In the second chapter, Moshe continues his review of the nation’s travels. This chapter serves a double purpose. The first is to recount the travels, but the second is to provide background for how the people should act towards the nations that surround the land. The seven nations in the land are supposed to be wiped out. But what about those around the land? Here, God has a different plan.

Three of the nations are given special protection—Ammon, Moav, and the sons of Esav. Esav is protected based on the blessing that Yitzchak granted Esav after Yaacov was given the firstborn blessing:

“And Isaac answered and said to Esau… By your sword shall you live… but when you gain the upper hand, you shall throw his yoke from off your neck.” (Genesis 27:39–40)

וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ… וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה וְאֶת־אָחִיךָ תַּעֲבֹד וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תָּרִיד וּפָרַקְתָּ עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָ

Ammon and Moav are the descendants of Lot and his daughters. God protects their land because of Lot’s connection to Avraham:

“Do not harass Moab or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, for I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” (Deuteronomy 2:9)

אַל־תָּצַר אֶת־מוֹאָב וְאַל־תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה כִּי לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי־לוֹט נָתַתִּי אֶת־עָר יְרֻשָּׁה

Similarly, regarding Ammon:

“When you approach the territory of the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them; for I will not give you any of the land of the Ammonites as a possession, because I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot.” (Deuteronomy 2:19)

וְקָרַבְתָּ מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן אַל־תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל־תִּתְגָּר בָּם כִּי לֹא־אֶתֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן לְךָ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי־לוֹט נְתַתִּיהָ יְרֻשָּׁה

All the other nations surrounding the land are fair game. God even pulls the old “harden his heart” trick from Pharaoh in Egypt to provoke a war between the Israelites and Sihon:

“But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and stiffened his heart in order to deliver him into your power.” (Deuteronomy 2:30)

וְלֹא־אָבָה סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ־חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַעֲבִירֵנוּ בּוֹ כִּי־הִקְשָׁה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת־רוּחוֹ וְאִמֵּץ אֶת־לְבָבוֹ לְמַעַן תִּתּוֹ בְיָדְךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה

Two interesting things about the familiar descendants. The first is that the promise to not provoke Moav at first seems out of place given what happened with Balaam and Balak, king of Moav. Moav’s Lot connction may explain why God demands revenge against Midian only, and not Moav:

“‘Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin.’” (Numbers 31:2)

Even though Moav was involved in the initial planning:

“Moab was alarmed because the people were so numerous… and Moab said to the elders of Midian, ‘Now this horde will lick clean all that is about us…’” (Numbers 22:3–4)

The second point is that the Israelites will not always remain peaceful with the descendants of Esav. The proclamation in this chapter by God that He will grant the sons of Esav the land of Seir also has a hidden warning:

“Do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to set foot on, for I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.” (Deuteronomy 2:5)

Recall that Yitzchak’s blessing was that when one rises, the other will fall. At this point Israel is on the rise. They are powerful and have the ability to subdue the sons of Esav—but God says no. Instead, the sons of Esav will live on the borderlands as a constant reminder that if Israel begins to fall, that same blessing will come true and the sons of Esav will take over. Overall, however, the perek reads as a recap looking backward to strengthen the people's resolve to go forward-- you have encountered enemies and beat them in military battles. There are always issues but you will prevail.

The last book of the Torah takes place at the very end of Moshe’s life and is told from Moshe’s perspective. The book begins where Numbers left off. The nation is at the Jordan River poised to enter the land. The entire Exodus generation has died off except for Moshe, Calev, and Yehoshua. Moshe gathers the people and begins his farewell address. There are some new stories and laws, and there are repeated laws and stories as well. Deuteronomy presents these older stories from Moshe’s perspective.

The book is similar to the books of Divrei HaYamim at the end of Ketuvim. Those books provide the “House of David” perspective on stories from Kings. (The books of Jeremiah and Isaiah provide a third perspective on some of those stories as well).

The first chapter has a few examples of the Moshe perspective. Some of these fill in the blanks on the earlier stories. An example of this is the story of the spies: back in Numbers 13, the story opens with God telling Moshe “Send for you people to spy out the land.”

שְׁלַח־לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן

(Numbers 13:2)

It was unclear who had asked for the spies. Moshe? God? The people? Chapter one of Deuteronomy answers: “Then all of you came to me and said, ‘Let us send spies ahead to reconnoiter the land for us…’” (verse 22).

וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ נִשְׁלְחָה אֲנָשִׁים לְפָנֵינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ־לָנוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ

(Deuteronomy 1:22)

But the spies story also demonstrates how Deuteronomy contains slightly different details of a story. Back in Numbers, when the spies come back with the twisted report, Moshe and Aaron fall on their faces. It is Calev who stands up and declares: “‘Let us by all means go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it!’” (Numbers 13:30).

וַיַּהַס כָּלֵב אֶת־הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר עָלֹה נַעֲלֶה וְיָרַשְׁנוּ אֹתָהּ כִּי־יָכוֹל נוּכַל לָהּ

But here, Moshe says he declared: “have no fear or dread of them / None other than your God, who goes before you, will fight for you…” (verses 29–30).

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵכֶם לֹא תַעַרְצוּן וְלֹא תִירְאוּן מֵהֶם׃

ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַהֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם הוּא יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם

(Deuteronomy 1:29–30)

Moshe then connects this incident with God’s decree that he is not allowed to enter the land (verses 37–39).

גַּם־בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה׳ בִּגְלַלְכֶם… גַּם־אַתָּה לֹא־תָבֹא שָׁם׃

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן… הוּא יָבוֹא שָׁמָּה

(Deuteronomy 1:37–38)

There is no mention of the incident at the rock. So which story is accurate? One could look at this as Moshe trying to spin the story so he looks good. The problem with this simplistic approach is that the two people who were very involved in this story—Yehoshua and Calev—are the only ones still alive. They could easily have countered Moshe’s retelling.

The answer is more likely one that concerns the entire book. Like the books of Divrei HaYamim, there is an agenda here. Those books are told with the agenda of promoting the House of David. Moshe has an agenda here too—preparing the people to enter the land and to experience the first leadership handoff in their history. That means that not everything listed is necessarily “historically accurate.” If Moshe wanted to retell every fact from the past three books, he could simply have read them to the people. His message is for this new generation to avoid the pitfalls of the last.

The book of Numbers ends in a seemingly very odd way with the continuation of the very personal story of the Tzelofchad sisters. The rest of the tribe comes to Moshe to complain about God’s decree that the daughters of Tzelofchad are granted their father’s inheritance. They are afraid that that may allow their tribal lands to be diluted.

“The clan heads of the descendants of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh… came forward and spoke before Moses… saying… if they marry outside the tribe… their inheritance will be taken from the ancestral holding of our fathers” (Numbers 36:1–4).

וַיִּקְרְבוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי־גִלְעָד בֶּן־מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה… וַיֹּאמְרוּ … וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָם מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּ

The story does bring up a main theme of the book, namely, the delineation of the borders in the new land. That is the essence of the argument. But, the ultimate argument is very technical. Why would a book that covers 38 years of history with a devastating decree, personal tragedies for Moshe, and mass death matched with grandiose planning for the entry in the land end like this? Perhaps, after the major issues that plagued the people at the start of the book of Numbers, this is a welcome relief. These are the types of disputes that Moshe and God want: technical legalistic arguments over the land. There is no plague or grand curse. This is a purely “in the eyes of heaven” argument. In this way, the book ends on a perfect note. As the people enter the land, these are the types of disputes that God wants.

The context of the story itself seems regressive. The original story was a triumph for these women, only to have this group of men work to use their victory as an excuse to lock them down. Even the Rabbis were troubled. The Talmud in Ta’anit 30b explains that the holiday of the 15th of Av was the day that the restriction was reversed leading to a great day of celebration. The decree of chapter 36 was only for the initial period of settlement in the land.

One last thing; the book of Numbers ends with an almost identical verse as Leviticus.

“These are the commandments and regulations that God enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the steppes of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho.” (Numbers 36:13)

אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב עַל־יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ

“These are the commandments that God gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai.” (Leviticus 27:34)

אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַר סִינָי

The only difference between the two is the location. Leviticus was at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and Numbers is at the entrance to the land. New location, same Moshe. No matter where Moshe is, he will be there to pass on God’s laws.

Compare this to the end of Exodus:

“For over the Tabernacle a cloud of God rested by day, and fire would appear in it by night, in the view of all the house of Israel throughout their journeys.” (Exodus 40:38)

כִּי עֲנַן ה׳ עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן יוֹמָם וְאֵשׁ תִּהְיֶה לַיְלָה בּוֹ לְעֵינֵי כָּל־בֵּית־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל־מַסְעֵיהֶם

During the journey in the wilderness, God protected the people with the cloud and the fire. Along the way, Moshe dispensed another code of protection—the law of God. The laws will be the cloud and fire as the people enter the land. It will guide them and protect them along the way.

The arai miklat were special cities for the Leviim who did not have a tribal portion in Canaan. These cities doubled as a place of refuge for individuals who committed unintentional murder. The Torah first hinted at these cities in Exodus. “One who fatally strikes another party shall be put to death / If a man did so but not by design—it came about by an act of God—I will assign you a place to which he can flee” (Exodus 21:12 13).

מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת מוֹת יוּמָת׃

וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה׃

The three cities that Moshe established in the future tribal lands of Reuven, Gad, and half of Manasseh would not “function” until the people set up the three in the land itself. Nonetheless, although Moshe is not able to enter the land, God granted him the opportunity to establish something that only exists in the land itself. In this way, when the people set up the three cities inside the land, Moshe would get the credit for establishing a part of the holy land. The Arizal brings another reason why Moshe was asked to set them up. Moshe himself was the perpetrator of an accidental murder. Back at the beginning of Exodus, Moshe witnessed an Egyptian taskmaster striking an Israelite slave. He struck the taskmaster and killed him and then hid him in the sand. The next day when two slaves threatened to out Moshe as the killer, Moshe fled. Although the text reads that Moshe intentionally killed the taskmaster, the Arizal connects the arai miklat to the incident to show that Moshe killed unintentionally.

Honor killings have existed for centuries in all cultures and are still practiced in many parts of the world today. Most of these honor killings concern family slights for sexual indiscretions, not unintentional murder. The arai miklat were most likely a way to balance the local tradition of honor killings with a Torah desire for law and order. Therefore, the Torah is very careful to distinguish between a straight murder and an unintentional one, even going as far as listing the type of weapons and force that would fall into each category. The arai miklat have a very narrow purpose under certain circumstances. By allowing for protection against an honor killing, the Torah is also implicitly recognizing the existence of honor based vengeance while sharply limiting it. Anything that falls outside of this narrow framework must be adjudicated by a court of law. American criminal law distinguishes between multiple degrees of homicide—such as first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter—based primarily on intent, premeditation, and recklessness. This graduated system mirrors the Torah’s distinction between intentional murder and accidental killing, where only the latter qualifies for protection within an ir miklat. In both legal frameworks, the goal is to calibrate punishment and protection to moral culpability, ensuring that justice responds not only to the outcome of death but to the actor’s intent and responsibility.

The organization, known as Arei Miklat, was established in California by members of the Jewish community—including mental health professionals—who recognized a lack of emotional and spiritual support for individuals involved in accidental deaths. It was founded in the early twenty first century with the explicit goal of offering trauma informed counseling and guided recovery, drawing inspiration from the Torah’s model of refuge as a space for responsibility, reflection, and healing rather than punishment.

Chapter 34 is split into two parts. The first is the delineation of the borders of the land of Israel and the second is the list of the new princes. This chapter follows a simple A/B/B/A structure with the beginning of the book. Numbers began 38 years ago at Mt. Sinai. Following the giving of the Ten Commandments, God tells Moshe to appoint 12 princes to lead the people. These 12 princes are listed in chapter 1 of Numbers. Chapter 2 of Numbers described the set up of the camp in the desert. Each of the four sides of the Mishkan had three tribes. In the middle was the Mishkan surrounded by the Leviim and kohanim. Chapter 34 discusses the same two ideas but in reverse order. The beginning of chapter 34 discusses the borders of the land of Israel. This matches the encampment structure in chapter 2. The second part of chapter 34 discusses the new princes appointed from the “second generation”. This part parallels chapter 1’s listing of the princes. If this AB/ BA structure exists then what is the centra “C” elements. There are many possibilities in the book of Bamidbar- the spies, the transition of leadership to Joshua, the rebellions, etc. Perhaps the Torah uses this same structure to explain that this was a reset of the same time after the giving of the Torah when the sin of the spies was a horrible nightmare in the future and the people were on their way to enter the land. Now, 38 years later, a new generation eagerly awaits their turn to enter the land.

As Numbers comes to a close, the Torah goes back and lists all the journeys that the Israelites made from the time they left Egypt.

“These are the marches of the Israelites who started out from the land of Egypt, troop by troop, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.”

אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְצִבְאֹתָם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן׃

(Numbers 33:1)

“Moses recorded their departures, stage by stage, as directed by ה׳.”

וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֶת־מוֹצָאֵיהֶם לְמַסְעֵיהֶם עַל־פִּי ה׳

(Numbers 33:2)

Why list this now? The simple answer is that the people are finally ready to enter the land after 40 years of wandering. This is a good time to review where they have been. One can look at it like the bar mitzvah montage.

Rashi provides two answers. The first is that the Torah is trying to show that the forty years were not really forty years of wandering. Doing a little back of the napkin math, Rashi shows that during the 38 year period in between the giving of the Torah and Aaron’s death, the Israelites only traveled to 20 places. This means that they spent at least a year in most places. The second answer is akin to the parable of a person who travels a long way to find a cure for their child. Once they reach the final destination, the person recounts every part of the journey to recall the difficulty. So too here, the people are prepared to enter the land and they are reminded of the difficult journey that led them to this place.

Ramban argues that the very obscurity of the locations grounds the Exodus in real history rather than myth which is why there are places listed here that do not appear elsewhere in the torah. Rambam explains that Moshe wanted the people to understand that it was a miracle that God sustained them during the forty years. Yes, it was a hard slog and the people were punished, but overall it was a great miracle that the nation survived these years of wandering. Sforno does not focus on the miraculous part. He explains that this is not about the people needing to thank God, but for God to thank the people. Despite all of the trials and tribulations of the 40 years the people continued to have faith in and follow God. The Malbim offers a mystical interpretation. When the nation was in Egypt, they were at a low state of impurity. In order for the nation to reach the spiritual level they needed to enter the land, they had to wander for forty years. This list, therefore, is a gradual list of increasing spiritual growth. At each stage, the people grew closer and closer to God.

There is also a sad bookend to the list of places for Moshe as well. The list begins with the Egyptians burying their dead first borns:

“The Egyptians were burying those whom ה׳ had struck down among them, all their first born.”

וּמִצְרַיִם מְקַבְּרִים אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה ה׳ בָּהֶם כָּל־בְּכוֹר

(Numbers 33:4)

and ends with the death of Aaron:

“Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor at the command of ה׳ and died there, in the fortieth year after the Israelites had left the land of Egypt.”

וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־הֹר הָהָר עַל־פִּי ה׳ וַיָּמָת שָׁם בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים לְצֵאת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם

(Numbers 33:38)

For Moshe these travels began with the firstborn Egyptians—his adopted family—burying their first borns, and ended with his older brother—also a firstborn—being buried.

Earlier, God decreed that each tribe would receive a proportional part of the Land. As the nation makes its way around the Jordan river to enter the land, they have been conquering the local peripheral populations. The tribes of Reuven and Gad see this borderlands and decide that they do not want to enter the land. They approach Moshe and ask if they can live in the trans Jordan area because of their large flocks and the fertile land. This conversation is reminiscent of Lot’s conversations with Avraham in Genesis.

Compare: “The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle” (verse 1)

וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי־גָד עָצוּם מְאֹד וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ יַעְזֵר וְאֶת־אֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד וְהִנֵּה הַמָּקוֹם מְקוֹם מִקְנֶה

(Numbers 32:1)

and “Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents / so that the land could not support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together / Lot looked about him and saw how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it…” (Genesis 13:8–10).

וְגַם־לְלוֹט הַהֹלֵךְ אֶת־אַבְרָם הָיָה צֹאן וּבָקָר וְאֹהָלִים׃

וְלֹא־נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו כִּי־הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו׃

וַיִּשָּׂא־לוֹט אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת־כָּל־כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה

(Genesis 13:6–10)

Moshe is not happy with the request. Possibly there was a sense of frustration considering Moshe would not be able to enter the land and now these tribes are asking to stay outside the land. Moshe makes the tribes promise that they will enter the land and help the rest of the tribes conquer the land before then returning to their new lands across the Jordan river. “The Gadites and the Reubenites answered Moses, ‘Your servants will do as my lord commands.’” (verse 25)

וַיֹּאמֶר בְּנֵי־גָד וּבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵאמֹר עֲבָדֶיךָ יַעֲשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲדֹנִי מְצַוֶּה

(Numbers 32:25)

The two tribes promise two more times. Satisfied with their promises “Moshe assigned to them—to the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the half tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph—the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of King Og of Bashan, the land with its various cities and the territories of their surrounding towns” (verse 33).

וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לִבְנֵי־גָד וְלִבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן־יוֹסֵף אֶת־מַמְלֶכֶת סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי וְאֶת־מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הָאָרֶץ לְעָרֶיהָ בִּגְבֻלֹת עָרֵי הָאָרֶץ סָבִיב

(Numbers 32:33)

Thirty three verses into the chapter half the tribe of Manasseh appears out of nowhere. Only Gad and Reuven asked to relocate. Why does Moshe split Manasseh? One answer is that Moshe was concerned that having Gad and Reuven on the other side of the Jordan would separate them from their brethren. He therefore had the tribe of Manasseh split over the Jordan river in order to link the two tribes to those in the land. But why Manasseh?

The simple answer could be that Manasseh was the largest tribe. The problem is that Manasseh was not the largest tribe. Manasseh only had around 53,000. Issachar, Zebulun, and Judah were all larger. Judah had the most with 76,000. Why didn’t Moshe split Judah?

Perhaps this was a political move. Judah by itself was the most numerous, but Manasseh and Ephraim together were over 85,000. This would put the sons of Joseph as the largest bloc over Judah, the eventual ruling tribe. To mitigate this, Moshe splits Manasseh. This allows Judah to remain the largest tribe in Israel while also connecting Reuven and Gad to the tribes inside the land.

Chapter 31 returns to the previous story of the Midyanite woman and Baal Peor. God has not forgotten the evil plot to seduce the population and cause them to sin. Were it not for the heroics of Pinchas, the plot would have succeeded. This is why God tells Pinchas to lead the army into battle against the Midyanites.

“Moses sent them to the campaign—one thousand from each tribe—together with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, with the sacred vessels and the trumpets for sounding the blasts.”

וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הַצָּבָא אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה אֹתָם וְאֶת־פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ

(Numbers 31:6)

In this chapter we find out that the people killed Balaam in their attack on Midyan.

“They put Balaam son of Beor to the sword.”

וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן־בְּעוֹר הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב

(Numbers 31:8)

Later, when Moshe chastises the people for keeping the women alive he admonishes the people: “Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against God” (verse 31:16).

הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסֹר מַעַל בַּה׳ עַל־דְּבַר פְּעוֹר

(Numbers 31:16)

On a side note, this is the source for reading into the Balaam story that Balaam was really an evil person. In fact, Balaam is probably more complex. The Balaam story showed that he was loyal to the word of God, but here the text reveals that he also was able to scheme another way to harm the Israelites. More importantly this verse begs a larger question—when did the people find out about the Balaam story? Moshe does not instruct them to kill Balaam at the beginning. So they may have only found out about it in verse 16.

The story of Balaam is the only time from the beginning of the Abraham narrative where the story has no major Israelite character involved. (Two other possible stories—the story of Eliezer is directed by Avraham, and Rivkah is there; and the story of the cupbearer and Pharaoh’s dreams involves Yosef). This chapter reminds me of the articles that one often reads about the IDF thwarting a terrorist attack. Everyone is going about their lives as if nothing is happening. Everything seems fine. However, behind the scenes, the IDF is working tirelessly to keep everyone safe. It also explains why the story of Balaam appears now. It is yet another example of the effort of God to prepare the people for entry into the land and become self reliant. No one was involved in the Balaam story except for God. God’s message with the Balaam story is that the people should not rest on their laurels. Everything may seem to be calm, but God is always in the background trying to thwart efforts to harm the Israelites.

Chapter 30 can be a difficult read from a more modern standpoint. The chapter offers various scenarios in which a father has the ability to nullify the vows of his wife and daughter. The Torah takes vows very seriously. The prohibition against taking God’s name in vain is one of the Ten Commandments. Vows for sacrifices, property, and even oneself were discussed in Leviticus. Earlier in Numbers, the Torah discussed the laws of the Nazir vow. Like all of these previous chapters, this one is filled with interesting halachot.

For example: How long does a father have to annul a vow? There is a disagreement in the Talmud Nedarim 76b. Verse 6 states: “But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self imposed obligations shall stand.”

וְאִם־הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל־נַפְשָׁהּ לֹא יָקוּם

(Numbers 30:6)

One opinion is that the father has until the end of the day that he hears the vow to annul it. Another opinion is that the father has one day from when he hears the vow to annul it. The second opinion seems to contradict the Mishnah that only referenced the “day of” opinion. The Mishnah also provided two examples to demonstrate the extremes of the “day of” opinion. If the daughter makes a vow on Friday evening right after nightfall, then the vow can be annulled until the next nightfall giving a full 24 hour period. However, if she made the vow just before nightfall, then the father only has a few moments to annul the vow before nightfall comes and with it the next day.

The first opinion is from verse 6. However, the second opinion comes from verse 15: “If her husband offers no objection from that day to the next, he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed.”

וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל־יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת־כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ

(Numbers 30:15)

The phrase “day to day” implies that the father has a 24 hour period that could last from one day to the next. The halacha is that the father can only nullify the vow the day that he hears it.

What kind of vows can a husband nullify? At first the Torah states that if a woman makes a vow her husband can nullify it but if “her husband learns of it, yet offers no objection—thus failing to restrain her—all her vows shall stand and all her self imposed obligations shall stand” (verse 12).

וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ יָקוּמוּ וְכָל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ יָקוּמוּ כִּי־הֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ

(Numbers 30:12)

This seems to imply that he can nullify all of her vows, like a father to daughter. But later the Torah states: “Every vow and every sworn obligation of self denial may be upheld by her husband or annulled by her husband” (verse 14).

כָּל־נֵדֶר וְכָל־שְׁבוּעַת אִסָּר לְעַנֹּת נָפֶשׁ אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ

(Numbers 30:14)

The Talmud in Nedarim 79b points out that the second verse limits the first verse. The halacha is that the husband can only nullify vows that a wife makes that involve self denial and that will cause friction in their interpersonal relationship.

“On the eighth day you shall hold an atzeret; you shall not work at your occupations” (verse 35).

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל־מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ׃

(Numbers 29:35)

The Gemara Sukkah 47a–48a gives a mnemonic to capture Shemini Atzeret’s dual status: פזר קש״ב Each letter represents a criterion in which Shemini Atzeret is separate from Sukkot: פ – פיס (Lottery): The priestly lottery for sacrifices is redone; it does not continue the Sukkot rotation. ז – זמן (Shehecheyanu): A new Shehecheyanu is recited (in Eretz Yisrael).ר – רגל (Festival): It is called a separate regel. ק – קרבן (Sacrifices): Different sacrifice structure (one bull instead of the Sukkot series). ש – שיר (Song): different Levi’im song in the Temple. ב – ברכה (Blessing): Different mention in Birkat HaMazon (“Shemini Chag HaAtzeret” vs. “Chag HaSukkot”).

Gemara Sukkah 47a Despite PZKŠB, the Gemara still requires: Sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret (in the Diaspora), But without a beracha.

Let’s look at a few argument points and see if they are for it being a separate holiday or against?

1) Number of sacrifices

Against: The sacrifices of Sukkot start at 13 and go down by one every day until they are at seven. The 8th day is one sacrifice, so it follows the descending number.

For: Sukkot stops at 7, and the 8th day jumps to 1, showing it is a separate holiday. Homiletically Sukkot sacrifices number 70 corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. Shmini Atzeret is one sacrifice symbolizing the Israelites. This could signify that the day is separate from Sukkot even if it is thematically related.

2) The Name of the Holiday

against: The holiday seems to be introduced as a different day in verse 35. It is also called something different in Leviticus:

“On the eighth day you shall observe an atzeret and bring an offering by fire to God.”

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳ עֲצֶרֶת הִוא כָּל־מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ׃

(Leviticus 23:36)

No other day of Sukkot has a special name, yet here God says this day is an atzeret.

for : later in Devarim, the seventh day of Passover is also called atzeret:

“After eating unleavened bread six days, you shall hold an Atzeret for your God on the seventh day; you shall do no work.”

שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה׃

(Deuteronomy 16:8)

3) Historical

“He read from the scroll of the Teaching of God each day, from the first to the last day. They celebrated the festival seven days, and there was an atzeret the eighth, as prescribed.”

וַיִּקְרָא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים יוֹם בְּיוֹם מִן־הַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד־הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ־חָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת כַּמִּשְׁפָּט׃

(Nehemiah 8:18)

For : It says they celebrated the festival for seven days and then the 8th day is called something different.

Against: The “last day” is the 8th day.

“At that time Solomon kept the Feast for seven days—all Israel with him—a great assemblage from Lebo hamath to the Wadi of Egypt. On the eighth day they held an atzeret; they observed the dedication of the altar seven days, and the Feast seven days.”

בָּעֵת הַהִיא עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־הֶחָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ קָהָל גָּדוֹל מִלְּבוֹא חֲמָת עַד־נַחַל מִצְרָיִם׃

וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עָשׂוּ עֲצֶרֶת כִּי חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עָשׂוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְהֶחָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃

(II Chronicles 7:8–9)

For: It says Solomon had the feast seven days, and then the eighth day is called something different.

Against: It is still called the 8th day.

This ambiguity makes its way into halachic questions. Does one eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeret? Many people have the custom to eat in the sukkah without a blessing, but others will specifically not eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeret. Is there a different bracha for Shmini Atzeret? There is a separate bracha during kiddush and Shemoneh Esrei.