Parasha: Behaalotcha · Aliyah: Third (Tiferet)

בשנה השנית, in the second year, etc. Why did the Torah change its style in this instance by mentioning first the year and then the month of this event? When you look at the beginning of the Book of Numbers you will find that the Torah first mentions the month before mentioning the year. Not only this, but in our verse here the Torah does not even mention the month at all until after it referred to the Exodus. It would not have been necessary to interrupt mention of the date if the month in which G'd issued this command had been mentioned first. Another peculiarity in this paragraph is the absence of the customary instruction to Moses to "speak to the children of Israel!" The letter ו in the word ויעשו also needs explaining. To which previous instruction does that letter ו refer? Why was it altogether necessary to issue instructions to the Israelites to observe the Passover when this had already been commanded in Exodus 12,43? Apparently, the Torah was afraid that the Israelites had understood the previous commandment to apply only in Egypt and in the land of Israel so that the Torah had to make plain that it was a commandment which applied also during their stay in the desert.

It appears that the repetition has to do with the prohibition of a בן נכר to eat of the Passover. According to the Mechilta on Exodus 12,43 that expression meant that anyone who was either a Gentile or a Jew who deliberately flouted G'd's laws was "estranged" and was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice. Seeing that in the interval since the Exodus the Israelites had become guilty of making the golden calf and worshiping it they had reason to believe that the injunction in Exodus 12,43 applied to them. This is especially so seeing that we are taught in Chulin 5 that anyone who acknowledges any deity other than G'd is considered as if he had denied all of Judaism. While it is true that G'd had accepted the repentance of the Jewish people after Moses had stayed on Mount Sinai three times for 40 days to beg for forgiveness, the people had not yet been told that that sin had been atoned for and there remained a lingering doubt concerning that forgiveness. The people therefore needed special permission in order to proceed and to offer the Passover on the anniversary of the Exodus. This is also why the Torah proceeds without the customary "speak to the children of Israel" to introduce this command simply as a corollary to the original Passover, and it uses the conjunctive letter ו when writing "and they shall perform the Passover." The word ויעשו tells the Israelites that not only had G'd reconsidered His original intent of destroying them but He had even consented to let them bring the Passover.

Now we can also better understand why the Torah began this chapter by first mentioning the year in which this command was issued. Seeing that the whole paragraph only intended to sanction the fact that the Israelites would offer the Passover, the Torah speaks of the second year so that we would appreciate that this was after the episode of the golden calf. Had the Torah commenced by first mentioning the month we would not have been struck by the fact that the command was issued after the episode of the golden calf. G'd did not tell Moses: "speak to the children of Israel," as He did not want to command them to do this; rather He wanted to permit them to offer the Passover. Seeing that the Talmud (Pessachim 6) claims that this communication occurred on the first of Nissan, it may have occurred before the שכינה descended onto the Tabernacle on that day, and it was G'd's way of informing the people that they had been found worthy to offer the Passover. Subsequent to this communication the Presence of G'd descended and this is why we find the Torah continue in verse 15 with: וביום הקים את המשכן כסה הענן.

And there were (literally, was) men, etc.: One needs to know why it used the singular form for the many. And also why was it necessary to say, and they could not make the Pesach offering, since it informed us that they were impure. And maybe it is from the angle of that which God commanded on Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the month) about the Pesach offering, as they explained in Pesachim 6a, that the statement (Numbers 9:2), "And the Jews shall make the Pesach offering," was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. And it would have been proper to guard against impurity [to reach the day of the offering, the fourteenth of Nissan, in a state of purity]. And one might attribute a defect to them that they did not keep the commandment of God and that they became impure and did not concern themselves with the commandment of the Pesach. Hence the verse teaches to say, And there was in the singular form, to say that there was only one matter of impurity by which [all of these] people became impure. And that matter of impurity was not in their power to guard from and they became impure against their will, as per their statement, may their memory be blessed (Sukkah 25a-b). Whether according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean who said that they were the carriers of Yosef's coffin, whether according to Rabbi Akiva or whether according to Rabbi Yitzchak who said they were impure from involvement with a corpse that required burial (met mitsvah), they needed to become impure - even if they knew that their impurity would last through the fourteenth. And this is to what the statement, and they could not make the Pesach offering hints to, saying that they could not guard themselves from impurity to make the Pesach offering. And about its stating, on that day, the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, already made a precise inference (Pesachim 90b) - for one master according to his opinion and for [the other] master according to his opinion. It also wanted to say by using the singular form that it was from the angle of their being individuals that that the could not do the Pesach offering, but if they had been the community, they could have done the Pesach offering, as it can come in impurity [in such circumstances]. Later I saw in the Sifrei of the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that they made such a precise inference.

לנפש אדם, by the dead body of a man; the reason the Torah defines the nature of these people's ritual impurity is to tell us that if their ritual impurity had been of a less severe nature such as due to contact with certain dead animals such as mice, etc., this would not have prevented them from eating of the Passover as their impurity would have ceased at sundown if they had immersed themselves in a ritual bath at some time during the fourteenth of Nissan (Pessachim 90). If a person had been ritually impure due to contact with a dead body he would not have been able to eat the Passover even if the last day of his purification rites (the seventh day) had occurred on the 14th of Nissan. The reason is that others would not have been allowed to slaughter it on his behalf on the fourteenth (the day it had to be slaughtered). We derive this restriction from the words ביום ההוא, on that day, which are interpreted to mean that he could only have been fit to eat it on the morrow of the fourteenth. Even if we were to understand the word ביום ההוא as referring to the actual impurity having occurred on the fourteenth, i.e. contact with a dead mouse on that day, the additional restrictive words לנפש אדם would still imply that others could slaughter the Passover for a person who had incurred only this minor kind of impurity.

ויקרבו לפני משה, They approached Moses, etc. The reason they wanted Aaron present when they approached Moses was that in the event Moses would give a ruling that they could proceed with their part in the Passover, Aaron would receive immediate instructions to slaughter the lamb on their behalf. Our sages in Baba Batra 119 phrased their amazement as follows: "Is it conceivable that they stood in front of Moses and turned to Aaron when Moses did not know? Whence would Aaron know if Moses did not know?" Rabbi Yoshiah answers that we must view this verse as having been truncated (not presented in the proper sequence) and interpret it in this light. Abba Chanan, quoting Rabbi Eliezer felt that the people in question did indeed stand facing both Moses, Aaron, as well as the elders simultaneously having encountered all of them in the hall of study where they had come to enquire from Moses about their status. Thus far the Talmud. What precisely was the difference of opinion of the scholars quoted there? According to the Talmud the problem that faced the scholars was whether one accords respect to subordinates in the presence of their superiors, i.e. should the enquirers display respect for Aaron and the elders in the presence of Moses, etc.? The decision arrived at by the Talmud is that one does not accord respect to the subordinates when their superiors are present. At the same time, the Talmud says that the decision is that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors. How do we reconcile these conflicting statements? The Talmud resolves this quandary by saying that whenever the superior is himself perceived as according honour to his subordinates we too must honour the subordinates even when we are in the presence of their superiors. However, when the superiors are not seen according honour to their subordinates we must not do so either whilst their superiors are present. This proves that Rabbi Yoshiah on the one hand and Abba Chanan on the other are wide apart in their views on the subject. The former holds that even in a situation where the superior is seen to accord honour to his subordinates one is not allowed to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors, (and this is why the verse has to be understood that after having enquired from the elders and then from Aaron and not having received a ruling, these Levites finally went to Moses himself to get a ruling). Abba Chanan holds that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors even when their superior is not seen as according honour to them.

We need to examine why the Talmud describes the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan as so wide. This is contrary to an accepted principle in the Talmud to try and present any divergence of opinions by different scholars as minimal rather than as maximal. If we were unaware whether the discussion between these two Rabbis took place in an instance where the superior did accord honour to his subordinate or not, why does the Talmud arrive at the conclusion that these two scholars argued across the board when it would have been easier to present their conflicting views as pertaining to two different situations and thus narrow them? The Talmud should have told us the final decision only after having presented the views of the two scholars without mentioning the context in which they disagreed and explaining that they addressed themselves to different circumstances.

I believe the reason that the Talmud was forced to present the disagreement between these scholars as wide-ranging was because of the examples in whose context their opinions were expressed. If these scholars disagreed about whether to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of how the superiors related to the subordinates the argument quoted in the Talmud makes sense. If, however, they disagreed only in one of the two situations where the subordinates were in the presence of their superiors when a query was addressed to the latter, why did the Talmud not say that in the alternative situation the two scholars do not disagree? It is clear that the reason the Talmud was forced to present the argument covering both situations in which the subordinates are present when their superiors are being asked for a ruling is the fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself compelled to reverse the apparent meaning of our verse. He would not have read it as if the words "in the presence of Moses" had appeared at the end of the verse rather than at the beginning except for the fact that he held that even when the superior accords honour to the subordinate in his presence, others are not allowed to do so.

Surely Rabbi Yoshiah would have preferred not to have done violence to the sequence of the wording in our verse if he had been able to reconcile the wording as it stands with his view regarding whether one accords honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors at least when the superior himself is seen to do so! Had Rabbi Yoshiah held that when the superior is seen according honour to his subordinate when in his presence we too must accord such honour to the subordinates, he would not have needed to reverse the position of Moses in our verse, but would have explained simply that Moses was in the habit of according honour to his subordinates when they were in his presence. In view of the fact that Moses was the most humble man that ever lived, it would have sounded perfectly reasonable to argue that he did indeed accord honour to his subordinates in his presence. This would have been even more reasonable in view of the fact that his brother Aaron was his senior! Moreover, we find (Mechilta Parshat Bo 12,1) that when Moses and Aaron both stood in front of Pharaoh that Moses accorded honour to Aaron by letting him speak first.

When Rabbi Yoshiah insisted that our verse does not describe matters in the order in which they occurred, he made it plain that he holds that one does not accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of whether the superior accords honour to them or not. We find a similar argument between these scholars in the paragraph dealing with the daughters of Tzelotchod where the Torah describes them as standing in the presence of Moses and Eleazar (Numbers 27,2). The Sifri on that verse asks how it was possible that the daughters of Tzelofchod expected Eleazar to know something that Moses himself did not know? The answer given in the name of Rabbi Yoshiah is that we must read the verse in a reverse order, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod only approached Moses after the High Priest Eleazar had been unable to give them a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, Abba Chanan gives the same answer that he gave in connection with our verse, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod went looking for Moses and they found both Moses and Eleazar as well as the elders and the community at the entrance of the Tabernacle where they were engaged in studying Torah. The fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself forced to rearrange the sequence of the words in Numbers also clearly shows that he held that the princes were not in the habit of showing honour to the people at large while they were in the presence of Moses. It is even less likely that Rabbi Yoshiah could conceive of Moses, the king of Israel, going out of his way to accord honour to the entire congregation. Nonetheless Abba Chanan held that even when the superior, i.e. Moses, did not accord special honour to his subordinates, outsiders must accord honour to their superiors even in the presence of a king who himself had not accorded honour to such people who were at one and the same time superior to the multitude but subordinate to Moses. The reason the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan is reported on two different occasions in connection with two separate events is that the two scholars were so far apart in their viewpoints.

Why should we be diminished, etc.: One needs to know the claim of the people in their statement, "why should we be diminished." Is the reason not answered by their own mouths - "we are impure"? And what do they want given to them - a new Torah? And maybe it is from the angle that they became impure with His consent, may He be blessed. Whether according to the opinion that they became impure from a corpse requiring burial or whether according to the opinion that they carried the coffin of Yosef, they thought that God would judge them as if they were pure, and in the same way that we find (Pesachim 77a) that God accepts the Pesach offering of the community when it is impure. And for this [reason], they claimed, "why should we be diminished" - and just because they preformed a commandment, they should be diminished from the Pesach offering? Or they meant to say that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering, like with the festive (chagigah) offering, about which they said (Chagigah 9a), "celebrate (chagog) the holiday through the whole festival." So too, God should command them that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering the next day, and that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time, which is the time of the Pesach offering. And maybe for this [reason], the [previous] verse was exact to say on that day: According to the opinion that says that it was the seventh (last) day of their impurity, the explanation is that for this reason did they come on that day - so that he would say to them to make it up on the next day. And in this way, we gain the explanation [of something else]: God said this commandment of Pesach Sheni (the second Passover) after these men asked - to say that even if they will be pure during the days of Pesach, like in our case; nonetheless, he does not make it up during the seven days of Pesach like the festive offering, but rather on the second (next) month. It also means by saying, why should we be diminished, etc.: that since it was the seventh day of their impurity, that they were claiming that their Pesach offerings could be slaughtered for them; in the [same] way as we slaughter, and sprinkle [from, the offering] of one impurified by creeping animals (sherets) - since they will become pure at night and they only have [remaining] impurity on that day. And that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time. And the rabbis, of blessed memory, said other matters - 'and these and those are the words of the living God.'

Perhaps this is why the Torah stressed the words ביום ההוא, on that day, telling us that their inability to offer the Passover was only on that day (the 14th of Nissan) They would be ritually pure already on the 15th of that month. They would be able to make up for time lost already on the morrow.

This may also account for the fact that G'd did not legislate the "second Passover" on the 14th of Iyar until after the Levites had approached Moses concerning תשלומים, an alternate date to enable them to offer their Passover. G'd did not want this to be similar to the legislation of the חגיגה, when one may arbitrarily choose to delay the offering. Inasmuch as the Passover was an offering of a different class it could only be offered on the fourteenth of the second month by those people whose inability to offer it on the 14th of Nissan had not been due to their own negligence.

Another meaning of the words למה נגרע, may be that they argued that seeing their impurity ended that evening, why could not others slaughter the Passover on their behalf and they would be able to eat it on that night at the same time as all the other Israelites. After all, the same is permissible if a person had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a dead mouse, for instance? When the Levites emphasised the words ביום ההוא, this was a reference to such impurities which come to an end on the evening of the day they have been contracted. Some of our sages offer still other explanations for the words למה נגרע. All of these explanations reflect true Torah exegesis.

והאיש אשד הוא טהור, As to the man who is ritually pure, etc. Why did the Torah delay informing us about the penalty for people who deliberately fail to observe the Passover legislation until now? Why has this not been spelled out in Parshat Bo where the legislation was spelled out? We find a debate in Pessachim 93 between Rabbi and Rabbi Natan concerning whether a person who has failed to observe the Passover both on the 14th of Nissan and the 14th of Iyar incurs the prescribed penalty or whether the Karet penalty applies only if one has deliberately failed to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. Rabbi holds that deliberate failure to observe either Passover results in that penalty, whereas Rabbi Natan holds that there is no Karet penalty for failure to observe the second Passover seeing that the Torah does not mention this penalty in that context. Rabbi Chanina son of Akiva holds that one is not even guilty of the karet penalty for failure to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan unless one had also failed to observe it on the 14th of Iyar. All three scholars cite the same verse to support their respective opinions. If the Torah had informed us about the penalty for deliberate non-observance in Parshat Bo, it would not have been possible for the three scholars to hold three different views on the subject.

וכי יגור אתכם גר, And if a proselyte dwells amongst you, etc. The reason that this paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו is to warn the Israelites to ensure that these proselytes do not make light of the Torah's commandments. Just as the previous paragraph addressed itself to the Israelites so this paragraph also addresses itself to the Israelites.

ועשה פסח לשם, and he prepares the Passover for the Lord, etc. Why did the Torah uses the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה? Furthermore, why did the Torah have to write וכן יעשה, "and so he shall do" at the end? One tends to believe that the Torah wanted to make certain that we understand that this legislation does not apply to a resident stranger, i.e. a stranger who has only accepted to observe the seven Noachide laws, but that only a Jew, i.e. a גר צדק, a true convert, is allowed to partake in the Passover observance. This is not a totally satisfactory explanation as we would not have assumed that anyone who is not Jewish would be included in that legislation.

Perhaps we should look at what the Sifri has to say on the subject. Here is the quotation from Sifri. "Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says that I could have thought that the legislation applies to someone who converted between the dates of the first Passover and that of the second Passover. By writing ולגר ולאזרח הארץ, the Torah makes clear that the legislation applies equally to the convert and to the natural-born Jew. The Torah makes it plain that just as the second Passover can be observed only by someone who should have observed the first Passover but did not, so the recent convert who did not yet have an obligation to observe the Passover in the month of Nissan cannot observe it in the month of Iyar following his conversion. He has to wait until Nissan in the year following his conversion. This is the reason." This then accounts for the letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה, i.e. if the convert in question would have been obliged to observe the first Passover he is now obliged to observe the second Passover if for some reason beyond his control he could not observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. The word ועשה represents a condition then. The words כחקת הפסח mean that just as the first Passover could be made up for by a second Passover by natural-born Israelites under certain conditions, the same conditions apply to the recent convert to Judaism.

We need to ask ourselves why the Torah singled out the Passover legislation for detailing the convert's obligation to fulfil the commandments similar to the natural-born Israelite. Why did the Torah not mention this in some other context? I believe the reason is simply that logic dictated that the convert should not observe this commandment at all as it recalls an event which occurred to the forefathers of the natural-born Jews and for which the recent convert has hardly any obligation to observe any remembrance, seeing neither he nor his ancestors had been part of the enslavement and the Exodus. G'd had not "passed over" the houses of the ancestors of that convert, after all. The matter could have been viewed as similar to the legislation of the bringing of the first ripe fruit to the Temple when the farmer bringing the gift recites his gratitude to G'd who took him (his ancestors) out of Egypt and gave him the land of Israel as a heritage (Deut. 26,3-10). The Mishnah in Bikkurim chapter 1 states that whereas a convert is obliged to bring this offering he does not read the passage detailed in the chapter we quoted. We could have assumed that similar restrictions would apply to a convert's observance of the Passover rites. This is why the Torah chose to mention the convert's obligation in connection with Passover rather than with any of the other 612 commandments.

The Torah was particular to write the word אתכם, "with you," to tell us that although we might view the convert as a most recent addition to Judaism, a "Johnny come lately," G'd wants us to relate to him as if he had always been Jewish. Our Exodus from Egypt also brought potential freedom to the soul of the person who has now converted to Judaism. This is so despite the fact that he was neither physically nor spiritually present at the time. Everything that is holy emanates from the same root. When our ancestors were in Egypt the whole concept of holiness was on the point of "drowning" with them in the moral abyss called Egypt. Had Israel succumbed to the influence of that centre of impurity, G'd forbid, the person who now converted to Judaism could not have done so as holiness had already "drowned" while our forefathers were slaves in Egypt. Every little spark of holiness strives to merge with the seat of holiness, its base. Once the centre of holiness was saved from "drowning," this enabled the scattered sparks of holiness throughout the universe to search for their roots and to eventually rejoin the mainstream of sanctity, the Jewish people.

When the Torah writes כחקת הפסח, this suggests that there is something lacking rationale in this legislation. The Torah was afraid that whereas we would accept that the convert is to observe the Passover laws in principle, he is nevertheless not to recite words which are outright lies. We refer to such recitals as: "we have been slaves in the land of Egypt when G'd took us out from there, etc." The Torah therefore writes כחקת הפסח to teach us that the convert may even recite such paragraphs from the Bible without making a liar of himself. The roots of sanctity which he now embraces had been in Egypt, i.e. he had his roots in Egypt. Please refer to what I have explained on Exodus 23,9 "for you know the soul of the stranger."

The reason the Torah adds the words כן יעשה, "he shall do so," is to make clear that the convert is not only allowed to participate fully in the Passover rites but he is commanded to do so. The words חקה אחת teach that the whole Torah is to be viewed as something indivisible.

ולפי העלות הענן, and whenever the cloud would lift, etc. The reason this paragraph begins with the conjunctive letter ו is to remind us that the cloud served two different purposes. 1) Its function was to serve as a cover for the Holy Tabernacle and all its furnishings. As such its function was decorative, a compliment for the Jewish people who had become carriers of the שכינה. This is the meaning of the words in verse 15 that כסה הענן את המשכן לאהל העדות, "it covered the Tabernacle the Tent of Testimony." The Torah adds a second function of the cloud in our verse when it describes the motion of the cloud indicating that the Israelites were to break camp and to start marching on their way to the Holy Land. The cloud signalled both when it was time to move and when it was time to make camp.

ואחרי כן יסעו, following this the Israelites journeyed. The expression ואחרי כן seems somewhat misplaced. We would have expected something parallel to ובמקום אשר ישכון שם יחנו without the words ואחרי כן. Why did the Torah write the words כן ואחרי? Had the Torah simply written ולפי העלות הענן יסעו בני ישראל, I would have concluded that the signal for the Israelites to move was the motion or lack of motion of the cloud. In order to make certain we understand that the Israelites journeyed at the direct command of G'd the Torah inserts the words ואחרי כן to direct our attention to verse 18 where the Torah spells out that the journeys were על פי השם. Our verse therefore deserves to be understood thus: "And in accordance with the cloud lifting from above the Tabernacle, shortly thereafter G'd would give the command for the Israelites to start journeying" so that they were actually journeying at the command of G'd. [The letter ו before the words אחרי כן means that the expression is not one describing a time frame, though it does describe a certain sequence of events. Ed.]

Another meaning of these words could be that the Torah wanted to inform us that the Israelites did not ever journey before the cloud lifted but only after it had already removed itself from above the Tabernacle. This did not imply however, that they automatically journeyed as soon as the cloud lifted, rather they awaited specific instructions from G'd to do so. Had the Torah used the alternative wording we mentioned earlier the impression would have been created that the lifting of the cloud was equivalent to a command for the Israelites to break camp and to start journeying.

על פי ה׳ יסעו בני ישראל, the children of Israel journeyed at the command of G'd. The cloud was the means by which G'd made His wishes in the matter known.

כל ימי אשר ישכון, all the days that the cloud would remain stationary, etc. Our verse details the various ways in which the cloud behaved. It also pays a compliment to the Israelites who made their own wishes correspond to G'd's wishes. The verse first tells about instances when the cloud remained stationary for a long period by stating that whenever the cloud remained in place for a long time the Israelites "were willing to remain encamped in that location during the entire length of time that the cloud showed no sign of moving." The proof for this is that the Torah speaks of יחנו in the future tense instead of reporting חנו, "they did remain in camp" in the past tense. The Torah continues by saying ובהאריך הענן, "and when the cloud tarried, etc." (verse 19), to tell us that even if the cloud remained stationary for an inordinately long period of time the Israelites did not demur but were content to stay where they were. The verse goes on to say: ושמרו בני ישראל את משמרת ה׳ ולא יסעו, "the children of Israel observed the orders of G'd and would not journey." This shows that even though there may have been times when the Israelites- had it been up to their own volition alone-would have liked to move on, they resisted such a temptation and voluntarily abided by G'd's wishes in the matter. This is why the Torah wrote ולא יסעו, "and they would not journey" instead of writing ולא נסעו, "and they did not journey," to make certain we would not interpret their remaining in a place for a long time as their first choice.

ויש אשר יהיה הענן ימים מספר, Sometimes the cloud would remain over the Tabernacle only for a few days, etc. This too reflects credit on the Israelites. It tells us that although the Israelites had only just made camp they did not demur when they had to move again so shortly thereafter. The verse goes on to repeat that they camped at the command of G'd and that they moved at the command of G'd. The two statements are not to be understood sequentially. All the Torah wants to tell us is that just as the making of camp occurred at the command of G'd so the act of breaking camp occurred at the command of G'd. In either case the Israelites were in full accord with G'd's wishes in the matter, no matter that they had only had a few days' rest between journeys.

I have noted that Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel translates the words ימים מספר to mean "seven days." If we accept his words we cannot say, as we did, that our verse meant to compliment the Israelites as they had seven days to recover from the effects of their journey. According to Yonatan ben Uzziel we must explain our verse as follows: the Israelites did not demur during encampment or when the time came to break camp although they would have chosen a different time-table for their journeys had they been consulted. They did what G'd said without protest. This is why the Torah emphasised the words על פי ה׳ יחנו ועל פי ה יסעו׳.

ויש אשר יהיה הענן מערב עד בקר, Sometimes the cloud remained stationary only from evening to the following morning, etc. From this point on the Torah tells us only about the different periods the Israelites stayed in one place. It commences with telling us about their making camp in the evening, i.e. מערב עד בקר, from evening till morning. Following this we are told that the cloud remained stationary for a day and a night; this is followed by a description of the cloud remaining in one place for 2 days, i.e. יומים. The next longer period was a month, i.e. חדש, followed by ימים, a period of a whole year when the cloud did not move and the Israelites remained in the same spot. This paragraph cannot be meant to convey something similar to the previous verses as there would have been no logical reason to first describe the cloud as remaining stationary for ימים מספר, "a number of days, etc." Such a description should have been mentioned after מערב עד בקר and not before. The expression ימים מספר is to be understood like a general heading for the subject matter, the details following in verse 21-22. There can be no doubt that the first two verses were meant to compliment the conduct of the Israelites throughout most of their long journey through the desert, whereas the last 3 verses described the various lengths of time the Israelites stayed in one place during those journeys. According to the Kabbalists the reason why the Israelites did not break camp at regular intervals was that the purpose of traversing these various areas was to locate and rescue stray sparks of sanctity which had been "captured" by forces resident in this unfriendly desert environment. Only G'd Himself was able to determine which time frame was sufficient for this task to be accomplished in the various locations.

בהאריך הענן, when the cloud tarried, etc. The Torah mentions that even when the cloud tarried for a whole year, meaning that during that year the Israelites did not come any nearer to their ultimate goal, they did not demur but were content to remain encamped in that location. ובהעלתו, and when it rose, even when the cloud remained in place only overnight, יסעו they would (willingly) move on. The Torah describes the Israelites' will to make camp as equal to their desire to move on. Moreover, even when their journey commenced after a sojourn in the same location for a whole year and would be followed by a renewed encampment after a journey as brief as a day, they still did not demur but displayed the same willingness to encamp again as they had displayed when bidden to move after not having moved for a whole year. The Torah concludes its report by providing us with the reason why the Israelites displayed such equanimity, namely על פי ה׳, they had trained themselves to recognise that G'd acted in their own best interests when He gave the signal to rest or to move on respectively. The words את משמרת ה׳ שמרו, "they observed G'd's charges," mean that the Israelites' patience matched whatever timetable G'd had worked out for them.

You may well ask that if these last verses were full of compliments for the conduct of the Israelites, as we have demonstrated, why did the Torah have to pay them similar compliments in verse 17 and 18 already? Surely their display of patience and obdedience is more impressive when it is based on recurring experiences, i.e. at the end of the passage than at the very beginning of a trek the length of which no one knew at that time? The reason is that unless we had explained the earlier verses in the manner we did we could not have explained the last verse in this vein. We would then have explained those verses as telling us that the Israelites were anxiously awaiting instructions to move whenever the cloud appeared to make an extended stop and they started moving as soon as they received the signal, whereas they would have anxiously awaited a signal to make camp if only the cloud would stop travelling. As soon as that occurred they would have hurried to make camp. This would not have allowed us to form the impression that they had completely assimilated themselves to what appeared to them to be G'd's wishes in the matter. It is only after we knew from the earlier verses that the Israelites did not pre-empt G'd's instructions when it came to making or breaking camp that we were able to see in the later verses proof that the Israelites were totally on the same wavelength as G'd in all matters pertaining to their journeys. When verse 23 concludes with the statement על פי השם ביד משה, Midrash Hagadol on our verse states that the cloud would not start moving or arresting its motion until Moses had bidden it to either arise or come to rest.

עשה לך שתי חצצורות "make two trumpets for yourself." Why did Moses require trumpets to announce the journeys when all the Israelites could see the cloud move and this was their signal to commence packing and journeying? Perhaps the reason is that not all the tribes began their journey at the same time. The tribe of Yehudah was the first to break camp followed by the members of the clan of Gershon who carried the Tabernacle, followed by the camp of the tribe of Reuven, etc. The trumpets were required so that each group knew exactly when to start moving. When we questioned the need for the trumpets we could have also questioned why the trumpets were described as לך, "for yourself" i.e. for Moses. The fact is that just as G'd had paid Moses the compliment not to let the clouds move or come to rest without Moses telling it to, so G'd paid him the compliment of allowing him to give the signal to break camp by means of the trumpets. In that sense then the trumpets were Moses'. The word לך means that these trumpets would be at the exclusive disposition of Moses. Sifri on our verse understands the word to mean that Moses had to pay for these trumpets out of his own funds. Bamidbar Rabbah 15,15 suggests that only Moses was allowed to blow these trumpets. As there are 70 different ways to explain the Torah, all of these explanations are legitimate.

ותקעתם תרועה שנית, "and you will blow a second Teruah, (alarm) etc." One blast of the trumpets did not suffice to cause all the tribes to start moving. Sifri 2,73 states that the members of the clan of Gershon were occupied in dismantling the Tabernacle and had started moving before the tribe of Reuven. This made it necessary to blow the trumpets again to give a signal to the tribe of Reuven, situated in the South, to start moving following the clan of Gershon behind the components of the Tabernacle.