מסעי - יומן מסע

These were the marches of the Israelites who started out from the land of Egypt, troop by troop, in the charge of Moses and Aaron. Moses recorded the starting points of their various marches as directed by יהוה. Their marches, by starting points, were as follows: They set out from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month. It was on the morrow of the passover offering that the Israelites started out defiantly, in plain view of all the Egyptians. The Egyptians meanwhile were burying those among them whom יהוה had struck down, every [male] first-born—whereby יהוה executed judgment on their gods. The Israelites set out from Rameses and encamped at Succoth.

אלה מסעי THESE ARE THE JOURNEYS (STAGES) [OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — Why are these stations recorded here? In order to make known the loving acts of the Omnipresent: that although He had decreed against them to make them move about and wander in the wilderness, you should not think that they wandered and moved about without cessation from one station to another station all the forty years, and that they had no rest, for you see that there are here only forty-two stages. Deduct from them fourteen, all of which were their stopping places in the first year after they left Egypt, before the decree was made, viz., from the time when they journeyed from Rameses until when they came to Rithmah whence the spies were sent out — as it is said. (Numbers 12:16): “And afterwards the people journeyed from Hazeroth, [and encamped in the wilderness of Paran], whereupon the Lord said unto Moses, (Numbers 13:2) "Send thee men [who may search out the land]”; and here (v. 18) it states, “and they journeyed from Hazeroth and they encamped in Rithmah”, so you learn that it (Rithmah) is in the wilderness of Paran. — Further deduct from them the eight stages which were after Aaron’s death viz., those from Mount Hor to the plains of Moab in the fourtieth year (v. 38). It follows that during the whole of the thirty eight years they made only twenty journeys. This is excerpted from the work of R. Moses the Preacher. — R. Tanchuma gave another explanation of it (of the question why these stages are here recorded). A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king whose son was ill and whom he took to a distant place to cure him. When they returned home the father began to enumerate all the stages, saying to him, “Here we slept, here we caught cold, here you had the head-ache, etc.” (Midrash Tanchuma 4:10:3.

THESE ARE THE JOURNEYS. After the vengeance [executed] upon Midian, concerning which the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moses, afterwards shalt thou be gathered unto thy people, and after Moses had apportioned the land of Sihon and Og [to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Menasheh] and they had built the [previously] mentioned cities, he set his mind to write down [the various stages of] the journeyings [in the desert]. His intention in so doing was to inform [future generations] of the loving kindnesses of the Holy One, blessed be He, towards them, for even though He had decreed upon them that they had to move about and wander around in the wilderness, you should not think that they were continually wandering and moving around from place to place without any rest; for throughout all this long [period of] time they only went on forty-two journeys as the Rabbi — Rashi — wrote, [citing] the words of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] added in the Moreh Nebuchim another [explanation as to the] benefit [that we derive] from knowledge [of these stages], saying: “There was a very great necessity in mentioning the [stages of the] journeyings. For [although] the miracles and wonders that were done were [recognized as] true ones by all who saw them, in later times these events would be matters of hearsay, and those who hear about them [then] might deny them altogether. Now among the greatest miracles and wonders [related] in the Torah is Israel’s survival in the wilderness for forty years, and finding the manna every day, although these places [where they stayed] are very far from cultivated settlements, and are not natural habitat for human beings, not being a place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, and the Torah states, Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink. All these [matters] are signs of events of a miraculous nature which were seen by [the human] eye. But the Creator blessed be He, knew that these wonders will be subject to the process which occurs to [all] historical events — that those who hear them will not believe them; and they will think [about these events] that the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness was [in a place] near the cultivated settlement, where people can live there, such as the deserts in which the Arabs live today, or [that they stayed in] places where there was plowing and harvesting, or where there were grasses and plants suitable for human consumption, and that there were wells of water in those places. Therefore in order to remove from people’s hearts all such thoughts, and to firmly establish [the truth of] all these miracles, [He recorded] as a [permanent] memorial the [stages of their] journeyings [in the wilderness], so that the future generations would see them and acknowledge the great wonders [entailed] in keeping people alive in such places for forty years.” All these are his words [i.e., the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon].
Thus the writing down [the stages of] the journeyings was a commandment of G-d, either for the reasons mentioned above or for some other reasons, [for] a purpose the secret of which has not been revealed to us. For [the expression] by the commandment of the Eternal is connected with [the beginning of that verse], And Moses wrote, unlike the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra who wrote that it is connected with according to their journeys, for Scripture has already informed us of this [fact, saying]: according to the commandment of the Eternal they remained encamped, and according to the commandment of the Eternal they journeyed.

אלה מסעי, G’d wanted all the journeys to be recorded in order to compliment the Jewish people who had followed him blindly through the desert where nothing grew, so that as a reward for their faith they would deserve to enter and inherit the land of Israel.

This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: If the animal was seized and then taken in the direction in which it was walking, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you, but if not, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey. The Gemara asks: And can you establish this entire baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? But the first clause teaches: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it became ill or went mad, the owner can say to the renter: That which is yours is before you. And yet Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in a different baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on it, and it becomes ill or goes mad, the owner is obligated to provide the renter with another donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that this is not a contradiction. The case of one who takes a donkey to ride on is different, as he requires a donkey that walks steadily. A sick donkey is no better than a dead one for this purpose. Rav Pappa said: And acquiring a donkey so that it should carry glass vessels is considered to be like riding on it, as glass vessels also require steady walking to prevent the load from falling. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: In the case of one who rents a donkey to ride on it and it died halfway through the journey, the renter gives the owner his fee for half of the journey, but the renter has nothing but a grievance against the owner. He has no legal claim against the owner over the fact that he now has to go to great trouble to find another donkey. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a place where donkeys are available for rent, what is the purpose of this grievance? He does not have any cause for grievance in this case, as he can simply rent another donkey and has not lost anything. If it is a place where donkeys are not available for rent, should he be required to give the owner his fee? After all, the donkey failed to perform the task for which it was rented. The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a place where donkeys are not available for rent, and the renter must pay the owner due to the fact that the owner of the donkey can say to him: Had you wanted to come to here, i.e., halfway through the journey, wouldn’t you have had to pay a fee? Therefore, pay me for the distance that my donkey carried you. The Gemara further inquires: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the owner said to him: I am renting you an unspecified donkey, the owner is obligated to provide him with another donkey. Since the owner promised him a donkey, if the first donkey is no longer available, he must give him another one. If it is referring to a case where he said to him: I am renting you this particular donkey, then if there is enough money to be gained from selling its carcass to purchase another donkey, let the renter purchase another one. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha only in a case where there is not enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey. The Gemara asks: Even so, if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to hire another donkey, let him rent another donkey and continue along his way. What grounds are there for grievance? The Gemara explains that Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav said: One may not fully deplete the principal in order to pay rental fees. Consequently, the renter has no right to sell the carcass, so as not to deplete the entire monetary value of the donkey. This is as it was stated in a dispute between amora’im on this issue: With regard to one who rents a donkey and it died halfway through the journey, Rav says: If there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass to purchase another donkey, the renter may purchase one, but if there is enough money only to rent another donkey, he may not rent one. Shmuel says: Even if there is enough money to be gained from the sale of its carcass only to rent another donkey, he may rent one. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rav holds that one may not fully deplete the principal, and as the carcass now constitutes the principal value of the donkey, one may not use the proceeds of its sale to pay rental fees, as nothing will be left to return to the owner. And Shmuel holds that one may fully deplete the principal. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Arakhin 5:1), which discusses the case of a borrower who gives his lender a tree as a security for a loan so that the lender may eat an amount of its fruit up to the value of the loan. If the tree dried up or was cut down, it is prohibited for both the borrower and lender to use the body of the tree. What should be done? Land should be purchased with the proceeds from the sale of what is left of the tree, and the lender enjoys the profits of that land. The Gemara explains the objection: And yet here, once the Jubilee Year arrives, that purchased land will return to its original owner. It will not remain with the borrower after the loan has been repaid. And it will turn out that the principal is fully depleted, as the borrower will be left with nothing. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he purchased the field for sixty years. As Rav Ḥisda says that Rav Ketina says: From where is it derived with regard to one who sells his field for sixty years or any fixed length of time, that it does not return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year? As it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:23). This prohibition applies to land which, if there were no Jubilee Year, would be sold in perpetuity, but as there is a Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity. That excludes this case, where the field is sold for a fixed length of time, as even though there is no Jubilee Year it is not sold in perpetuity. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, when the end of those sixty years arrives, the land will return to its owner, and at that point the principal will be fully depleted. The Gemara answers: Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are not in effect, as one can purchase land in perpetuity when the Jubilee Year is not observed. The Gemara adds support for this explanation: This too stands to reason, as, if it enters your mind that this halakha is referring to a period when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect and the ruling is that the principal may be fully depleted, why undertake a complicated transaction? Let the lender simply cut the tree into branches for kindling, and take it and sell it right away. The Gemara responds: If the challenge to Rav’s opinion is due to that baraita, it is not difficult. There may be times that the years during which the lender is entitled to the collateral are completed before the arrival of the Jubilee Year, in which case the land would revert to the borrower for a certain amount of time, and therefore the principal is not necessarily fully depleted. Alternatively, it is possible that money comes into the borrower’s possession and he redeems the field four or five years before the arrival of the Jubilee Year. In this case the principal will not be fully depleted, as he repays the loan before the land is returned. § The Sages taught: With regard to one who rents a boat, and it sunk halfway through the journey, Rabbi Natan says: If the renter already gave money for the boat, he does not receive a refund, but if he has not yet given money he does not give it after the boat has sunk. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this contract? If we say that the owner stated he was renting him this particular boat and the renter said that he was transporting unspecified wine, then even if he gave money, why should he not receive a refund? Let him say to the owner: Give me the boat so that I can transport wine, and if you cannot do so, refund the rental fee so that I can rent another boat. Rather, one could say that this is referring to a situation where the owner said he would rent him an unspecified boat, and the renter said that he would transport this particular wine. But in that case, even if he did not give money, why should he not give the owner the rental fee?