Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 20
Overview
This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.Complaints in the Wilderness
Bemidbar 20 is one of a long series of Israelite complaints in the desert which began already in Shemot 14 and continue throughout Sefer Bemidbar.
Tools
- See Makbilot BaMikra for a list of links to other stories of complaints in the Wilderness.
Articles
- Listen to Sefer Bemidbar: From Doubt to Debate, by Atara Snowbell, for a close reading and analysis of the evolution of the Israelites’ complaints from Shemot 15 through Bemidbar 21, reflecting their increasing faith and independence.
- See מסע בעקבות תלונות עם ישראל במדבר, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur, for a nuanced comparison and contrast of the complaints in the desert along six different parameters: the situation that prompted the complaint, the way that the Torah describes the people and their complaint, the content of their request, the way that the nation relates to Egypt, and the consequences of the complaint.
- See בני ישראל - הדור החדש, by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of the complaints and responses of the Israelites in Parashat Chukkat to the complaints of the previous generation, which reveal a fundamental change in Israel's attitude and behavior after the episode of the fiery serpents in Bemidbar 21. The harsh punishment of Bemidbar 21 leads to fear of Hashem and, ultimately, to faith
- See עליית הדור השני, by R. Yair Kahn, for comparison and contrast of the complaints of Parashat Chukkat to the complaints of the previous generation. Whereas the generation that left Egypt was hesitant and characterized by a slave mentality, textual hints indicate that the generation of Parashat Chukkat is the opposite: confident and eager to enter the land.
Mei Meriva & Masa and Meriva
Tools
- Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two episodes here.
Primary Sources
- See R. Yosef Bekhor Shor’s commentary on Bemidbar 20:8, which claims that the two episodes tell of the same incident. Other commentators understand them to be two separate events.
Articles
- See The Difference Between the People of Mei Meriva and the People of Masa Umeriva, by R. Jonathan Snowbell, for a comparison and contrast of the nation’s behavior in both stories. Textual clues indicate that, even as they complain, the new generation has internalized their identity as Hashem’s people and feels a direct relationship with Hashem.
- Listen to Of Sticks and Stones, by R. Chanoch Waxman, which reflects on the parallels and contrasts between the two episodes to identify Moshe’s missteps. In Shemot, the nation is described as “העם” (the people) while in Bemidbar they are called “קהל "י"י” (Hashem's congregation). The change in title represents the spiritual growth of the nation. Moshe's mistake lay in not treating them with an understanding of how they had developed over time.
- Listen to משה והסלע - חטא משה במי מריבה, by R. Itamar Eldar, for a detailed comparison and contrast of the two episodes with an emphasis on the different settings and stages of each. This analysis leads to a better understanding of Moshe’s error at Mei Meriva: he tried to provide for the people as he had done earlier in their journey, rather than to prepare them for their new life in the Land of Israel.
- See The Sin of Moshe and Aharon, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, which analyzes the episode of Mei Meriva in light of its parallel in Sefer Shemot in order to illuminate the nature of Moshe’s and Aharon’s sin. The comparison highlights that in Chukkat the people's complaint is motivated not only by a need for water but by their lack of certainty about Hashem’s presence: is it God or Moshe and Aharon who lead them through the Wilderness? Moshe’s words ("shall WE give you water") do not sufficiently respond to this aspect of the complaint, and might even give the impression that is he and Aharon, rather than Hashem, that lead. As such, their actions did not achieve the desired sanctification of Hashem.