Masei

Bemidbar 33-36

Backtracking for Trust

Aryeh Bernstein, 5767

New Devar Torah, written for the website

In translations throughout this devar torah, the single letter "H" indicates God's sacred, four-letter name, while "God" indicates the impersonal title "Elohim".

The first two aliyot of this week's parashah comprise a review itinerary of the Israelites' 40-year journey from Egypt to the banks of the Jordan River. This chapter lists only the stopping stations, with almost no mention of events or amount of time spent at each station, just "the children of Israel traveled from X and encamped at Y; they traveled from Y and encamped at Z..." For example, just after the exodus (33:5-7):

In that respect our parashah is much less detailed than the narrative sections of the Torah. However, in another respect, our parashah is more detailed, and that is that some of the places listed in our itinerary are not mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. These gaps and inconsistencies demand explanation. For example, let's look at the first stops in the narrative, after the exodus. The book of Shemot tells of our ancestors' journeys through Sukkot (12:37), Etam, which was at the border of the desert (13:20), Pi haHirot, which was between Migdol and the sea, before Ba‘al-Tzefon (14:2). There they crossed the sea and the pursuing Egyptians were drowned, and continued walking for three days without finding water, until arriving at a place later called Marah, whose water was too bitter to drink until God showed Mosheh how to sweeten the water by throwing a stick into it (15:22-26). Then they continued to the oasis of Elim (15:27), before continuing on to the wilderness of Sin - between Elim and Sinai - on the 15th day of the second month of their journey (16:1). This itinerary is reviewed in our parashah, but without the stories (Bemidbar 33:8-11):

The problem is readily apparent: Shemot describes the people journeying straight from Elim to the Wilderness of Sin, while our parashah has them camping at the Sea in between those stations. This is especially puzzling, since they had already departed from the sea several stations and two water crises earlier! Our sages in the Mekhilta explained that these last three stations, then, must have been a geographic regression. After crossing the sea and moving out into the desert, Mosheh turned them around back toward the sea, and it was on that trek that they passed through Marah and Elim before arriving back at the sea.

The midrash's claim is strange not only textually, but also conceptually. Generally, returning toward Egypt is forbidden as an act of terrible rebellion. However, the Mekhilta deems this return praiseworthy. (The reader is referred to Prof. Daniel Boyarin's illuminating discussion of this passage in his book Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Indiana U. Press, 1990, pp. 41-49.) Indeed, this is not the first instance in which the Mekhilta praises the Israelites for returning toward Egypt. In Shemot 14:2, the Torah uses the verb "וְיָשֻׁבוּ" ("they shall turn back") to describe their journey from Etam to Pi ha-Hirot, where they encamped at the sea, indicaing that it, too, was out of the way. God explains that the reason for this detour is so that Pharaoh, seeing them trapped at the sea, will come after them. The Torah emphasizes that the Israelites followed this unconventional plan: "וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן" ("and thus they did so"). The Mekhilta there comments (ibid., Mas. de-VaYehi, 1, s.v. "ve-hizaqti"):

Usually, turning back toward Egypt reflects a denial of trust, an attempt to escape the reality of God's loving care and Mosheh's faithful leadership. Whitewashing the brutal past in place of confronting a challenging present, the people would have so little confidence in God's guidance that their life as slaves would seem more secure to them than proceeding forward. It is a most extreme expression of "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't." Here, though, God wished for them to turn back in order to heighten the perceived danger and expand the drama of the confrontation with Egypt. This would in turn allow God, via Mosheh, to perform a rescue operation so miraculous and dramatic that these slaves - raised to believe in nothing - would be catapulted out of their defeatist slave mentality. For the Mekhilta, Israel's willingness to turn back without complaint before crossing the sea - "וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן" - highlighted their trust in Mosheh and God and served as the interpretational template for the apparent second turning back toward the sea after crossing it, as indicated in Parashat Mas‘ei.

The same passage in the Mekhilta commenting on our passage continues with reference to another praiseworthy example of turning back. Our parashah records that Aharon died at Hor haHar (33:38-39), but Parashat ‘Eqev (Devarim 10:6) record his place of death as Benei Ya‘aqan. Benei Ya‘aqan, according to our parashah, was several stations before Hor haHar. So where did Aharon die? The Mekhilta explains that he died in Hor haHar ("וַיָּמָת שָׁם"), but he lay dead and was buried in Benei Ya‘aqan ("שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן וַיִּקָּבֵר שָׁם"), which means that when Aharon died at Hor haHar, the Israelites backtracked several stations, until they found an appropriately dignified burial place for Aharon, at Benei Ya‘aqan.

We can understand why turning back in order to bury Aharon was warranted. Burying the dead properly is one of the greatest of mitzvot. It is described in Rabbinic literature as the truest form of kindness - "חסד של אמת" - since there is no hope of being repaid by the recipient. Halakhot abound regarding not only the burial, but also the escort of the dead to the place of burial. Every effort made to treat the dead with dignity is an essential kindness, so if the Israelites knew of a proper burial place for their leader several stops back, at Hor haHar, of course it was appropriate for them to turn back in order to bring him there. We understand, then, the value of turning back toward Egypt before crossing the sea and turning back years later, to bury Aharon. Why, though, are the Israelites to be praised for doubling back to the sea shortly after crossing it?

A key to unlocking this mystery may be found in the words of the Ritba (Sukkah 25a), who mentions times when walking on the way to doing a mitzvah is considered part of actually performing the mitzvah, and not just preparation for it. His examples are carrying the dead to burial (הוצאת המת), welcoming a bride, (הכנסת כלה), and ascending to the the Temple in Jerusalem for the Festivals (עליה לרגל). What is the commonality of these three mitzvot?

Regarding the mitzvah of prayer, which is derivative of Temple worship, we consider it meritorious to walk to a farther shul than a closer one, because one earns "שכר פסיעות" (reward for footsteps). Rav Yitzhak Hutner (Pahad Yitzhak, Rosh HaShanah 5) explains this dynamic as follows:

Most mitzvot generate closeness with God, because their fulfillment is God's will, but the mitzvah of prayer is opposite: it is made possible by closeness to God. Wherever the content of a mitzvah is the relationship itself, the closeness, walking toward it is an expression of that closeness. Rav Hutner's explanation of "שכר פסיעות" (the reward for walking toward prayer) can explain our other cases as well. The mitzvah of welcoming a bride is about the celebration of the new couple's relationship with each other and with the community. All movement toward absorbing them joyfully in the community is part and parcel of that closeness. Burying the dead is predicated on the rightful relationship every individual has with his or her community; that's why the obligation to bury falls equally on everyone. All movement toward proper burial is part and parcel of the elemental relationship of mutual honor and respect shared by neighbors.

So it was with the Israelites just after they crossed the sea. The prophet Yirmiyahu records God's wistful memory of the relationship with Israel in the desert (Yirmiyahu 2:1-2):

Israel in Egypt was a godless band of slaves. Through the liberation, they became a people. The purpose - even the definition - of the time after the liberation was the process of creating a relationship of trust and closeness with God. God is mighty, yet ethereal, compassionate, yet invisible, and easy to ignore if one doesn't know how to look. Had they always walked in a straight line, the Israelites would have thought that their story was one of a slave revolt staged when the enslavers hit tough time, and no more. Or, maybe they would have thought that God led to their redemption, but that this was merely a wrathful God of plagues, who hated Pharaoh, but had no interest in the Israelites per se. The story of the Israelites' sojourn in the desert is a tale of the creation of a relationship - the development of covenantal love and protection from God and covenantal love and devotion from Israel. Relationships are neither formed nor maintained automatically. The learning, nurturing, and hard work require special attention, counter-intuitive tasks, walking out of one's way. This insight into the dynamic of the exodus illuminates the textual curiosity of the second mention of a stop at the sea. Before venturing out to Sinai and the Land of Israel, God brought the people back to the sea to train them to trust.

Hazaq, Hazaq, VeNithazeq and Shabbat shalom.