Did the Mei Merivah Story Happen in the 40th Year?

Parshat Chukat 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

There is a common theme in Rashi in the Parshas in the book of Bamidbar. Rashi thematically connects certain pieces of narrative, suggesting they are presented in the Torah in a particular order so they may come across to teach us specific lessons. 

Bamidbar 6:2 – Rashi asks why the section on Nazir is presented next to the section on Sotah. He suggests they are thematically connected in that one who sees the Sotah procedure should refrain from drinking wine. 

Bamidbar 12:1 – Rashi says that Miriam opens the conversation about Moshe because the episode of Eldad and Meidad prophesying caused Tzipporah to lament over her husband ‘leaving her’ to always be available to talk to God [even though the Torah gives no indication about this – it seems Moshe sent her away (Shemos ch. 4 after the hotel incident) when he went to Egypt (see Shemos 18 when she returns to him with her father), and we never hear from her again]. But their separation (if indeed it remained) is not attached to Moshe being a prophet, but more due to ALL of his responsibilities. We have no indication in the Torah that Tzipporah stayed with the Bnei Yisrael. 

Bamidbar 13:2 – Rashi says the episode of the spies is presented right after the tale of Miriam speaking Lashon Hora to indicate that they saw what happened to her and did not take heed, to prevent themselves from speaking Lashon Hora about the land. While we have a general idea of when the spies episode took place, this indicates that the tale of Miriam speaking of Moshe is thematically connected on account of the Lashon Hora, but it says nothing of when it “actually” happened. 

 Bamidbar 15:41 – Rashi asks why the episode of the “wood gatherer” is presented next to a discussion about the dangers of idolatry. He answers it is to teach us that one who desecrates the Shabbos is compared to one who worships idols. Obviously this says absolutely nothing about when the story took place. [For those who follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that the wood gatherer was Tzlafchad (which is certainly not a universally held view), consider the debate in the Midrash as to when Tzlafchad might have died – around the time of the Korach event (since his daughters indicate he died, but not as part of Korach – suggesting he died around that time from something else), or in the 40th year, due to the difficulty in imagining that these wonderful young women would not have gotten married for close to 40 years since the death of their father. - see comments on the link a few lines up] 

Bamidbar 20:1 – Rashi asks why Miriam’s death is recorded next to the instruction for the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer). He answers that it is to teach us that just as offerings bring atonement (which is strange because the Parah Adumah is not a Korban – though Sifsei Chachamim indicates that it is “similar” to a Korban since it is referred to as a chatas in verses 9 and 17 - per Avodah Zara 23b), so does the death of the righteous bring atonement. 

 As noted at the beginning, all of these indicate THEMATIC connections between the narratives presented near each other in the Torah. They give ZERO INDICATION of chronology. 

 And so we are left to ask, can it be suggested that the event of Mei Merivah did not happen in the 40th year? 

 Before making the case, let’s offer the counter arguments that suggest the narrative of Mei Merivah takes place in the final year of the Israelites being in the wilderness. 

1. Miriam’s death seems to be the trigger to the whole story, as her absence seems to be the cause of there not being water – the complaint that put the whole story in motion 

2. Aharon’s death follows the story in the end of Chapter 20, and the Torah tells us that Aharon died in the 40th year (Bamidbar 33:38) 

3. Moshe and Aharon seem to have every inclination that they are going into the land. That they are not seems to be a big shock, which would only make sense if it came at the end of their time in the wilderness 

Some of the problems with these arguments: 

1. We are actually never told in what year Miriam died (we are given a month (1st), but not a year). 

2. The Torah also tells us about Aharon’s death in a time which seems to make no sense (though there are explanations for it) – see Devarim 9:6, and of course look at the context there (hint: Golden Calf) 

3. There is plenty of evidence that Moshe for sure, and possibly Aharon as well were NOT going to be going into the land. [See Devarim 1:37, Sanhedrin 17a (about Eldad and Meidad’s prophesy), Chizkuni on Bamidbar 10:29 (about Moshe’s trying to use his father in law to keep everyone’s spirits up even though he’d be gone) [see also Rashi there, which is troubling], Rashi on the last pasuk in Parshas Shemos (6:1) in which he quotes Sanhedrin 111a (that Moshe will only see the defeat of Pharaoh but not of the kings of Canaan), Rashi on Shemos 4:13 (that Moshe knew at the burning bush that someone else would bring the people into Canaan), Devarim Rabba 2 (Moshe is faulted for not correcting the daughters of Yisro who referred to him as an Egyptian, preventing him from even being buried in the land, while Yosef was to be buried in the land for always letting people know he was a Hebrew) – See https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/01/moshes-destiny-to-never-enter-land.html 

While the Rabbis certainly connected the death of Miriam to the absence of water, this is the first time there seems to be any connection associated with Miriam bringing the merit to Israel to have water. In fact, there were times early on after they left Egypt in which there was no water, when Miriam was present. Is this just the Rabbis making a free association based on the proximity of the verses? 

Miriam dies in Kadesh, Midbar Tzin (20:1). The Spies left from Midbar Tzin/Kadesh (Bamidbar 13:21&26 in which Midbar Paran is also mentioned). That is very suspicious – though Bamidbar 33:36 indicates they were there again at the end of the journeys (though we are not told how long they were at any of these places?). 

 The people complain “If only we had died as our brethren perished before God (Lifnei Hashem)?” What could they be referring to? The last time a group of people died before God was in Parshas Korach (16:16-17, 17:3) – which everyone assumes took place shortly after the spies. Otherwise, people who died “Lifnei Hashem” include Nadav and Avihu (Bamidbar 3:4, 26:61) and the Spies (14:37) – all of which pre-date Korach. It seems strange for the people complaining now to reference an event that took place 39 years ago in this manner. It is logical to assume these events (spies, Korach) would have been chronologically much closer to this particular episode (Mei Merivah). 

The people ask “Why did you take us up from Egypt…?” which was a common question asked in the Book of Shemos (14:11, 17:3), and earlier in Bamidbar (11:4-6,20, 14:3-4, 16:13-14). This would seem to be a question more suited (though wrong) to those who LEFT EGYPT, rather than those who mostly WERE NEVER IN EGYPT. 

While it is not possible to indicate exactly WHEN the episode of Mei Merivah took place, it is reasonable for Moshe and Aharon to share the fate of the people they led, for the extent of all of their collective time in the wilderness. 

 Abravanel suggests that Moshe and Aharon’s fates are tied to the Spies and Golden Calf episodes and that Mei Merivah is like a “smoke screen” to protect them from their fate being attached to those horrible events. But perhaps the Torah’s associating a reporting of Aharon’s death with the Golden Calf (Devarim 9:6 as noted above) and Moshe’s with the Spies (14:22-24, 29-35; see also Devarim 1:34-39, and the word Divreichem there gives us an indication to what Moshe references in Devarim 4:21-22) is a way to support Abravanel’s view. 

There is plenty of evidence (or at least strong hints), therefore, that the narrative of Mei Merivah is thematically placed here, but not chronologically placed here, and that the story itself, as well as the death of Miriam, could have happened much earlier in the wilderness experience than the 40th year. 

If it did, then whether it is to be blamed for Moshe and Aharon not going into the land is far less troubling – since certainly their “punishment” does not seem to “fit the crime.” They are sharing the fate of their generation, either as a punishment for much larger failings or because that truly is their destiny, and not because of “hitting a rock” or “not speaking nicely.” 

Rashi opens the door to thematic connections. Since proof for the chronology is, in fact, lacking, this mini-deep-dive has much more merit than most people would likely give credit to. But it is actually much nicer to Moshe and Aharon to see themselves as sharing the fate of their generation for a long time, being able to give chizuk to those who see their lives as having less meaning on account of their not entering the land, while showing that “we all share this fate – our task in living through the 40 years of wilderness is to prepare the next generation for their destiny, which is to conquer and build the land, a task we were unsuited for for many reasons.” 

This is what we ALL live for – for the hope that the next generation will surpass us, in their commitment to God and the Torah, and their desire to be a part of the fate and destiny of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, no matter how long it takes until we all get there.