun, similar to the clouds of glory.
[32] Exodus 15:24; Exodus 16:2; Exodus 17:1, Numbers 11:4; Numbers 20:2; Numbers 14:2; Numbers 21:5. See Likkutei Sichot 8:392, footnote 21.
[33] Exodus 14:11. Rashi commentary: ‘They travelled from Succoth: on the second day, for on the first day they came from Rameses to Succoth.’ Sukkot
[34] Sleeping outdoors while travelling on a journey can also be a source of discomfort. See Likkutei Sichot 8:391 footnote 8.
[35] See Rashi on Genesis 37:1.
[36] MS. Huntington 389 (1301-1400), MS. Michael 384 (1399), MS. Canonici Or. 35 (1401-1425), MS. Huntington 445 (1376–1400).
[37] Although the words are similar in the Hebrew – and a nun can easily become mistaken for a vet when copying a manuscript, in our case, it may not be incidental but rather a deliberate change to reflect the more positive interpretation of the Midrash.
[38] MS Michael 384.
[39] Numbers 25:18: ‘Incident (d’var) of Peor.’ Deuteronomy 24:1: ‘He discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter (davar).’ Talmud Gittin 90a.
[40] This may be reflected in the first reason given by Rabbi Tobiah ben Eliezer (1050-1108) who writes in Lekach Tov, Masei, (p. 141), the reason for recording the forty two journeys is that Israel should know what miracles were performed for them, where they provoked G-d and where they accepted the Mitzvot.
[41] MS. Huntington 389.
[42] The addition in MS. Huntington 389 writes literally: ‘miracles at each and every journey’ (b’chal masa u’masa).
[43] In Likkutei Sichot 18:390, footnote 4, it gives a different reason for the introduction to the analogy ‘R. Tanchuma expounds it in another way,’ as opposed to the more standard ‘davar acher,’ indicating the second comment as an alternative interpretation, due to both comments being contingent on each other to explain combined the reasons for all the journeys. The reason being since the reasoning of Rabbi Moses Hadarshan that highlights G-d’s kindness that He did cause constant wandering for thirty eight years, would only explain a reason to enumerate the twenty travels that took place during that time. The analogy of Midrash Tanchuma explains the enumeration of the remaining journeys, fourteen before the sin of the spies and eight after the death of Miriam.