Syllabus for Bamidbar

The following is a syllabus of subjects to be covered when teaching the second half of Sefer Bamidbar during a one-year course. The course covers the challenges of the Second Generation in the 40^th and final year of wandering in the desert, before entering the Promised Land. The target audience is a middle school class that has covered, as a prerequisite, the First Generation’s travels and travails in the desert, to be found in Sefer Shemot and the first half of Sefer Bamidbar.

Area Covered

The primary text to be covered starts in chapter 20 of Bamidbar, near the beginning of the weekly portion of Chukat, immediately after the statute of the Red Heifer. Medieval Meforshim will be referenced extensively, requiring either a Chumash Torat Chaim or a Mikro’ot Gedolot with at least Unklos, Rashi, Rashbam, Ramban, and Eben Ezra. For less advanced classes, an English Chumash and Rashi should suffice. The course will require the study of secondary texts throughout Tanach. Since the students are not likely to have a pocket Tanach, photocopies should be made as needed. The use of Meforshim outside of the primary text range is kept to a minimum; however, an occasional Gemara, Medrash Agada, Rambam, and Da’at Mikra map will require photocopies.

Goals

The events of the Second Generation are broken down into a series of subjects that follow more or less sequentially in the text. The goal of this document is to lay before the teachers a series of overarching ideas that are dealt with in this section of Bamidbar, and offer an approach to teaching them. How these subjects are imparted to the students depends on the style of the teacher. This document does not supply lesson plans or worksheets. Each subject may constitute many lesson plans, tests, projects, reading exercises, etc. The amount of time to be dedicated to each subject is also up to the teacher.

A number of goals are enumerated for each subject. Most goals fall into one of two categories. One type of goal aims to enhance the student’s understanding of both the relationship between Second Generation and God in the desert in specific, and the Jewish people and God throughout history in general. These goals develop the students’ theological, ethical, and meta-historical understanding of their role as Jews. The second type of goal is geared towards improving the learning capabilities (reading and decoding skills, for example) of our students.

3) Understand the storyline or laws within the context of the history of the Second Generation in particular, and the Jewish people in general.

4) Think critically about the message being delivered by means of the narrative or laws.

5) Read and understand Medrashic and Medieval commentary of the narrative or laws.

6) Appreciate the excellence and uniqueness of our Medrashic and Medieval commentaries.

7) Recognize interpretive disputes in the commentaries, and allow the students to “choose their favorites.” This should be fun; it’s like picking a favorite ball team!

8) Develop a love for the land of Israel through a familiarity with its geography (and the geography of nearby lands) and recognition of the relationship, as seen through the eyes of the Second Generation, between our Land, our Nation, and our God.

Different subjects lend themselves to different goals. This document suggests possible goals for each subject, and suggests procedures for imparting these goals. Teachers may wish to add or modify the goals to match their own style and sensibilities. The procedures are supplied solely as my own ideas, which will probably develop into my lesson plans.

Syllabus

Subject 1: A 38 Year Jump

Area Covered

Goals

· Review and remember the events and themes of the First Generation, found in first “half” of Sefer Bamidbar, which has presumably been learned as a prerequisite.

· Create a linear understanding of the events leading up to the Second Generation.

· Identify the geographical location of Kadesh in Midbar Tzin, where we meet B’nei Yisrael in Chukat. Be able to differentiate between places with the same name; understand that places are named based on events or other factors, and duplicates occur fairly frequently.

Procedure

First Generation Review

Distinguish the leap from the second year to the fortieth. For a timeline of Year Two in the first part of Sefer Bamidbar, see chapter/verses 1:1, 9:1-3, 9:10-11, 10:11, 10:33 (Menucha = Eretz Yisrael, see 10:35-36), 12:16-17, and 13:20. The last pasuk mentions the beginning of the grape harvest season, which in the Judean mountains is the mid-summer to early fall. This gives us a reference point for the duration of the “troubles:” Mitoninim, Miriam, Meraglim, Ma'pilim, Korach, and Datan and Aviram.

Identify reasons for the 38-year delay, via a quick review of the “troubles:” Mitoninim, Miriam, Meraglim, Ma’pilim, Korach, and Datan and Aviram. This serves as a mini-review of the Bamidbar: The First Generation syllabus.

Unlocking a Closed Verse

Identify the problem with Bamidbar 20:1. The students can be challenged to offer another possible date. Then see Avraham Eben Ezra, Rashbam, and Rashi on this pasuk.

Kadesh

The Kadesh we are familiar with up to this point is Kadesh Barne’ah, the departure point of the Meraglim. (Actually, the Kadesh that the Meraglim left from has not yet been revealed as Kadesh Barne’a. In chapter 13—the story of the Meraglim—the Torah has the Meraglim leaving from “Midbar Paran” (pasuk 3) and returning to “Midbar Paran, Kadeisha” (pasuk 26). It is only when Moshe mentions the story of the Meraglim in Bamidbar, chapter 32:8, that “Midbar Paran, Kadeish” is identified as Kadesh Barne'a.) The first chapter in Devarim confirms this, and supplies two other facts: a) Kadesh was the first major stop after leaving Mount Sinai, and b) as punishment for the Meraglim, B’nei Yisrael were commanded to leave Kadesh Barne’a and wander the desert. Bamidbar 34:4 confirms that Kadesh Barne’a is the center (east to west) of the southern border of Eretz Yisrael, and not on the eastern border with Edom.

There is an opinion that there is only one Kadesh (the Da’at Mikra) and that these events take place in the first year (raised with some doubt by Rabbi Menacham Liebtag.) I think that the more accepted “Two Kadesh theory” is the one that should be taught at this level.

Subject 2: Hitting the Rock, Take 2.

Area Covered

Goals

3) God’s judgment of and decree against B’nei Yisrael by commanding Moshe Rabbeinu to talk to the rock.

4) God’s judgment of and decree against Moshe Rabbeinu, preventing him from entering Eretz Yisrael.

· Compare and contrast actions, ideas, place, environment, etc. to the “rock” incident in the First Generation.

· Compare and contrast text to the “rock” incident in the First Generation.

· Show how different Meforshim deal with the seemingly harsh decree, and allow the students to weigh in on the justice of the decree against Aharon and Moshe, in light of the various opinions.

Procedures

Identify the merit of B’nei Yisrael’s complaint by comparing the language of the water situation in Bamidbar 20:2 to that in Shemot 17:1 and 17:7. See Rashi on Shemot 17:2. Similar to Rashi, but more explicit, is the Eban Ezra (short or long version) on 17:2!

Identify the righteousness of the words that B’nei Yisrael spoke to Moshe by comparing Bamidbar 20:3-5 with Shemot 17:2 and 17:3. Notice the difference in tone, most significantly in the lack of mention of God’s name in Shemot, and the desire of the Second Generation to be in the land of “figs and grapes and pomegranates” as opposed to the First Generation, who wanted to go back to Egypt.

Identify the words and actions of Moshe. Compare his actions in verses 9-11 with God’s command in verse 8. What is missing?

Compare the use of Kodesh in pesukim 12 and 13, and work through the difficult pasuk 13 using Meforshim. Onkoles is interesting here. Also, see Bamidbar 27:12-14.

Subject 2a: Miriam’s Death

Area Covered

Goals

· Review the history and significance of the important Tanach character, Miriam Haneviah.

Procedure

Review the Rashi on pasuk 2 citing the Medrash about the continuous supply of water in the desert, which was based on Miriam’s merit. The original, in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ta’anit 9A, is worth a look, since it ties together the team of three comprised of Miriam, Aharon, and Moshe. Also, see the pertinent Rashis on Pasuk 1.

Subject 3: The Edom Detour: Taking the Long Way Home

Area Covered

Goals

· Understand the geographical ramifications of going around Edom, versus slipping into Israel from the Jordan Valley rift.

· Identify where B’nei Yisrael was in the desert (Kadesh vs. Kadesh Barne’a) and map out Edom.

· Chart out the Masah u’Matan between Moshe and Edom. Notice how the negotiation has two phases. Use Meforshim and analysis of the text to theorize as to why. See who is leading the negotiation in each phase.

· Understand the concept of Derech Hamelech, the roads used for trade and travel during biblical times.

Procedures:

Use the Medrashim and pesukim from Bereishit brought by Rashi to identify the national and cultural divisions and conflicts between Israel and Eisav. Draw and study maps of Edom, Midbar Sinai and Midbar Tzin. Suggest the students look at maps in Da’at Mikra, Atlas Karta, Pritchard’s Bible Atlas, etc. and have them draw their own maps. Trace the path for Israel’s trip if they had been allowed to cut through Edom. Then draw the long way that they had to take. Calculate the difference in miles and marching time.

The Ramban’s commentary on 20:19 is crucial for understanding the short road into Israel’s Jordan Valley Rift. He also explains why there is a two-phase negotiation taking place between Moshe and Edom.

Subject 3a: The Death of Aharon

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Subject 4: B’nei Yisrael vs. Arad

This is very difficult material, suitable only for advanced students. It is included here—as are all the other subjects—at the discretion of the teacher. At the very least, it is a good example of the Torah’s use of Parshiyot (i.e., petuchot and setumot) to introduce a shift in topic or subtopic.

Area Covered

Goals

· Determine where, and against whom, this war took place. This should result in a better understanding of the Negev topography from the middle Negev through the lower Harei Yehuda. (A more advanced class might also study Eban Ezra, who takes us to the East Bank of the Jordan River.)[1]

3) Creating out-of-place or standout sections from the flow of surrounding narrative.

· Try to determine why this parshiya is part of the “death of Aharon” section, which interrupts the confrontation and subsequent avoidance of Edom.

Procedure

Locate Arad and Kadesh Berneia on a topical map. Have the students determine where the battle might have taken place. See Rashi on “Derech Ha’atarim.” Make sure the students recognize the phrase “Ki Ba” in Pasuk 1. Ramban has a totally different take on this.

Teach the students the difference between and petucha and setuma. See Ramban Hilchot Tfilin, Mezuzah, and Sefer Torah, Chapter 8, with emphasis on Halacha 3 and the beginning of Halacha 4. Use a Koren Tanach to see the following examples of parshiyot:

· Standout sections. Bamidbar 25:1. Notice how the pasuk is broken in half to indicate the sudden and dramatic cessation of the plague.

Have the students identify the consistency of the parshiya structure by comparing the similar story in Bamidbar 33:37-40.

Based on their newfound knowledge of parshiyot, see if the students can determine why Israel’s unwanted change in travel plans (forced upon them by Edom) are interrupted by a chapter on Aharon’s (forced!) death, and a subchapter about Israel’s military actions in pasukim 1 and 3. See Rashi on 21:1.

See how Chazal use a distinctive textual use (the singular “captive”) to build a medrash. Consult Rashi on “Vayishb MiMenu Shevi,” and the Ramban on “Vayishb MiMenu Shevi,” especially from “ViAl Derech HaPshat…” until “ViLo Nifkad MeiHem Ish.”

Subject 5: Following Moshe on the Long Way Home

Area Covered

· Secondary: Bamidbar 33:41-44, Devarim 8:11-18 (or preferably the whole chapter.), Shemot 4:1-5

Goals

· Distinguish between the conflict (verses 4 through 9) that occurs at the beginning of the long road around Edom, and the resumption of the journey.

· Track the southeast travels of B’nei Yisrael, Derech Yam Suf, and be able to distinguish between the two Yam Sufs in the Torah (the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez, on the east and west coasts of the Sinai peninsula, respectively).

· Understand why the Second Generation was suddenly so frustrated, and whether it was justified, by determining the specifics of the complaint. Who are they complaining about, and to whom do they think they are complaining?

· Look into the Book of God’s Wars and see how/if it relates to B’nei Yisrael’s complaints.

· Examine the song (Az Yashir), and see how/if it relates to B’nei Yisrael’s complaints.

· Learn the geography of the southwestern side of the Jordan, as the Jews move around Edom (and Se’ir), along the eastern border of Moav, up Nachal Zared, and into the northern border of Moav (SW of Amon), ready to move on Sichon and Og.

Procedure

B’nei Yisrael Just Want to Go Home

The word “VaYis’u” (“and they traveled”) creates a connection between Pasuk 4 and 10. Use Perek 33 to show that there are travels that are not recorded in pesukim 4 through 9. See if the students can get a sense of something needing to be resolved before the travel continues, to the point that the travels from Hor HaHar to Ovot are all included under the rubric: “VaTiktzar Nephesh Ha’Am Baderech.”

What’s really bothering B’nei Yisrael, based on the words “tiktzar Nephesh Ha’am baderech?” See the crucial commentary by Rashi, and notice how the word baderech is not just descriptive (we know they are on the road!) but rather defines the central problem. Use maps to point out that they we going the wrong way. Topographical maps might further help the students understand the difficulty of the road. Don’t forget that they were schlepping about 3 million people, plus carts, livestock, etc. Use chapter 33 to show that B’nei Yisrael had just come from Yam Suf, and now they have to head back! Compare Devarim 1:39-40 with Bamidbar 21:4. It’s Déjà vu all over again!

Bypassing Moshe

Analyze the fascinating and unique introduction to the complaint “Vayidaber Ha'am bAylohim uViMoshe….” Note the use of God’s name, and also the fairly mellow “Vayidaber.” Compare this to other, similar complaints, especially regarding food and water: Shemot 16:2-3, Shemot 17:2-3, Bamidbar 11:4-6, Bamidbar 14:2-4, and Bamidbar 16:2-4. Rashi is difficult here, but the Gemara on Sanhedrin 110A starting from “Amar Rav Chisda: Col Hacholek…” and up to “Amar Rabi Abahu: Col HamiHarher…” mentions our pasuk. With whom did B’nei Yisrael think they were disagreeing? According to Chazal, with whom were they really disagreeing? If the teacher wants to take the laws of a Student with his Rav further, see Rambam Hilchot Talmud Torah Perek 5, Halacha 1,9, 11, 12, and especially 13 (and 6- 7). It should be remembered that these rules apply to a Rebbi “Muvhak,” or one who has taught a person the majority of the Torah that the person knows, as stated in Halacha 9.

A review of the Manna (“Lechem Haklokel”) situation seems in order. See Bamidbar 11:4-9, Shemot 16, and Devarim 8. Also, what happened to the water (Mayim Rabim) that Moshe brought out in chapter 20? For more advanced students, see the Ramban on Devarim 19:5. Medrash Bamidbar Rabba Parsha 19, 21—“Vyis’u MeHor Hahar”—connects the Manna with the pain of not being able to eat of the fruit of Israel. It is a difficult Medrash since it seems to be talking about the First Generation, not the Second; however, the idea that the Second Generation wanted to stop wandering already and start walking in the right direction is indicated.

“Snakes! Why did it have to be snakes?” [2]

If the people's the lack of belief in Moshe as a leader capable of bringing them home to Israel manifests itself in an unacceptable end-run around Moshe (see Rashi on 21:4 Vayikztar Nephesh Ha'am Baderech), than the punishment of the snakes should be reflective of not just the crime, but of the disease as a whole. Furthermore, a snake features not only in the punishment, but in the cure itself, once the people have admitted their sin in 21:7 ("We have sinned in that we spoke (directly) to God and you.") A satisfactory solution may be in the recognition that the snake and the staff were Moshe's symbols, representing his believability as a true Navi of God. It's worth looking at Shemot 4:1. God's response to Moshe's assertion that the people will think he's making up his words, and has never seen God is to take the staff and turn it into a snake. It is the quintessential mark of Moshe's lonely and singular role as being the intermediary between God ands the children of Israel. Another interesting point is Moshe's response to seeing the snake in Shemot 4:3: "Vayanas Moshe Mipanayv." I leave it to the reader to judge the similarity in the verb "to run" and the "Nes" (staff) upon which the copper curing snake is placed.

Also, look at Devarim 8, and see how the snake ties into the idea of reliance on God. (It’s worth a look at Melachim B 18:4, especially in light of Bilam’s [sarcastic?] remark in Bamidbar 23:23! However, the issue raised here is probably too advanced for middle school.) There are a lot of language issues here, including the pun on Nachash and Nechoshet, the difference between a Saraf and a Nachash, and the meaning of the word Nes. It’s all good.

The Book of God’s Wars

· Rashi seems to say it’s the Torah itself, specifically the story of Keriyat Yam Suf. See Onkelos and Rashi on the translation of the difficult words “Vaheiv Basufim….” Rashi says this relates a miraculous event that occurred on the Arnon river, while trapped in the Arnon River Valley with Emorites (Sichon) on both sides. Show that the Arnon is the border between Moav and Sichon. (See Pasuk 13.) The victory over the Emorites is compared to the Splitting of the Red Sea.

· Ramban says the book is a lost book, where stories of wars and God’s intervention were told as Mashalim. According to Ramban, the focus is on the Emorites (Sichon’s) victory over the Moavites, which was miraculous both in the sense that it was a stunning victory, as well as in the fact that it took land from the Moavites (whom B'nei Yisrael were not allowed to conquer) and put it in the hands of the Emorites, who Bnei Yisrael could (and perhaps had to) conquer. The full Mashal is then related in pesukem 27 to 30, with pasuk 26 serving as an introduction to justify the legality of Israel’s conquest of Sichon’s land, even though it originally to belonged to Moav.

What is the timing of the song that begins in pasuk 17? To which well do they refer in pasuk 16, and why do they sing a Shir, a form always reserved for miracles or prophetic visions? Is there more than one well to which they refer? Where does the Shir end? Work through Rashi on all these questions. Ultimately, does any of this relate to Israel’s first complaint? How have B’nei Yisrael changed?

Mapping

Create a geopolitical map that contrasts the situation before and after Sichon’s conquest of half of Moav’s land and most of Amon’s. Learn where to put the main rivers (Arnon, Yabok, Yarmuch, and Zared), with special care on Zared, since B’nei Yisrael cross it to get to the Arnon, which makes their travel direction a little roundabout. See Pasuk 24, as well.

Subject 6: Sichon and Og (the Two Emorites) Fall

Area Covered

Goals

· Finish the geopolitical map by identifying the overall territory of Sichon and Og, including, in Sichon: Derech Hamelech, Hamidbara, Yahtza, the Arnon and Yabok rivers, Cheshbon, Yazer; and in Og: HaBashan and Edre’i.

· Understand the geopolitical significance of Moav and Amon losing their land to the Emorites.

· Learn how to properly read and translate biblical poetry using the Mashal of Cheshbon.

Procedure

Who’s Land Is It?

Mapping out all the locations is vital to understanding this section. As always, Atlas Da’at Mikra, Atlas Karta, etc. are very helpful in this regard.

Read through Yiftach’s letter to the King of Amon in Shoftim 11. (This King of Amon is actually the king of the combined forces of Amon and Moav; the latter had been severely weakened by Ehud ben Geira and the death of Eglon. Compare the deity in Shoftim 11: 24 to Bamidbar 21:29.) Eben Ezra on Pasuk 24, and Ramban on 26 both talk about the fact that the loss of land by Moav and Amon to the Emorites opened the door for Israel to take land that would have been otherwise forbidden to them. How would B’nei Yisrael have gotten into Israel had Moav and Amon not lost this land?

Sichon

Did Moshe have to fight Sichon? Did he have to offer a peace deal? See Rashi on pasuk 22 and 23. Then see Ramban on 22; read from his quote of Rashi until “Elah Shetihiyeh LiChorvah.” When approaching this Ramban, it is important to know that the Ramban believes that Devarim 20 requires Israel to make peace, even with the seven Canaanite nations, as long as they were willing to serve the Jewish people, and that it was not necessary to kill them. Rashi disagrees.

In Pasuk 33, does it look like Moshe is going after Og or vice versa? Check the Meforshim for different opinions. Where is the land of the Bashan, and how does it differ from Sichon’s land in regard to the promised land of Israel? Is this the Golan Heights?

See Devarim 3:11. There are a lot of interesting medrashim here that are worthwhile, especially the ones pointing to a relationship between Og and Avraham.

Meraglim

The concept of Meraglim is important, and probably deserves some focus. Have the students identify other places where “rigul” is used. If they mention parshat Shelach, challenge them to find the word Meraglim. It’s a sucker’s bet since “Meraglim” is only used when the story is retold in Devarim, chapter 1. Can they prove that “rigul” is always an attempt to conquer a city or territory by discovering its weaknesses? Which city were the infamous 12 Meraglim supposed to spy out? What other cases of Rigul can they remember from sefers Yehoshua and Shoftim?

Biblical Poetry

Pasukim 27 through 30 is the mashal of the conquest of Moav and Amon by Sichon. The students should learn how biblical poetry differs from biblical prose. They should examine the verses, discovering that the verses break into two parallel stanzas, which sometime break down into yet another two. Students should note that missing words from one half of the parallel must be copied from the other:
      (ai) Ki Eish        Yatza     MeiCheshbon,
            (aii) Lehava (Yatzah) MeiKiryat Sichon;
      (bi) Achlah    Ar Moav,
            (bii) (Achlah) Ba’alei Bamot Arnon.

Subject 7: Bilam ben Be’or

Area Covered

Goals

· Try to determine why the Bilam story is in our Torah. What does it tell us in general, and why does it fit between the conquest of Sichon and Og and the sin of Ba’al Pe’or?

Procedure

To understand the structure of the Bilam story, have the students answer the following questions: (The assumption is that the students have learned about parshiyot—petuchot and setumot—in previous lessons.)

· Why did the chapter start in pasuk 1 whereas our mesorah starts it in pasuk 2?

· How would the students break up the long narrative if they were in charge? This is an important exercise, where the students can debate the correctness of their divisions.

Discover where Bilam was from. Where is Petor? See pasuk 23:7! See midrashim that indicate a self-imposed competition with Avraham, as if Bilam understands God better! See Rashi’s commentary on 22:21, 22:34, and 23:4. Where is Avraham from?

There are a lot of good morals to be derived from the talking donkey story. The students should be encouraged to ask the following questions:

· Why was God angry if He told Bilam to go? See Rashi (22:20 and 22:22), Eben Ezra (22:19, start from “Rak Ta’amo KiTa’am ‘Shelach Lecha Anashim”), and Ramban (22:20, start from “ViHanachon BiEinai B’Inyan Zeh: Ki Meitchila…” or start from the beginning if you want the students to see how Ramban quotes all the opinions and then refutes the Eben Ezra).

· What message was Bilam supposed to get from a talking donkey? See Ramban towards the end of 22:23 from “Vta’am Hanes Hazeh.” In fact, the connection between Bilam and his donkey is further reinforced by the comparison of the words of 22:28 with Balak’s words in 24:10.

· Why the loyalty musar from the donkey? Be careful here, the medrash is very racy!

· Why does God permit him to go in 22:35 if he says he won’t go if God doesn’t want him to in 22:34? See Question 1 above. Which commentary would be satisfied with your answer?

· Studying the Ramban’s explanation of each mashal, and how he sums them up. Look for “viHinei Klal Nevuato BiZeh HaPa’am…” in pasuk 23:10; his peirush on pasuk 16, “ViHinei HosifBiPa’am HaZot Hashlishit…” in 24:7; and “ViHanvuah Hazot Limot Hamashiach Hi…” in 23:14.

· See the crucial Eben Ezra on 23:21, D”H[3] “Lo Hibit Aven.” In contradistinction to Ramban who says that the mashalim were pure nevuah (the first two describing the strong relationship between God and Israel, and the last two prophesying Israel’s first conquest of the Promised Land and their ultimate, messianic return to the land), the Eben Ezra takes a more “free will” approach. He feels that Bilam succeeded in cursing Israel, within the confines of the words that God limited him to. Based on this, is it possible to understand all the mashalim in this way?

· However the students wish to understand the mashalim, it’s important that they be able to give each mashal a different purpose and meaning. Have them create their own perushim, and make sure the perushim are loyal to the text!

Notice that even though Bilam is told to go home by Balak, apparently his hatred of the Jewish people is so strong that he stays to fight them. See Bamidbar 31:1-8!

Subject 8: The Gods and Girls of Pe’or

Area Covered

· Primary: Bamidbar 25:1-26:1—the first half of the pasuk up to the parshiya break.

Goals

· Describe the sin of Ba’al Pe’or. Speculate on the goal (or goals) of the Midyanites and the Moavites, based on their familial relationship to, and encounters with, B’nei Yisrael.

· See if there is a connection between Bilam’s work and the sin of Ba’al Pe’or.

· Understand the reality of civil war and intertribal conflict, and its potentially devastating effect on the unity of the Israeli people. See if the tribe of Shimon serves as an example.

· Analyze Pinchas’ actions, including what he did, what right he had to do it, why he did it alone, and what the ramifications of his actions were. Define and discuss fanaticism, and the Torah’s approach to it.

Procedure

Geography

The students should understand that B’nei Yisrael were in their final journeying place before entering Eretz Yisrael. See Bamidbar 33:49 and 23:38. This might a good time to show students the small changes that words undergo from place to place in Tanach, especially regarding the names of places.

The Sin

This should be taught with some delicacy. Clearly the religion of Ba’al Pe’or had elements of sexuality (see Hoshea 9:10—“Boshet” is sexual, see Shmuel I 20:30—and Bamidbar 25:6), gluttony (?) (Tehillim 106:28-29), and worse (Rashi on 25:3 D”H Pe’or). For an interesting view of the seduction of B’nei Yisrael, see Bamidbar Rabba, Parsha 20, D”H 23 VaYichal Ha’Am. Also see the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim, Part 3, chapter 45.

Ba’al Pe’or seems to be a distinctly Moav-based Avoda Zara. Notice that there was a city close by to the Shittim called The House of Pe’or in Moav’s territory (before it was conquered by Sichon) that was famous enough to be used as a marker to locate Moshe Rabbeinu’s grave (Devarim 34:5-6) and Reuven’s tribal borders (Yehoshua 13:20). The issue of the relationship between Moav and B’nei Yisrael is highlighted in the Medrash Bamidbar Rabbah, cited above. Here the student should be aware of the family relationship between Moav and B’nei Yisrael. In addition, the purchase of water and food to which Moav acquiesces causes an unhealthy interaction between the two. Note that in Bamidbar 22:3-4, Balak describes concern that Israel will eat all their food, etc. According to the Ramban on this pasuk, this was actually jealousy over Israel’s success in conquering the land that Moav lost to Sichon.

Midyan’s involvement in this is, first and foremost, caused by the political relationship between Moav and Midyan. See Rashi on Bamidbar 24:4, D”H “El Zikneiu Midyan.” This, in turn, brings us to the question of who Midyan was. The students should see Bereishit 25:1-5. That last pasuk (5) is extremely important! It is possible to differ from Rashi’s assertion about Bamidbar 36:35; it seems that Midyan and Moav have a long-standing alliance against Edom. This is a good time to teach the kids that it always pays to look up a cited source!

Connecting Bil’am with the Sin

See Rashi on pasuk 1, D”H “Liznot.” This refers us back to a Rashi on 24:14. It is a difficult Rashi since he inserts quite a bit into the pasuk to distinguish between Bilam’s (unwritten) advice and his prophecy. Besides Rashi, who is quoting Chazal, the students should see the obvious and less obvious connections. Obvious: The pasuk cited by Rashi, Bamidbar 31:16. Less obvious is the use of the word “Kuba.” Show the students how it is used in the story of Bilam’s prophecy and see how it is used again in the doings of Pinchas. Notice that according to Rashi, the place mentioned in 22:41 is none other than Beit Pe’or.

Civil War

The students should be familiar with the vocabulary of the conflict. See Rashi on pasuk 4, D”H “ViHoka” (the second one), Onkelos on the word “Vayitzmad,” Eban Ezra on pasuk 3, D”H “VaYitzmad Yisrael.”

Work through God’s command to Moshe in pasuk 4. See if the students can determine what is wrong with this pasuk in regard to who Moshe is commanded to kill! Once they see the problem, Rashi’s solutions should be seen as necessities, in a classic “what’s bothering Rashi?” way. Have the students determine where the command stops. It’s interesting to see God referring to Himself in the third person. Notice that the meaning of pasuk 4 might be inferred from Moshe’s actions in Pasuk 5. (It’s fascinating to note that the Medrash Rabbah Bamidbar also cites the opinion of Rav Yudin, who reads pasuk 4 literally: that the tribal heads were killed for not controlling their people. It’s a difficult medrash, until one realizes that Zimri ben Salue—the one who was skewered—was a Nasi Beit Av. The famous Gemara in Sanhedrin (82 A and B) identifies Zimri as Shlumiel ben Zurishadai, and while Eben Ezra (14) rejects this--and Rashi (14) seems to waffle a little, finally siding with the Gemara--even according the Eban Ezra, Zimri was leader of one of Shimon’s five houses (making Shlumiel his boss), and unquestionably a powerful leader. As we see, he managed to lead his tribe into an unsuccessful rebellion against Moshe.

The rebellion against Moshe that I just mentioned can be taught to the students by showing the incongruity of the sequence events. The students should learn that the incongruity is significant--in this case, Moshe’s commands in pasuk 5 are never followed! Compare this to Chet HaEgel, Shemot 32:26-28. In fact, to the contrary, one of the leaders that Moshe (may have) commanded responded by not only ignoring Moshe, but also by leading his tribe to the worship of Pe’or in public. The simple pshat of the pasuk might indicate that the indecent acts were also performed in front of the Ohel Mo’ed/Mishkan. This, of course, leads us to the question of how to explain the ambiguous end of the pasuk, “And (or while) they were crying in front of the Ohel Mo’ed/Mishkan.” The students, after having been taught the scope of the danger—a full-fledged tribal rebellion threatening the totality of the Jewish people and their ability to enter the Land of Israel—should be able to theorize on who was crying and why. The students can then see Rashi (6) who cites a Medrash that the reason for the crying was that Moshe forgot the Torah. After looking at the reality of a tribal rebellion, this Medrash might seem naïve. Why not just say that the people were crying because people were doing horrible sins in public? But the medrash helps the students clarify that the cause of the despair of the leaders was the rebellion against Moshe’s leadership. The word “Nitalmah” in the Medrash doesn’t mean Moshe forgot the rule; Moshe was no idiot, and the Torah in Devarim states that Moshe was young in body and mind on the day he died (Devarim 34:7, Yehoshua’s description). Rather, Moshe was unable to enforce the rule. (The word “Lehitalem” means to disappear, not to be forgotten!) In all of this, the question remains: Why did God use intentionally vague language to decry the situation? For, while we can use Meforshim to fill in the blanks, it is always important to speculate on why the blanks were inserted. The students must learn that they may never find out all the answers to their questions, and that speculation and hypothesis are not facts and truths.

The word “Bochim” should be analyzed as well. See Shoftim 2:1-5. See Rashbam on pasuk 6, D”H “ViHeima Bochim.” See Shmuel I 1:10. See if there are connections to the crying of the Meraglim.

Once again, it seems to be Shevet Levi who rises to the challenge. Compare to Chet HaEgel, Shemot 32:26-28. To see what happens to the tribe of Shimon, compare Bamidbar 26:14 (Second Generation, after the Pe’or War) to Bamidbar 1:23 (First Generation numbers). See if the numbers make sense in light of Bamidbar 25:9! Show the students the enormity of half of an entire tribe being wiped out, and being willing to fight and or die for an avodah zarah. Of course, this brings up the issue of whether the 24,000 who died did so of natural causes. See Rashi on Bamidbar 26:13 for information on the missing families.

We generally assume that the word “Mageipha” is some plague-like punishment of a totally miraculous nature. The word is used by the meraglim, where Rashi describes worms growing from their mouths…. Also, in the events of Korach, a Mageipha spreads from “in front of God.” The alternate form “Negeph” is well known to the students from the miraculous events of Mitzrayim, although only two plagues (Frogs and Death of the First Born) are referred to with this phrase. Interestingly, the incident with the burning snake does not use either variation of this word.

Shmuel Hanavi uses these words for both the loss of many men in battle (Shoftim 20:32-39, Shmuel I 4:3-17, and Shmuel II 2:10, 10:15-19, and 18:7), and as a miraculous plague from God (Shmuel I 6:4, Shmuel II 24:21-25). This latter usage is described only with the word “Mageipha” and occurs far less frequently. Demonstrate that the “nun” and “mem” formats of the words are used in the same story to describe the same event. Finally, the Torah itself uses “Negef” for military losses only. See Vayikra 26:17, and many more. See Rashi on Shemot 21:22, D”H “ViNagpho”

It’s possible that advanced students be taught to use a concordance or Bar Ilan software to locate all possible uses and see into which category each usage falls. The attempt to categorize each use should yield three possible results: definitely war, definitely a miraculous plague, or uncertain. One of the most uncertain is in Yehoshua 22:17; while it seems to be referring to a possible civil war, none other than Pinchas turns up to remind people of Ba’al Pe’or. Which ultimately raises the question: is our case war or plague?

Fanaticism

The students should be introduced to the Gemara in Sanhedrin that establishes that there was a din Rodef at work, and had Zimri gotten up, he would have been totally justified in killing Pinchas. The concept of “Kin’ah,” fanaticism—the performance of an act (possibly necessary) that is not sanctioned by Torah law, and the idea of the ends justifying the means, etc.—should be discussed with the students. Two other cases of Kin’ah in the Torah might be mentioned: a) The incident of Eliyahu with the fire and dead priests on Har Karmel and his subsequent escape to Har Sinai, and b) the rules governing Isha Sota (Bamidbar 5).

Subject 9: The Final Count

Area Covered

Goals

· Understand the purpose of the count. Why is it done at all, and why is it mentioned specifically here in the Torah?

· Try to get the students to see something more than just a bunch of boring numbers.

· Assuming the students are led to the conclusion that the counting is for the sake of dividing up Eretz Yisrael, Rashi and Ramban’s disagreement on property size is interesting.

Procedure

What Are We Counting For?

See the first Rashi, which supplies two reasons for the count. Are they negative, positive, neutral? Why does Rashi prefer the second answer? (See Bamidbar 27:12 which should surprise the students, since essentially Moshe dies here. This makes the rest of the narrative, from chapter 31 and on, chronologically out of order.) Poll the students for different reason for the count. A common, and probably incorrect, answer is that it was preparation for the war against the Midyanites. Two reasons for this misconception are a) the chapter is preceded by the command to fight the Midyanites, and b) the phrase “all those who go to war…” in pasuk 2 seem to indicate an imminent war. (The war was imminent, in fact, but it’s not the Midyanite war. That war was already fought. See Bamidbar 31:2, and the number of soldiers in 31:4.)

The imminent war is, in fact, the one against the Emorites in the Promised Land. Pasukim 26:53-56 should help to clarify the issue, as will Pasuk 62. Also, notice that the story of the children of Zlaphchad, who were worried that their father would not get land in Israel, is also related to land inheritance.

Students should be encouraged to consider other counts in the Torah, and see if the comparisons can add to our understanding of the events here. For each counting, when did it take place and what was the purpose? Something else that should be considered is that from this point on there are no more deaths and no more sins mentioned before B’nei Yisrael’s entrance into the Promised Land. See Bamidbar 31:49 and Rashi on the word “Lo Nifkad.”

Family Matters

Compare this parasha to the two other family lists, found in Bereishit 46 and in Shemot 6 (which only contain three brothers’ families, and hint at a fourth, Yehuda). See of they can create a list that identifies the differences. See Rashi on Bamidbar 26:13. The concept of civil war should already be familiar to the students from the lesson on Ba’al Peor. Also, notice that not only does Shimon lose a family, another family changes its name. Is the new name indicative of something? This is good time to introduce the students to the idea that names are often changed to fit who the person has become. The most obvious cases are Ya’akov, Avram, Sara, and Edom. Rashi covers many of the name changes.

Can the students come up with other reasons for the disappearance of five families of Binyamin? Who has by far the least number of people in their tribe on the way out of Egypt? (See chapter 1, and don’t forget to combine Ephraim and Menashe! Which two have the most?) See Rashi on pasuk 38 for a Binyamin/Yoseph connection.

Dividing up the Land

See Rashi and Ramban on pasuk 54. The Ramban is huge, but look for “Sheyikchu Kol Hamatot BiShaveh…” The level of the class should determine the scope of the Ramban that is done.

Subject 10: Zlaphchad’s Daughters

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Sefer Bamidbar divides the story of Zlaphchad into two sections, one of which ends the sefer. The can be many possible reasons for the separation. For example:

· The Torah preferred to stick to the actual chronology, rather than combine the two events because of their single subject. (This is a weak answer since Moshe dies after chapter 27, the first story of Zlaphchad’s daughters. Everything afterwards is a flashback, and chronological accuracy is sacrificed for thematic purposes.)

· The political scenario, which has one tribal leader requesting a legal ruling not only from Moshe but also from the other ten tribal leaders. (Read 36:1 carefully, and see Eben Ezra this pasuk, D”H “Rashei Avot”). This is possible only after the political structure has been described at the end of chapter 34. In fact, nothing separated these two stories except for the city rights of the Levites, and the laws of involuntary manslaughter.

· The first laws of Zlaphchad are for all generations, while the second set of laws (restricted marriages) apply only to the first generation of conquerors, and possibly not even to all of that generation. (See Ramban on 36:7, especially from “ViAl Da’at Raboteinu….”)

Having said this, it still seems appropriate to combine the two narratives into a single subject, at least for the Middle School students.

Understanding Inheritance

The students should ponder the reason for inheritance in modern times versus the reasons for inheritance when all Jews lived in Israel. Review some of the laws of inheritance (Rambam Hilchot Nachalot, Perek 1 or Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat Siman 276. See also the rules of property sales, particularly the prohibition of selling a property forever (“LiTzmitut”). See Vayikra 25:13, 25:23, and the laws of redemptions starting from Vayikra 25:25. Also, see Rambam Hilchot Shmita and Yovel Chapter 11.) The basic feel is that the land that was apportioned to the families as they left Mitzrayim was a permanent deal. The “Zlaphchad” factor therefore “guarantees” that the tribal divisions will slowly erode. This is especially true since the marriage rules given to Zlaphchad in chapter 36 are not permanent law, but rather applied only to Zlaphchad’s generation, or possibly only to Zlaphchad’s daughters, or possibly it was only a suggestion and not even a law. See Ramban on 27:11, and 36:7.

Was Moshe really stumped?

The students should wonder whether Moshe did not know this law. The idea of this law not existing before Zlaphchad’s daughters’ request is possible, and possibly fits the meaning ("pshat") of the pesukim, but is difficult on theological grounds. Wasn’t Moshe given all the laws in the Torah at or near Har Sinai? (See the Ramban’s introduction to Bamidbar where he states that almost all laws given in this book are not permanent laws but apply only to the generation inheriting the land.) The subject of when each set of Mitzvot was given, and when the Torah itself was in fact given is an advanced one. The basic concept that the Torah states laws as “new” in order to put them in a meaningful location, even though they were already known to B’nei Yisrael (Tzitzit by Korach as an example) should be understood by the students. Of course, the laws that are found only in Sefer Devarim are a totally new can of worms.

Rashi fixes the problem, sort of, in 27:7 by saying that the law existed, but Moshe did not understand it and Zlaphchad’s daughters did. This is also difficult, but must be considered. Interestingly, Rashi himself avoids the problem in 27:5. There he gives two explanations: the first is critical of Moshe, and the second states that this law, like all others, was known to and should have been recorded by Moshe, but due to the daughters’ tenacity or righteousness or love of the Land of Israel, they “won” the quotation rights. Generally, the second explanation in Rashi (the “Davar Acher”) is the preferred explanation. This, of course, raises the question of why Rashi backtracks in 27:7. It seems Rashi could not escape the meaning (“pshat”) in verse 9 where God says, “The daughters of Zlaphchad are correct.”

Of course there is another factor here. They are not arguing the laws of inheritance, but the laws of whether a “weird Yibum” should be applied in order to save one’s inheritance. It could be that the daughters were comparing their case to Yehuda and Tamar’s. Of course, this doesn’t answer the question of why the daughters could not have the land without a Yibum. See Rashi on 27:4.

Finally, there is another factor here that allows the laws of land inheritance to a surviving daughter to be known. This is where a sinner loses his “Original Israel” property rights, as seems to have happened to Korach and his followers. Perhaps this is what was under dispute and not clearly defined since the situation which would require these laws to be brought to bear only arise as the result of a crime. See the Ramban on 27:3. This solution fits well into the seemingly unnecessary comment in verse 3 “...rather in his own sins he died.”

What Did Zlaphchad Do?

Rashi on 27:3 brings down a fascinating Tanaic argument between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon. The students should be taught that these arguments are not recorded for the sake of filling in missing facts. Rather, they are trying to teach us an important moral principal of Jewish philosophy regarding a certain type of sin, and the possibility of losing the ownership and inheritance rights to Israel during the primal land distribution. The questions that the students should ponder and attempt to answer are:

· Why according to Rav Shimon does the sin of the Ma’pilim not preclude ownership to the land of Israel whereas the desecration of Shabbat does?

· Why according to Rabbi Akiva does the sin of the Ma’pilim preclude ownership to the land of Israel whereas the desecration of Shabbat does not?

Free Will in Selecting a Husband

Does verse 36:3 prove that women have freedom of choice in the selection of a husband? If so, why is that free will removed here? See Ramban who mentions that the daughters may yet have had free will, and simply voluntarily kept their marriages within Shevet Menashe as a chesed to their tribe and fathers’ family.

Subject 11: A Change of Guards

Area Covered

Goals

· Consider whether Moshe’s death and transfer of power should be the end of the Sefer.

· Talk about whether the Torah is repetitive. Why is it necessary to mention Moshe’s sin again?

· Humanize Moshe by showing the tension between Moshe and God regarding the appointment of Yehoshua.

· Define the job to which Yehoshua was being “elected.” Determine whether Yehoshua was the best choice for the job, and if he faced any immediate obstacles. Who else was in the running? Consider the difficulties of following in Moshe’s footsteps.

Procedure

The End

Once the families have been established for tribal land divisions, there’s not much more for Moshe to do. This is a good place to demonstrate that chronologically-based story telling is not the goal of the Torah. It can be demonstrated that the war against Midyan—described in full in chapter 31—actually took place at the end of chapter 25.

The students can scan forward, break the rest of Bamidbar into a list of subjects (which may even match Subjects 12 to 20 in this document!), and see if they can find a reason why each is essentially an appendix. Is there a common post-Moshe theme? (I lean towards the idea that each subject is related to problems that will be encountered when entering and setting up shop in the Promised Land. The descriptions of the borders and the Levitical cities fit this theory nicely, and so do the laws of swearing to a commitment and the battle against Midyan. The Israel connection for these latter subjects will be described in more detail below.)

Repetitive

“Is the Torah Repetitive?” seems like one of those questions that “just shouldn’t be asked.” This might be a good time to show the students that there is no question that shouldn’t be asked, as long as they are willing to look for answers. Rashi on pasuk 13 does not shy away from this difficult question, and his answer, starting with “Davar Acher,” is insightful and elegant. (As a side bonus for learning this Rashi, the students will learn a little about Pagei Shvi’it. The Chumash Torat Chaim also has a worthwhile comment on this Rashi.)

Tension

The tension between God and Moshe is not portrayed nearly as explicitly as it is in the beginning of Parshat Etchanan in the Sefer Devarim. Nonetheless, that tension is here as well. The beauty here is how the Torah can explain this using an absolute minimum of words. I think this supports two important religious ideas: first, that the Torah can tell an identical story succinctly in one place and be more forthcoming in another; and second, that God can use single words to speak volumes. A third lesson to be learned is that Rashi doesn’t miss a thing! In this case, the astute reader of Tanach should be shocked when reading 27:15. This is the only place in the Torah where Moshe seems to be commanding God! In fact, the students will probably have to read it repeatedly until they realize that God is not speaking to Moshe “Leimor!” Rashi places Moshe and the seeming blasphemous pasuk in a very positive light, but I believe that it is possible to read this differently. Not only does Moshe feel that, in light of the defeat of Sichon and Og, he deserves to go into the Promised Land (see v’Etchanan and the almost chutzpadik Rashi “Davar Acher: ViAsher Yiviam” on pasuk 17!), he does not agree with God’s choice for successor! Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether Yehoshua is appropriate for the job, ask the students whom they think Moshe would want as a successor. Then see Rashi (quoting Medrash Tanchuma) on pasuk 27:16, D”H “Yifkod Hashem.” (The tension is so thick you can cut it with a knife.) See if the students agree with Chazal that pasuk 18 is a counter-command, which conflicts with Moshe’s “command.” Isn’t Yehoshua the second in command? Why wouldn’t Moshe know who is the next leader? See if this Medrash Tanchuma matches the Tanchuma cited by Rashi on Bamidbar 11:27. Why would the “Na’ar” be so upset about Eldad and Meidad bringing the word of God to the masses? Who else is referred to as “Na’ar Moshe?” See Shemot 33:11 (and Ramban on the word “Na’ar”[1]). Why can’t Yehoshua be the “Na’ar” in Bamidbar 11? See Bamidbar 11:28! Is there a conflict between the “Na’ar” and the “Mishareit?”

The Best Man for the Job

Job definition: See Rambam, Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 1, Law 3. See Shmuel I, 18:14-16, Bamidbar 1:3, Yehoshua 14:11, and Devarim 31:1-6. Also, see Ramban on Bamidbar 27:19.

To see how Yehoshua works his way up the corporate ladder, the students should follow Yehoshua’s career. See Shemot 17:9-13, Shemot 17:14 (Notice the parshiya break! Is God already foreshadowing Yehoshua’s responsibility for destroying Amalek? See Rashi on this Pasuk, and keep in mind that Moshe won’t get excluded from entering the Promised Land for 39 years!), Shemot 24:13 (See Rashi and Ramban and Shemot 19:17!), Shemot 32:15-19 (See Ramban on verse 32:18 from “ViChen Amru Bihagada…”) Shemot 33:11, Bamidbar 11:27-28, Bamidbar 13:17, and the entire Meraglim narrative. Who comes off better, Yehoshua or Calev? Where was Calev for the Golden Calf incident? (Notice the introduction of God’s name into Yehoshua’s name. How many other Tanach characters have the “Yud Hey” version of God’s name, rather than the “Aleph Lamed” or “Shin Dalet Yud?”)

Notice that pasuk 19 matches the events in Devarim 31:7-8. The words Chazak v’Ematz should be familiar to the students. How many times does this phrase show up in Perek 1 of Yehoshua? Look for one repetition of the phrase late in the perek; who says it? The issue of the difficulty of following a leader like Moshe should be pointed out to the students. I strongly suggest teaching the beautiful Medrash in Otzer Medrashim Eizenstein, page 356, D”H Amar Rav Chalbo. This Medrash covers all of the issues of the succession, including the nervousness of the people regarding the loss of Moshe, the feelings of inferiority felt by Yehoshua, the internal conflict of Moshe, and his successful self-suppression for the sake of B’nei Yisrael, etc. The medrash is quite long, but written in simple language. Some classes can handle it in the original, and some would do best with summaries. In either case, the Chazal’s acute understanding of our biblical personalities is evident.

Subject 12: Establishing the Ceremonial

Subject 13: I Swear

Subject 14: The War Against The Midyanites: The Rules of Warfare

Subject 15: Reuven and Gad: A Sheep in Every Pot

Subject 16: Travels

Subject 17: The Borders of the Promised Land

Subject 18: Leadership

Subject 19: Levi’s Inheritance

Subject 20: Cities of Refuge

[1] An advanced class might try to determine when this war took place. This requires a deep study of a very long Ramban on Pasuk 1, who refutes the idea that the text was written after Moshe’s death (see also the Eben Ezra who refutes this in a different way). The Ramban also brings up the issue of predictive nevuah, keeping promises (“shavuot”), and when we are allowed to assume that the Torah has made a chronological jump (“Ein Mukdam and Meuchar biTorah”). Middle school is probably not the time to tackle these issues.

[2] Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

[3] Divrei Hamatchil.

[4] The word Na’ar deserves a lesson in an of itself, starting with Yoseph’s designation as a Na’ar, and encompassing the Na’arim who fought at the battle of the Giv'on Well during post-Sha’ul Israel and the usage of the word in Tehillim. The great Israeli statesmen, general, and archaeologist Yigal Yadin has an groundbreaking article on this subject, which can be found on the on-line version of this syllabus. Surf to www.ericlevy.com and follow the links.

[5] The word Na’ar deserves a lesson in and of itself, starting with Yoseph’s designation as a Na’ar, and encompassing the Na’arim who fought at the battle of the Giv'on Well during post-Sha’ul Israel and the usage of the word in Tehillim. The great Israeli statesmen, general, and archaeologist Yigal Yadin has a groundbreaking article on this subject, which can be found in the on-line version of this syllabus. Go to bbbwww.ericlevy.com and follow the links.

Syllabus for Bamidbar II

The Second Generation: On the Road Again

Unlocking a Closed Verse

Kadesh

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

B’nei Yisrael Just Want to Go Home

Bypassing Moshe

“Snakes! Why did it have to be snakes?” [2]

The Book of God’s Wars

Mapping

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Who’s Land Is It?

Sichon

Og

Meraglim

Biblical Poetry

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Geography

The Sin

Connecting Bil’am with the Sin

Civil War

Fanaticism

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

What Are We Counting For?

Family Matters

Dividing up the Land

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

Understanding Inheritance

Was Moshe really stumped?

What Did Zlaphchad Do?

Free Will in Selecting a Husband

Area Covered

Goals

Procedure

The End

Repetitive

Tension

The Best Man for the Job