Questions on Parshas Masei to think about and discuss:

1. Whose is the only yahrzeit mentioned explicitly in the Torah and why only him?
2. In Parshas Masei it details the borders of Eretz Yisroel. Yet in Parshas Eikev and the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua is details much larger boundaries?
3. Why does the Torah need to tell us the exact boundaries of Eretz Yisroel?
4. Eretz Yisroel is referred to as Eretz Canaan (34:2). Canaan was only one of the seven nations in Eretz Yisroel. Why then single them out to call the land after them?
5. It lists the Nesiyim, leaders, of each tribe who would lead them into inheriting Eretz Yisroel. What lies behind the order of the tribes? It is not according to the usual birth order or the Degolim?
6. Why is the word “Nosi” omitted by the tribes of Yehuda, Shimon and Binyomin?

Ideas for answers on the general parsha:

1. It was Aaron Hakohen’s on the the first of the month of Av (33:38). The Ha’amek Dovor explains that he was the first one to do the avoda, and his death corresponds to the destruction of the place of the avoda, the Beis Hamikdosh, in this month.
2. In Parshas Masei it is delineating the minimal borders of Eretz Yisroel that in the future will expand in all directions. (Malbim)
3. Rashi (34:1) explains that since some mitzvos are dependent on Eretz Yisroel and cannot be performed outside it therefore we need to know the exact location where they apply. The Ralbag says that it is in order to know exactly where Hashem wanted them to conquer. Another reason is that since the tribes of Reuven and Gad agreed to go ahead and help conquer and divide Eretz Yisroel, they needed to know the exact boundaries to know when their commitment had finished and they could return home. Another idea is that Eretz Yisroel is called Eretz Tzvi, the land of the deer. The comparison is that just like a deer’s skin when taken off cannot be put back on but when on it expands, so too Eretz Yisroel is so small yet expands. By telling us the boundaries it is expressing that if not for the two and a half tribes taking their land elsewhere, these borders would have been even larger to accomodate them.
4. The first Canaan in the Torah is the son of Chom who was negatively involved when Noach got drunk. He was therefore cursed to forever be a servant. From this time onwards the names servant and Canaan are linked. There it has a negative connotation. However, Eretz Canaan use this association of being a servant for the right person. It is a land conducive to becoming servants to Hashem.
5. The order of the tribes mentioned goes according to how Eretz Yisroel was actually divided… (R’ Shimshon Refoel Hirsch)
6. See Chizkuni…

Questions on the 42 camps:

1. Why the need to mention in detail all forty-two journeys of the Jews in the desert?
2. The first Rashi in Parshas Masei brings the breakdown of how the Jews travelled forty-two encampments. However, if you count those listed in the pesukim, there are only forty-one?
3. Why does the Torah when mentioning the first camp, Ramseis, does it go off and mention about the miracles that took place there?
4. Why is there the need at all to go back and summarise a list of the forty-two camps?

Ideas for answers on the 42 camps:

1. Had these journeys not been detailed then future generations would not be aware of all the miracles that took place in the desert. (Rambam, Mora Nevuchim, 3:50)
2. What we are assuming is counted as an encampment is coming to the place and leaving to the place. This means that the first and last ones should not be counted since they do not have both the coming and leaving. However, the following answers explains how either the first or last is included making forty-two encampments. Maskil Lidovid says that the first one where they left from, Ramseis, is also counted as one since the Jews were spread out throughout Mitzrayim and then suddenly were all gathered there. The Vilna Gaon says that the last one is counted as we find in Sefer Yehoshua (13) that it lists Shitim as an encampment. Another answer is that really there were only forty-one encampments. However, Rashi counts another one since he counts the place of Risma in both of his calculations. (Gur Aryeh)
3. Perhaps since it the first camp it elaborates on the background to tell us that really this set up is the same for all the other encampments. The idea by all of them is how Hashem was miraculously directed the Jews wherever they went.

Questions on the Orei Miklot:

1. The possuk says that there were different sections of the cities of the Leviyim with different measurements. How were they split up?
2. Why did the cities of the Leviyim double up and also serve as the place of refuge for those who murdered by mistake – as an Orei Miklot?
3. If someone murdered by mistake and regrets it why does he still need to be confined to the Orei Miklot?
4. When did the Orei Miklot stop functioning?
5. The possuk  (34:6-7)says that there were 42 cities and 6 cities of the Leviyim, making a total of 48 cities. Why the need to split up this total into 42 and 6?
6. The time period of having to stay in the Orei Miklot was a variable. It depended on when the Kohen Godol died. Why was this the determining factor?
7. Why is murder treated so severely in the form of the Orei Miklot something we do not find by other sins?
8. Why did the three Orei Miklot in Eiver Hayarden not function until the three in Eretz Yisroel were set up?
9. When it says that with the Kohen Godol’s death the accidental murderers were allowed out – which Kohen Godol is it referring to?

Ideas for answers on the Orei Miklot:

1. Rashi (35:4) brings that the city of thousand square amos was in the centre. Surrounding it was another two thousand square amos. This was split with the inner thousand amos being the migrosh, place for their animals and possessions, while the outer thousand was for the fields and vineyards. The Rambam (Hilchos Shemita ViYovel 13:4) brings that the city was in the centre of one thousand amos, surrounded by one thousand amos of migrosh and then two thousand for fields and vineyards. The Ramban (35:2) brings that the total amount was two thousand square amos. The city was in the centre with one thousand amos. Directly parallel to it on all four sides of five hundred amos was the migrosh while the remaining four corners was for the fields and vineyards.
2. The Chinuch (408) explains that if the murderer was not placed in the Orei Miklot then the victim’s relatives might in the heat of the moment avenge their death by killing the murderer. Therefore for his own safety he went to the cities of the Leviyim. They are special level headed people as seen by their reactions after the cheit hoegel, sin of the golden calf, and if this situation would be able to control themselves. In this way, the accidental murderer would be kept safe.
4. After the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdosh the Orei Miklot stopped functioning (Sota 48b). Why did it not work again during the time of the Second Beis Hamikdosh?
5. It is to show us that there is a difference between these 42 and 6 cities of the Leviyim in how they served as an Orei Miklot. The Gemora (Makos 13a) brings the 6 work to save him even if the murder unwittingly finds himself there, while the other 42 require the murdered to know that he is running there for refuge. The Ponim Yofois (35:14) brings that the 42 cities were owned by the Leviyim but they also let the accidental murderers reside there. However, the 6 cities were specially for the murderers but the Leviyim were also allowed there. The difference being if there was not enough space for everyone who would have to leave.
6. See a reason in Rashi (35:25). The Chizkuni brings that the Kohen Godol is in charge of all matters of kedusha. If people see the accidental murder freely roaming around they will complain to against the Kohen Godol. Therefore, the murderer must remain out of eyesight until that Kohen Godol dies. The Rashbam brings that the Kohen Godol is like the Nosi of the cities of Leviyim. Like when a new king comes to power he pardons and frees prisoners, so too when a new Kohen Godol comes to power he releases the murderers from being confined to the cities of the Leviyim. (The difference between these two lasts reasons is if the freeing is based on the old Kohen Godol or the new one.) The Rambam (Moreh 3:1) brings that the Goel Hadom needs to be comforted for his dead relative. When the Kohen Godol dies, the Goel Hadom feels comforted and then gives up idea of avenging his relative and therefore the murderer can leave his refuge.
8. Meshech Chochma (35:11) brings it is so that the murderers should not run and leave Eretz Yisroel in order to get refuge.
9. The Rambam (Hilchos Roitzeiach 7:9) brings that with the death of any four special kohanim, the accidental murderers could leave their refuge. These are: The annointed Kohen; the Kohen with eight garments (after the time of King Yoshiyohu when the anointing oil was hidden); The Kohen Godol who was deposed due to a blemish; a previous Kohen Godol.

Chakira(s) to think about and let me know with proofs…

1. Is the Orei Miklot, city of refuge for the accidental murderer, for the benefit of the murderer to keep him safe from being killed by the Goel Hadom. Or, is it for him to achieve atonement by being confined and “imprisoned”. Or is it both?
2. What is the status of the cities of the Leviyim: was it given to them so that they are now its’ owners or it is not theirs only that they have been given permission to reside there?