Matot Masei answers (sources below)

Matot-Masai 5729

Alef.

1. The problem with stating that the first fourteen  journeys took place during the “first year” is that journey #12 is listed as beginning in the “second year.” See BaMidbar 10:11-2. So one has to interpret RaShI as stating that the first fourteen journeys took place “more or less” during the first year following the Exodus from Egypt.

2.   Here is the commentary of the MaHaRaL on this particular RaShI:

[א] אלה מסעי ארבעים ושתים מסעות. לא תמצא מ"ב מסעות ממש בפרשה הזאת, רק מ"א, רק דרש"י חשיב 'מסעות' המקומות שמשם נסעו, שהמקום שנסעו משם נקרא גם כן 'מסע'. וכן פירש רש"י בפרשת פקודי בפירוש (שמות מ, לו), עיין שם בסוף הפרשה:

i.e., there are only 41 rather than 42 journeys listed. (See source sheet.) (He suggests that RaShI includes the first place from which they start as also a “Massa.”)

3.  The first interpretation emphasizes the totality of the journey and the Consideration that HaShem Extended to the people by making them journey relatively little during the forty years. The second interpretation attributes to these journeys negative associations which HaShem Wishes that the people preserve in their memories—similar to the RaShI at the beginning of Devarim explaining why so many names of places are included.

As for the difference and therefore the need for both, here is the second comment that MaHaRaL makes re this RaShI which I believe addresses the question now being posed by Nechama:

[ב] לא נסעו אלא עשרים מסעות. וקשה, דאם כן לכתוב בכלל 'ומסעי בני ישראל היו כך וכך מסעות'. ויש לומר, דאם כן הייתי אומר שכל המסעות היו מיום שנגזרה הגזירה עליהם, לפיכך הוצרך לכתוב כי כמה מסעות היו קודם הגזירה, דהיינו קודם שבאו למדבר פארן (פסוק יח) . ומאחר שהוצרך למכתב המסעות עד שבאו למדבר פארן, כתב לך כולם בפירוש, ולא כללם יחד. אך קשה עדיין, מה מועיל, הלא נוכל לומר כי מסע אחד היה כמה וכמה ימים, עד שלא נחו כלל ולא שקטו כלל במדבר, לפי ריחוק המסעות זה מזה. ויש לומר, דהמקומות האלו ידועים במדבר, וכמה רחוקים זה מזה, ולפיכך לא נוכל לטעות מידי. ובזה יתורץ הקושיא הראשונה גם כן, ולא תקשה למה הוצרך לכתוב אותן בפירוש, לומר לך כי קרובים הם אלו המקומות:

i.e., if the intention was to list those places where HaShem had Become Angered, and how over time His Anger was Assuaged, then wouldn’t it have been appropriate to mention the journeys specifically associated with God becoming Angry, particularly from the time of the decree concerning the spies and onwards? By virtue of all of the journeys being mentioned, even those concerning which we do not hear of any problems taking place, e.g., #8, #9 “Dafka” and “Alush”, the implication is that all journeys, even those that were not associated with places which caused HaShem Grief, כביכול, are included.

Beit.

1.  הרכסים לבקעה: the movement of the people, i.e., both the place from which they left as well as the destination are included in the term “למסעיהם”.

     הביאור: the point of origin of the journey. Without a starting point, there would be no journey.

              שד"ל: the emphasis is upon the destination, since there was nothing in the desert, the point was to travel to a place of nothingness.

2.  נצי"ב incorporates in his commentary the realization that the purposes of the various journeys were not necessarily the same, a distinction that the first three commentaries listed do not address.

3.  הרכסים לבקעה:  From the first verse, one might have thought that the only aspect of the journey that one should take note of is the movement from Egypt to Israel. Comes along the second verse to cast emphasis upon each stage of the overall journey.

     הביאור:  One might have thought that the main point according to the first verse is the Exodus from Egypt. Therefore the second verse breaks up the journey to reflect the many points of origin along the way.

              שד"ל: Instead of focusing upon the journey as one long process to reach Israel, the second verse emphasizes the intermediary stops along the way.

     העמק דבר: Not only is there not one overall journey, but in fact there were three journeys, when you take into consideration the different goals for each of the three sections of the trip as reflected in the second verse.

4.  If the word “לצבאותם” would be interpreted in the context of BaMidbar 33 as reflecting the organized nature of the encampment as it marched through the desert from place to place, there would be nothing innovative about this in light of what was stated at the outset of BaMidbar in Chapter 10. Consequently, the word only takes on significance if it is interpreted as referring to the different purposes of the journeys, as נצי"ב interprets both in Shemot and BaMidbar.

Gimel.

1.  סיפורים בזולת.. Stories that are devoid of Commandments, and you think that there is no need for that story.

              אינו רק... it is for no other reason than you are unaware of the details that made this incident worthy of remembering/recording.

              אך לעתיד... however in the future it will become a traditional narrative (in the absence of having witnessed the events first-hand) and the listener might think it false.

              בביאור המסעות... by explicating/mentioning these journeys, those who come will see them and will know the greatness of the miracle.

              כי כל מה... for everything that comes afterwards…is an abundance of words that are unnecessary.

              בלתי מסודרים... without order, and sometimes some of them were repeated.

              וכן כל ענין... And so too everything whose reason for its mentioning is hidden from you, it has a strong reason.

2.  רמב"ם emphasizes the miracles that were required to sustain the people for forty years in the desert, as well as the fact that all of these places were uninhabited and undeveloped. God had a Plan for why and how He was Going to Lead the people on this path and the list of journeys serves to underscore His Omnipotence.

              ספורנו stresses the amazing qualities of the people that were prepared to be led on this series of journeys. Their following the Divine Directives for forty years was no small feat.

3. Other cases of seeming superfluity and repetition would include the generations between Adam and Noach (Beraishit 5) and between Noach and Avraham (Ibid. 10; 11:10 ff.); the generations of Eisav (Ibid. 36); the four Parashiot in Shemot devoted to the Mishkan (Teruma, Tetzave, VaYakhel and Pekudei); and the donations to the Mishkan of the princes of the tribes (BaMidbar 7).

4.  The Yerushalmi Peah 1:1 is arguing that when something is not understood, it reflects a lacking in the one who is perceiving rather than in the thing itself, i.e., a problem with the Gavra rather than the Cheftza. According to those who believe that man is the measure of all things, as soon as something does not make sense to them, it is rejected. However, when one is invested with intellectual humility, particularly with respect to matters that are believed to be of Divine Origin, then “Man Shterbt Nischt von a Kasha” (one does not die as a result of a question), as R. Chaim Brisker was fond of saying. As opposed to Shlomo HaMelech who when he thought that the stated reasons for Commandments that applied to a Jewish king did not apply to him, proceeded to ignore the Commandments because he thought that he was superior to them (Sanhedrin 21a), one should recognize that it is possible that he is mistaken and that perhaps there are additional reasons for complying with the Commandments.

3