Sit in most shuls during the Passover holiday and you probably experienced this phenomena. After the initial reading, the second Torah scroll is opened up for maftir reading. The reading is from chapter 28 in Numbers. Everything seems normal until the reader finishes verse 23, and suddenly, everyone in the room yells out the notation of the first word of verse 24: “KAELEH!!” Jewish Whatsapp and Facebook groups are also full of “KAELEH!” memes. What does this word mean and why does it appear here in the discussion of the Passover holiday? Chizkuni compares chapter 28 of Numbers with chapter 23 of Leviticus. In chapter 23 of Leviticus, God detailed the rules of the holidays as they related to the land. In this chapter, God provides the details of the offerings. Therefore, the word kaeleh (like these) is meant to modify the previous listing to explain the offerings like these are given. Chizkuni’s answer does not explain why kaeleh only appears with the rules for Passover. It also only connects to chapter 23 of Leviticus, but not the other times that the holidays are mentioned. Rashi addresses the Passover question by explaining that kaeleh is meant to modify the offerings of Passover with the offerings of Sukkot discussed in chapter 29. The Sukkot offerings gradually decrease in number over the holiday, while the Passover ones stay constant. The issue with Rashi is that Passover is discussed before Sukkot. Why would the Torah need to modify something that it has not yet mentioned? Malbim modifies Rashi slightly and explains that kaelah is meant to emphasize that these are the specific sacrifices given on that day to avoid any confusion. Perhaps kaeleh is meant to distinguish these Passover rules from the previous Passover. The only holiday celebrated so far is Passover and each of them has been slightly different. The Torah, therefore, needs to clarify that these specific Passover sacrifices are the ones that will apply to every Passover going forward.

Chapter 26 discussed the census that would set the boundaries of the land of Canaan. Everything seemed to make sense. The land would be apportioned by the size of the tribes. “The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes” (Numbers 26:55).

אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת־הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ

But five daughters saw a problem. They had no brothers and their father died. Why should they not get their father’s inheritance? So, they petitioned Moshe.

“The daughters of Zelophehad… came forward and stood before Moses.”

וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד… וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה

(Numbers 27:1–2)

Moshe asked God, and God agreed—mandating that in a family of only daughters, the daughters would inherit.

“The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly; you shall surely give them a hereditary holding.”

כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶן אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה

(Numbers 27:7)

When the daughters of Tzelofchad approached Moshe they explained that “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against God, but he died for his own sin” (verse 3).

אָבִינוּ מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהוּא לֹא־הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל־ה׳ בַּעֲדַת־קֹרַח כִּי בְחֶטְאוֹ מֵת וּבָנִים לֹא־הָיוּ לוֹ

(Numbers 27:3)

Why was it important to say that he was not one of Korach’s followers and that he died from his own sin? According to Rashi, the daughters are distinguishing him from those individuals who rabble roused and enticed others to complain. He only sinned on his own and did not take anyone down with him. He then brings two opinions that Tzelofchad could have been the person who gathered sticks on Shabbat in chapter 15

“They found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.”

וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת

(Numbers 15:32)

or one of the people who tried to enter the land without God’s approval in chapter 14.

“They defiantly marched toward the hill country.”

וַיַּעְפִּלוּ לַעֲלוֹת אֶל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר

(Numbers 14:44)

Ibn Ezra splits the two. The daughters believed that those who were in Korach’s cohort would be cut out from inheriting so they first distinguished their father from that group. Then, quoting Rabbi Yehudah Ha Levi, he shows that the daughters explained that their father died prematurely of his own sin which was why he did not have sons.

Ramban does not like either of these interpretations. He believes that the daughters were concerned that Moshe had a vendetta against the descendants of Korach because they had directly questioned Moshe’s authority. Instead, they emphasized to Moshe that their father died “in his own sin”, meaning because of the sin of everyone in that generation who did not believe that God would take them into the land.

Perhaps the answer also lies in the second half of the chapter. Moshe is told to look at the land on the horizon knowing he will not be able to enter.

“Ascend this mountain of Abarim and view the land… but you shall not enter it.”

עֲלֵה אֶל־הַר הָעֲבָרִים הַזֶּה וּרְאֵה אֶת־הָאָרֶץ… וְלֹא תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ

(Numbers 27:12)

In response, he asks God to appoint someone in his stead.

“Let ה׳ appoint someone over the community.”

יִפְקֹד ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל־בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל־הָעֵדָה

(Numbers 27:16)

God chooses Joshua to lead the people.

“Take Joshua son of Nun, a man of spirit, and lay your hand upon him.”

קַח־לְךָ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־רוּחַ בּוֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ אֶת־יָדְךָ עָלָיו

(Numbers 27:18)

Moshe had two sons, but neither were in the running. Moshe was concerned that his efforts would go for naught in the new land. He was not allowed to enter due to his own sin, but would his legacy continue? Just like the daughters of Tzelofchad, God responds that there is a way for his legacy to continue even if not in the “normal” way. Moshe’s legacy can also continue through his disciple, Joshua.

Why is there yet another census in chapter 26? This census happens after the plague in chapter 25. After another mass death, God wants another census. There are a few unique features about this counting. This counting is done by families and there are four stories mixed within the names. These four stories are: Datan and Aviram who were swallowed up by the ground during Korach’s rebellion, Korach himself and the 250 leaders who were burned to death (although Korach’s sons survived), Er and Onan who died back in Bereishit, and Nadab and Avihu who died in Vayikra.

Datan and Aviram are mentioned explicitly:

“Datan and Abiram… who strove against Moses and against Aaron… and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them.”

דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם קְרִאֵי הָעֵדָה אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל־מֹשֶׁה וְעַל־אַהֲרֹן… וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת־פִּיהָ וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם

(Numbers 26:9–10)

Korach is mentioned with an important caveat:

“But the sons of Korach did not die.”

וּבְנֵי־קֹרַח לֹא־מֵתוּ

(Numbers 26:11)

Er and Onan are recalled earlier in the census:

“Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.”

וַיָּמָת עֵר וְאוֹנָן בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן

(Numbers 26:19)

Nadav and Avihu are recalled at the end of the chapter:

“Nadav and Avihu died when they offered foreign fire before ה׳.”

וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּ בְּהַקְרִיבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה׳

(Numbers 26:61)

Why are these stories included? There were plenty of other deaths over the many years. Perhaps the answer comes at the end of the chapter:

“Among these there was not one of those enrolled by Moses and Aaron the priest when they recorded the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai. For ה׳ had said of them, ‘They shall die in the wilderness.’ Not one of them survived, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.”

וּבָאֵלֶּה לֹא־הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי׃

כִּי־אָמַר ה׳ לָהֶם מוֹת יָמֻתוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא־נוֹתַר מֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי אִם־כָּלֵב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן

(Numbers 26:64–65)

Each one of the stories listed is a lesson about questioning God’s authority and leadership. Datan, Aviram, Korach, and the 250 directly confronted Moshe and Aaron and questioned their authority. Nadav and Avihu decided to go against the commandment of Moshe and Aaron by bringing a foreign fire into the Mishkan. And Er and Onan refused to continue the leadership lineage of their father. Finally, the generation in the desert questioned God’s ability to bring them into Canaan.

This chapter is the first count of just the individuals that will be able to enter the land. God promises that “the land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes” (verse 55).

אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת־הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ

(Numbers 26:55)

But in order for the people to be ready to enter the land they must remember why their parents were not able to enter the land. God’s authority cannot be questioned. This is also why in the next chapter, God commands Moshe to appoint Joshua as the new leader. The older rebellious generations have died out, and now it is time for the new generations to accept God’s authority.

After the brief interlude to the story of Balaam and Balak, the story returns to the Israelite camp. Chaos reigns again, as the people are consumed by the orgiastic worship if the Moabite god Baal-Peor. Moshe and the elders (again) have fallen on their faces unable to respond. A grandson of Aaron takes things into his own hands, literally. Pinchas takes a spear and impales a prince of the tribe of Shimon and a princess of Moab mid-coitus. The people snap out of their trance and calm is restored to the camp following a massive plague. In return for his heroic vigilantism, God promises Pinchas “his Covenant of Shalom” (verse 12). What exactly is the Covenant of Shalom? Rashi believes this is simply God being grateful to Pinchas and offering him a friendly “shalom” greeting. This is a nice gesture, but why is it called a covenant of peace? Ibn Ezra focuses on the word Shalom as peace. He believes that God is promising Pinchas that he will continue to have peace and should not fear retribution from Zimri’s family even though Zimri was a prince. This opinion brings in a whole layer of political connections and legal fairness. It implies that Pinchas- still a grandson of the high priest, should have to worry about the political implications of killing a corrupt prince. The halakhic category of rodef permits stopping—if necessary, even killing—someone who is actively pursuing another person in a way that will lead to loss of life. In the Pinchas episode, Zimri’s public act is understood by Chazal as placing the entire community in mortal danger by provoking divine wrath, making him a rodef not of an individual but of the nation. Pinchas’s intervention, therefore, is not framed as vigilante violence but as an emergency act to halt an ongoing threat. Chizkuni explains that Pinchas not only did not have to worry about Zimri’s family, but he also didn’t have to worry about his own heritage as a priest. Because it was forbidden for a priest to come in contact with a dead body, Pinchas was concerned he would lose his priestly status. God promised him that he would not. Sfrono expands even further. The covenant of peace is not just for safety from Zimri’s family, but a general peace with the angel of death. God promises Pinchas a long life with some sources showing that he lived as much as 300 years through the ages of the Judges. Malbim extends this even further. He brings the midrashic opinion that Pinchas was actually the prophet Elijah. Both characters have a similar zeal for God that causes them to act in extra-legal manner. Because the Midrash also holds that Elijah never died, Pinchas is given eternal life. The Rav explains that God is trying to teach an important lesson. The Covenant of Shalom means a promise of peace. This is ironic. Pinchas was responsible for a violent act of murder to stop a religious rebellion. Such an act is the exact opposite of peaceful! God’s message is that sometimes peaceful means cannot be achieved by pacifism and crying at the doorway like Moshe and the other leaders. The example the Rav gives is Nevelle Chamberlain’s infamous attempt to pacify Hitler. Sometimes to achieve peace, one must be willing to go to war for one’s beliefs. This is an important and topical conflict that many people feel to this day. One wants to be anti-war, but to what extent does that belief go when there are other nations and people out there who are the exact opposite.

Chapter 24 opens with Balaam understanding that he no longer needed to seek God. He knows what God wanted. So instead, he turns to see the Israelites and proclaims the famous line: “How goodly are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel!” (verse 5).

מַה־טֹּבוּ אֹהָלֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (Numbers 24:5)

This prophecy utilizes flora and fauna themes that will appear in prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Looking to paint Balaam as evil, many commentators focus on God telling Balaam what to say in previous chapters, implying that Balaam really wanted to say something else, but God had to change his words. That reading does not fit with the beginning of this chapter. Balaam saw that God wanted to bless the people, and so he did. He completely disregarded the attempts of Balak to try out different ways of making the curses work. Balak pounds his fists in fury, but Balaam has a response for him. “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not of my own accord do anything good or bad contrary to God’s command” (verse 13).

אִם־יִתֶּן־לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹבָה אוֹ רָעָה מִלִּבִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר׃ (Numbers 24:13)

Back in Genesis, Lavan, twice makes a similar pronouncement: “Then Laban and Bethuel answered, ‘The matter was decreed by God; we cannot speak to you bad or good’” (Genesis 24:50),

וַיַּעַן לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵה׳ יָצָא הַדָּבָר לֹא נוּכַל דַּבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ רַע אוֹ טוֹב׃

and “I have it in my power to do you harm; but the God of your father’s [house] said to me last night, ‘Beware of attempting anything with Jacob, good or bad’” (Genesis 31:29).

יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם רָע וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם אֶמֶשׁ אָמַר אֵלַי לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ מִדַּבֵּר עִם־יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד־רָע׃

Balaam does not wait for Balak to respond, instead he curses the people of Amon and Moav and foretells of their destruction. Again, if Balaam was so evil and was forced to bless the people, why would he voluntarily curse his own people? He then turns toward the Amalak and curses them and the Kenites as well. The chapter ends with the two frenemies parting ways: “Then Balaam set out and returned back home; and Balak also went his way” (verse 25).

וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּשָׁב לִמְקֹמוֹ וְגַם־בָּלָק הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ׃ (Numbers 24:25)

This final verse of the story mimic the final verse of the Lavan saga—“then Laban set out and returned homeward. / Jacob went on his way, and messengers of God encountered him” (Genesis 32:1–2).

וַיַּשְׁכֵּם לָבָן בַּבֹּקֶר וַיְנַשֵּׁק לְבָנָיו וְלִבְנוֹתָיו וַיְבָרֶךְ אֶתְהֶם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּשָׁב לָבָן לִמְקֹמוֹ׃

וְיַעֲקֹב הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ וַיִּפְגְּעוּ־בוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים׃

The link between the two figures is interesting as both are considered major enemies of the Israelites, yet the text itself paints them as more sympathetic characters, with Lavan protective of his family, and Balaam faithful to God’s command. Commentators would argue that the torah links them to show that both have a second layer beyond the plain reading. But if these two figures were so bad, why wasn’t the text clear? Perhaps the stories of Lavan and Balaam are meant to juxtapose the main characters with the stories around them. Lavan is the person who was fiercely protective of his family yet listened to the word of God even if it meant losing everything. Balaam is someone who was loyal to God even if that cost him great wealth and renown with Balak. Both of these characters sacrifice something they hold dear in order to listen to God.

Chapter 23 begins with Balaam preparing to say whatever God commands. He tells Balak: “Stay here besides your offerings while I am gone. Perhaps God will grant me a manifestation, and whatever is revealed to me I will tell you” (verse 2).

עֲמֹד כֹּה עַל־עֹלָתֶיךָ וְאֵלְכָה אוּלַי יִקָּרֶה ה׳ לִקְרָאתִי וּדְבַר מַה־יַּרְאֵנִי וְהִגַּדְתִּי לָךְ׃ (Numbers 23:3)

Right off the bat, Balaam reminds Balak that he is at the mercy of God. God could appear to him or not and God will tell him what to say. This again shows deference to the almighty and no nefarious intentions. When God appears to Balaam, Balaam explains that he set up the proper sacrifices of bulls and rams. It seems as if Balaam is responding to an earlier directive from God as to how Balaam can connect with God. Balaam returns and recites the first of his praising poems towards Israel. Note that he even uses a similar metaphor to the grains of sand that God promised Avraham.

Balak is incensed. He demanded a curse and got a blessing. Balaam calmly responds “I can only repeat faithfully what God puts in my mouth” (verse 12).

הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יָשִׂים ה׳ בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֶשְׁמֹר לְדַבֵּר׃ (Numbers 23:12)

Again, Balaam faithfully defers to God. In the face of an angry king, Balaam repeats his mantra. He does not even say “I tried to curse them!” He simply follows what God tells him. Notice how it is Balak who demands that they move to a different location to try to change the vision. Balaam does not suggest it.

In this next song, Balaam repeats his mantra: “My message was to bless: When [God] blesses, I cannot reverse it” (verse 20).

הִנֵּה בָרֵךְ לָקָחְתִּי וּבֵרֵךְ וְלֹא אָשִׁיבֶנָּה׃ (Numbers 23:20)

Balak again is furious and tells Balaam to not bless the people or curse them, hoping for a different outcome. Balaam responds, yet again, “But I told you: Whatever God says I will do” (verse 26).

הֲלוֹא דִּבַּרְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֹתוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה׃ (Numbers 23:26)

Four times in this chapter. Balaam tells Balak that he can only follow what God tells him. A plain reading of the text again shows a faithful Balaam. Balak is the instigator here, and Balaam only repeats that God is in control.

According to the Midrash, Balaam was a prophet almost on the level of “Moshe” for the other nations. Balaam is also universally regarded as a villain of the Torah on par with Lavan in Genesis. But like Lavan, a careful reading of the text paints a different picture. The story opens with Balak, the king of Moab gathering his cousins in Amon to brainstorm how to defeat the Israelites after their recent resounding victories. They decide to try to hire Balaam to curse the Israelites. A delegation arrives and requests Balaam’s assistance. Balaam responds: “Spend the night here, and I shall reply to you as God tells me” (verse 8).

לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי אֶתְכֶם דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֵלָי׃ (Numbers 22:8)

Asking God for advice before agreeing to the offer does not seem like something a villain would do. God appears to Balaam that night and instructs Balaam to decline the invitation. So what does the villain of the Torah do!? He listens to God and declines the invitation. “Go back to your own country, for God will not let me go with you” (verse 13).

לְכוּ אֶל־אַרְצְכֶם כִּי־מֵאֵן ה׳ לְתִתִּי לָלֶכֶת עִמָּכֶם׃ (Numbers 22:13)

Balak is upset. He resends the delegation this time offering a big reward. With money on the table Balaam…declines again. “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not do anything, big or little, contrary to the command of my God” (verse 18).

אִם־יִתֶּן־לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה׃ (Numbers 22:18)

God appears to him yet again. This time God tells Balaam that he can go with the delegation, but he must follow God’s command. וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל־בִּלְעָם לָיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם־לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה׃

“God came to Balaam at night and said to him: If the men have come to call you, rise and go with them; but only the thing that I speak to you—that you shall do.” (verse 20).

Balaam listens to God and agrees to travel with the delegation. The commentators try to parse every word in this opening section to show that Balaam was bad. Pointing out that Balaam does not outright say no, or that after the delegation came the second time and offered money, Balaam tried to ask God a second time even though God had said no, or that Balaam hitched his own donkey to follow the delegation because he was excited to be able to curse the Israelites. Verse 22 may be the source of the desire to add on to what the plain text indicates: “But God was incensed at his going” (verse 22).

וַיִּחַר־אַף ה׳ כִּי־הוֹלֵךְ הוּא (Numbers 22:22)

If God was so angry that Balaam went, then clearly Balaam did something wrong. The better question though is why was God angry at Balaam for going when God just told him to go? The answer is unclear, but after the “talking donkey” portion of the story, Balaam again defers to God. “I erred because I did not know that you were standing in my way. If you still disapprove, I will turn back” (verse 34).

חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ וְעַתָּה אִם־רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ אָשׁוּבָה לִּי׃ (Numbers 22:34)

Not only does Balaam defer to God, but he apologizes to God thinking that he had misunderstood what God wanted! God allows him to proceed reminding him again that he can only say what God allows. Balaam repeats this to Balak when the two meet. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל־בָּלָק הֲבֹא־בָאתִי אֵלֶיךָ עַתָּה הֲיָכוֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יָשִׂים ה׳ בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר׃

“Balaam said to Balak, ‘Behold, I have come to you now, but am I able to say anything on my own? The word that God puts in my mouth—that is what I shall speak.’”

Again, Balaam defers to what God commands. To be continued…

Last chapter saw the decree that Moshe would not lead the people into Canaan. Abarbanel’s explanation followed Moshe’s growing impatience with the people and ultimately God’s decision that Moshe was not the leader the people needed to enter Canaan. Besides Abarbanel’s opinion that Moshe was at his wits end, there may be another reason why God decided that Moshe was not the leader the people needed. Perhaps God felt that the people were too reliant on Moshe. From the very beginning of the exodus story, there have small nudges from God to transition the people from a slave mentality of dependance to a free people mentality of independence. It started with the pronouncement that the people will be responsible for certifying the new moon as the very first mitzvah to the people. The problem was the people became too reliant on Moshe. When things went bad, they complained, Moshe prayed on their behalf, but the people showed no remorse. Moshe led them into battle or had some miraculous hand in a fight. Moshe even led the people in song on after the splitting of the sea. But what would happen if Moshe was no longer in the picture? Following chapter 20, God took the risk of removing the safety net and seeing if the people could learn to fly on their own. Would the people be able to fly? In chapter 21, the people responded with a resounding yes. Right off the bat Arad attacks the people and takes POWs. Notice how Moshe is not involved here. The people make a vow to God and God makes the people successful in battle. Next, the people complain again, and God punishes them with snakes. But this time, they go to Moshe and admit they did something wrong. During the battle of Amalek, God has Moshe raise his hands to provide support for the people and to direct their eyes to God. This time, God has Moshe build a snake to focus their thoughts not on Moshe. At the end of the chapter, the people again collectively take the lead against Sichon. Notice how the word “Yisrael” appears over and over again. The greatest contrast comes before the battle with Sichon. When the people crossed the Sea of Reeds, Moshe lead the people in song, “Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to God” (Exodus 15:1). This time around, the people do not need Moshe to lead them. They can do it themselves. “Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O well—sing to it—." Moshe is not completely out of the picture. They need him at the end of the chapter to defeat the giant warriors of Og. But if chapter 20 ended with the question of can they do it? Chapter 21 answered yes, they can.

Why was Moshe not allowed to enter Canaan? The simple answer is that God commanded Moshe to speak to the rock and instead not only did he hit the rock like he did in Exodus 17, but this time Moshe to hit the rock twice. Water eventually flows, but God tells Moshe “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land” (verse 12).

The classic interpretation is that Moshe was so holy, even this small sin was enough to doom him. This explanation is lacking, and many commentators look at what else went wrong.

Rashi adds that God had a special message he wanted to send the people. That just like the rock would listen to God and bring forth water, so too the people should listen to God. By hitting the rock, Moshe deprived God of this message.

Ramban focuses on verse 10: “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” The implication is that Moshe would make the miracle happen, not God. Rambam looks at Moshe’s anger calling them rebels. This disrespect causes Moshe’s downfall. Ibn Ezra also points to Moshe’s anger, not in his words, but Moshe hitting the rock twice. This made God look weak and incapable with the miracle.

The Rav looks at the three times Moshe discusses his punishments. In Deuteronomy 1:37 — “Because of you God was incensed with me too, saying: You shall not enter it either”

3:25–26 — “Let me, I pray, cross over… But God was angry with me on your account” and Psalm 106:32 — “They provoked wrath at the waters of Meribah and Moses suffered on their account” (These sources show that the people were at fault. Every time they crossed God in the desert, Moshe prayed for them. The one-time Moshe is punished the people were silent. Because they did not try to protect Moshe, God sealed his verdict.

The Abarbanel has a different take all together. He does not look at this story in a vacuum. Abarbanel lists ten reasons: They fell on their faces in despair instead of confidently turning to God as leaders should, displaying excessive fear rather than faith-driven initiative. They did not immediately pray for the people, doing so only after collapse, showing a lapse in their usual compassion and advocacy. They expressed frustration by calling Israel “rebels” (morim), an unnecessary verbal outburst inappropriate for their lofty role. Moshe acted with anger, and leadership rooted in anger cannot guide the people into the Land. Moshe hit the rock twice, displaying impatience rather than calm obedience. They failed to sanctify God publicly, because the miracle—had Moshe spoken to the rock—would have dramatically demonstrated God’s power. They took credit by saying “shall we bring water…?”, introducing ambiguity about who performs miracles. They didn’t clarify God’s kindness to the people, missing an educational moment about divine mercy. They showed insufficient gratitude for the people, reacting with frustration instead of empathy after Miriam’s death and the loss of the well. Their overall behavior reflected diminished leadership capacity, and God judged that this level of emotional strain made them unfit to lead the next stage of Israel’s destiny.

This story is culmination of a decline in Moshe’s leadership abilities. At the first Moshe was able to lead the people, sometimes with God’s help. As time passed, he grew more and more impatient with them. As a man who spoke directly to God, Moshe was unable to connect with the unruly base population. In the past few chapters, every time the people complained, Moshe fell on his face. He just could not take it anymore. The rock was the final straw. God had seen enough. Moshe was the right person to lead the people out of Egypt, but he was the wrong person to lead the people into the land. This answer provides a more complete look at the heroic yet tragic life of Moshe. Different circumstances require different leadership skills.

“This is a chok that God has commanded: Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.” (verse 1 — זֹאת חֻקַּת ה' אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל).

The rabbis instituted extraordinary safeguards to ensure absolute purity in the parah adumah ritual, including raising children from birth in specially built courtyards over hollowed rock to prevent any possibility of tum’at met (impurity from a corpse) (Mishnah Parah 3:2). These children drew the water for the ashes using only utensils made of stone—materials that cannot contract impurity—to avoid even the smallest halachic risk (Mishnah Parah 3:2–3). The Sages also required that all participants undergo immersion and be handled as if potentially impure even when no impurity was known, a unique stringency applied only to this mitzvah (Rambam, Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:2–3). To reinforce the gravity of maintaining purity, even minimal rabbinic impurities were treated as disqualifying for the process, reflecting a level of precaution unmatched in any other Temple procedure (Mishnah Parah 4:4; Rambam ibid. 15:1).

The Red Heifer is the quintessential example of a chok. According to Rashi, a chok has no reason so that from the outset, there is no need to explain it. A chok is a chok and that’s that. The idea of a chok does not stop us from trying to figure out the reasons behind aspects of the chok. One interesting part of the Red Heifer is that it is sacrificed outside the Mishkan. Another similar chok that is sacrificed outside the camp is the Azazel Goat. The two have another connection- the color red. The Red Heifer must be entirely red, without a single non-red hair. The Azazel Goat has a red strig tied to its horns before it is thrown over the cliff. Sforno explains that the color red is used to connect a passage in Isaiah “Be your sins like crimson, They can turn snow-white; Be they red as dyed wool, They can become like fleece” (Isaiah 1:18 — אִם־יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ אִם־יַאְדִּימוּ כַתּוֹלָע כַּצֶּמֶר יִהְיוּ).

This makes sense in connection with the Azazel Goat. The red crimson thread had a matching one hanging in the Temple. If God had forgiven the people, the red thread would turn white. But what is the connection to the Red Heifer? A person who required the use of the Red Heifer did not commit a sin. It is simply for one who came in contact with a dead body- for any reason. Perhaps the answer lies in the use of another unique ingredient- the hyssop. The only other time the hyssop is used is part of the ceremony for the person with tzaraat. That ceremony occurs in the Mishkan. When someone encounters death, their life is forever changed. It can be hard to move forward. The person may feel responsible for the death- as if they committed a sin- even that is not the case. The person can also feel depressed and low like the hyssop. Perhaps, the Red Heifer borrows two symbols from the tzaraat ceremony and the Azazel Goat as a way to remind the person that they are not condemned as a sinner and are in fact absolved like the Azazel Goat. They are also encouraged to be lifted up from their depressed state like the hyssop.