These are the journeys of the Children of Israel. Since Moses said earlier to the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, and He made them wander in the desert for forty years, one might think that they were wandering and moving like one lying at the head of a rope, not resting or settling down for all forty years. Therefore, it says These are the journeys to tell you that in forty years, He only moved them forty-two times. This explains why it says These are the journeys and not “These are the encampments where they camped” in the way that it is said they traveled and they camped. Rather, it comes to explain the statement and He made them wander in the desert, for the wandering refers to the journeys. And the reason for recounting all the journeys, Rashi wrote, is to make known the kindnesses of the Omnipresent, etc. And the Rav HaMoroh [Maimonides] gave another reason. Similarly, in Abarbanel, several reasons are given, and it is not necessary to elaborate on them.

And Moses wrote their departures for their journeys according to the command of the Lord. And afterward he reversed the order, [saying] these are their journeys for their departures, and it does not say “according to the command of the Lord.” I will explain this in three ways. The first is that in some journeys they went forward and in some they turned backward. For at first, they turned back and encamped before Pi-hahiroth (Exodus 14:2). Rashi explained that they went backwards towards Egypt. And likewise, in Deuteronomy (2:1) it is written And we turned and traveled to the wilderness, Rashi explained that because they misbehaved, they turned toward the wilderness. And similarly in Parashat Eikev (Deuteronomy 10:6), from Beeroth Bene-jaakan to Moserah, they went back eight journeys. It turns out that most of the journeys in which they went forward and not backward, which were according to the command of the Lord, are called their departures for their journeys, because they turned their faces away from the place they had left, which is called their departures, and their faces were toward their journeys which were ahead of them. But when they turned backward because they had misbehaved through sin, it was not according to the command of the Lord, and this is called their journeys for their departures because they returned and traveled to the place they had left, which is called their departures, as they turned their faces toward Egypt.

The second interpretation is when we examine why it says They journeyed from Rameses without mentioning the children of Israel, and then later repeats The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses. Furthermore, it is written here On the day after the Passover, the children of Israel left, while elsewhere it states (Deuteronomy 16:1) The Lord brought you out of Egypt at night. The explanation must be that the mixed multitude [erev rav] fled during the night, and about them it says (Exodus 14:5) And it was told to the king of Egypt that the people had fled. It doesn’t say “a fugitive fled” but rather fled, indicating they fled immediately upon leaving. This would not be accurate regarding Israel, as they left with a high hand [openly and triumphantly]. Rather, it must be that the king was told about the mixed multitude, who are called the people. But Israel went during the day with a high hand. So when it says They journeyed from Rameses in the first month, it is speaking about the mixed multitude, and afterward it says On the day after the Passover, the children of Israel went out with a high hand. Then it says The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses, because the mixed multitude went first, as is the way of those who flee, and the children of Israel followed after them.

And this is what it means when it says And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord — this refers to the journey of the Children of Israel, whose foundation was from the Holy Land. Therefore, they always turned their faces away from their goings out, the place from which they departed, namely Egypt, and set their sights toward their journeys, to come to the land which the Lord swore to their fathers. But regarding the mixed multitude, whose origins were from Egypt and who did not leave by the commandment of the Lord — for Moses brought them out on his own initiative — it says of them and these are their journeys to their goings out because they always had a desire and wish to return to Egypt, to their source. And as they say, “throw a stick into the air, and it will fall to its roots” (Bereishit Rabbah 53:15) — likewise, their faces were always turned toward the place from which they had departed.

A third explanation is that had the Israelites not sinned, they would have traveled in a single journey to the land. [Scripture] states, And Moses wrote their departures to their journeys, because from the first departure they would not have had another departure from a place of encampment, as God wanted to carry them on eagles’ wings to the land immediately. But because they ruined it, He had to write, And these were their journeys to their departures, for they traveled to places from which they would ultimately return and depart, and be moved about from journey to journey. And this matter was not according to God’s command, for God did not desire these things.

And Egypt was burying etc. This is to tell you that [the Israelites] left [Egypt] in full view of all Egyptians at the time when they were burying those whom God had struck among them, and their teeth were blunted [i.e., they were powerless to respond]. And not only that, but God also executed judgments against their gods at that same time, and even so, not one of them uttered a sound against Israel. And regarding what is said, whom God had struck among them, all the firstborn, some say that this is in accordance with the Midrash [Pesikta Rabbati, section “And it came to pass at midnight”] on the verse To Him who struck Egypt through their firstborn (Psalms 136:10), that the firstborn were killing their fathers, as this is implied by [the wording] through their firstborn — meaning that God struck Egypt with [or through] the firstborn, as the firstborn were the rod of His anger and the staff of His wrath. Therefore it says struck among them all the firstborn. And this is a precise interpretation.

And when it says in front of Baal Tzefon, it indicates that only this idol remained in order to mislead them. It was appointed over the gold that comes from the north, and they would say that it remained for the sake of their wealth that they took unlawfully, as explained in the portion of Beshalach (Exodus 14:2).

And why it says they traveled from Marah and came to Elim and doesn’t say “they camped at Elim,” is because it was a short journey from Marah to Elim and they had not intended to make a camp there. However, since they found there 12 springs of water corresponding to the 12 tribes who from the source of Israel would water the entire congregation, and 70 date palms corresponding to the 70 elders, for the righteous shall flourish like a palm tree, therefore they said this is a significant sign that they should make a camp there. For even the name of the place indicates this number: “Elim” has the numerical value of 82 with the word itself, meaning 12 and 70. Also, “Elim” indicates a number of strong men, as it is from the expression and the mighty of the land he took (Ezekiel 17:15). And all this they took as a sign to make a camp there.

And they camped by the Jordan from Beth-jeshimoth unto Abel-shittim. On the level of allusion, one can explain why these two extremes were mentioned, since this portion speaks of the death of Aaron, and our Sages said (Rosh Hashanah 18b) that the death of the righteous is equivalent to the burning of our God’s Temple. This is hinted at the beginning of the portion: And [Aaron] died there in the fortieth year… in the fifth month, on the first day of the month. This is the month of Av, in which our God’s Temple was burned, and which was established as a time of weeping for all generations since the time of the spies, to indicate that these two events are of equal weight; therefore they coincided in the same month. This is alluded to in “Beth-jeshimoth,” which is a term of desolation and destruction of the Temple, and “Abel-shittim” is a term related to cedar and alludes to the time when they mourned for the righteous one who is compared to a cedar. Both of these coincided at the same place, and the connection of these two extremes indicates that they are equivalent, as if one extreme experienced Abel-shittim — meaning the mourning for the soul of the righteous — and the second extreme experienced the pain of Beth-jeshimoth.

You should know that in Yalkut on Isaiah (29) it concludes on the verse Behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people (Isaiah 29:14), that the departure of the righteous is greater before Him who spoke and the world came into being than the ninety-eight curses in Deuteronomy and the destruction of the Temple. This seems contradictory, since our Sages said in tractate Rosh Hashanah that they are equivalent, while here it says their departure is greater. Look to the right and see that [the text] mentioned the term “departure,” while in the Gemara they said “the death of the righteous,” and in the Midrash it mentioned the term “destruction of the holy,” and in the Gemara they said “like the burning of the house of our God.”

The explanation for all this is that the term “destruction of the Temple” indicates the time when the physical structure of the Temple made of wood and stone remained intact, but it was “destroyed” in the sense that all its glory and splendor departed from it, meaning the removal of all the spiritual elements that were in it. However, the term “burning of our God’s house” is more severe than this, because in addition to the removal of spirituality from there, the physical structure was also burned. Similarly, with righteous people, when the term “death” is mentioned, it refers to the physical body, because the body dies but the soul does not die as it lives on. But the term “departure” applies to the soul and not to the body, because only the soul ascends, as it is said The spirit of man ascends upward (Ecclesiastes 3:21). Now, the death of the righteous, meaning that which affects the physical body of the righteous person, is certainly equivalent to the burning of our God’s house — the physical structure of the Temple. But the departure of the righteous, meaning the spirit of man that departs and ascends upward, corresponds to the destruction of our God’s house, meaning the spirituality from there.

And what it says that this is greater than this, it does not mean that this is greater in essence, but rather that the damage that comes to the world with the removal of the soul of the righteous is greater than the damage that comes to the world with the removal of spirituality from the Holy Temple. For one must examine what is meant by saying “before the One who spoke and the world came into being” — why not simply say “before the Holy One, blessed be He”? Rather, it is certain that this comes to give a reason why this is greater than that, and it says that because the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke and the world came into being, and He desires its existence and continuance, and the soul of the righteous gives more existence and continuance to the world than all the spirituality that was in the Holy Temple. This is because one righteous person is the foundation of the world, and their soul is hewn from beneath the Throne of Glory; it contains great holiness and gives existence and continuance to the entire world. And know that this is so, for it brings on this the verse Behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish (Isaiah 29:14). And what does this imply about the removal of the righteous? Rather, certainly with the removal of the intellectual soul, which is called the wisdom of their wise men, for the intellectual soul is what gives continuance and existence to the entire world, and its removal causes the pillars of the world to weaken. And this is a true and correct thing, worthy to be connected to this verse by way of allusion.

And you shall inherit the land by lot. In this verse, the commentators had great difficulty, noting that the beginning of the passage speaks about destroying the nations and their molten images, and similarly the end of the passage states But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, etc. How then does the verse And you shall inherit the land fit between these connected matters? I say there is no difficulty at all because in the destruction of images and high places and the expulsion of all the nations, God imposed a great task upon Israel, and there are two concerns to worry about: First, that it would become like “a pot belonging to partners” [where responsibility is diffused] and this commandment would be neglected because each person would say, “The commandment of elimination can be fulfilled by others.” Second, that it would cause conflict among the tribes because each one would choose the lesser evil — a place where there aren’t many images and idols. Therefore, He inserted within this matter the verse And you shall inherit the land by lot, because this eliminates all these concerns.