At the time of departure of המחנות (the camps). Most texts read “departure of המסעות (the formations)” meaning at the time of the departure of the formations, each comprising three camps, each under its banner. Either way, with this Rashi ensures that one not say that when they wanted to travel they would sound the trumpets. For this is not the case; rather the cloud folded first, and afterwards Moshe would say “Arise Hashem.” Only afterwards would they sound the blasts. Therefore, Rashi explains that that at the time of the departure of the camps when they prepared themselves to travel, they would not depart until the trumpets were sounded.

They too, meet. Because if this were not so, the congregation and the leaders would differ in two matters. Rashi had to explain this in order to answer the question: In the verse it is written “they shall present themselves to you…” but it does not write where they were to do so. Thus he explains “[they] too…” since it is obvious that the words “they shall present themselves” are used to make a scriptural comparison.

This is derived from a scriptural comparison. Here it is written ונועדו (they shall present themselves) and referring to the congregation it is written ונועדו. Just as there it refers to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, so too here it refers to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

Tekiah, teruah, tekiah — this is how it is extrapolated by Sifri. For it is written “if you blow (תקעתם — from the same derivation as the word “tekiah”) a teruah” (v. 6) implying a tekiah followed by a teruah. It then written “a teruah they shall blow (יתקעו)” implying a teruah followed by a tekiah. How is this understood — as a tekiah, teruah, tekiah. We need not ask: Why then do we not have two teruos in the middle? Because we never find two teruahs one after the other. The reason for having written “teruah” twice is that one is needed for a gezeirah shavah(Scriptural comparison) to Yom Kippur, and any gezeirah shavah is based upon superfluous wording.

Since it says. Rashi is answering the question: Firstly the Torah already writes above “you shall blow and you shall present yourselves…” Furthermore from where would one learn a requirement for a tekiah, teruah, tekiah such that it had to write “you shall blow [a tekiah] but not a teruah.” He answers “since it says, ‘They shall be used by you…’”

Perhaps, just as, when initiating the camps’ departure. Since the two are compared together, one might have said that ‘just as when initiating the camps’ departure…” therefore it was necessary to exclude this.

Of the communal offerings. Because the Torah writes “for your burnt-offerings and for your peace-offerings” juxtaposing peace- offerings with burnt-offerings. All burnt-offerings are of the highest sanctity while some peace-offerings are of the highest sanctity and some are of lower sanctity — for example, the peace-offerings of the congregation are of the highest sanctity and those of the individual are of lower sanctity. Therefore, the peace-offerings were juxtaposed with the burnt-offerings to teach that just as the burnt-offerings are only of highest sanctity, so too these peace-offerings are only of the highest sanctity, referring to the peace-offerings of the congregation. We then return and learn the case of the burnt-offering from the peace-offering. Just as the peace- offering which is of the highest sanctity is an offering of the congregation, since one never finds a peace-offering of the highest sanctity that is not an offering of the congregation, so too the case of the burnt-offering refers to an offering of the congregation.

As a remembrance. This is the shofar and the remembrance.

Twelve months minus ten days. As is written in Parshas Yisro (Shemos 19:1). (Divrei Dovid) asks: I do not know what Rashi is teaching us with this! It is apparently to resolve the difficulty with what is written above “or a year (lit. days) that the cloud prolonged its stay…” (9:22) which refers to a year. But where do we find that they camped for twelve months, given that the longest encampment was here at Chorev until [the journey to] the desert of Paran? This was not a complete year because Rosh Chodesh Sivan of the first year was the beginning of the encampment and on the twentieth of Iyar of the second year they traveled from there. He answers that only ten days were missing and since they were camped for most of Iyar it was as if they were there for the whole month, meaning that it was considered a complete year.

Kivros Hata’avoh. We see that from the desert of Paran, which was termed Kivros Hata’avoh, they traveled to Chatzeros, and afterwards it is written that the people traveled from Chatzeros and camped in the desert of Paran. But surely they had already been in the desert of Paran, which was Kivros Hata’avoh, as it is written here. Therefore Rashi explains that Kivros Hata’avoh was in the desert of Paran, meaning that the desert of Paran covered a large area and contained the places called Kivros Hata’avoh and Chatzeros, which were all in the desert of Paran. In the end they arrived at the border of the desert of Paran, which is what was meant when the Torah says that they camped in the desert of Paran at the end of the Parshah (12:16).

After this journey. So that one would not err and say that they camped there after the second journey, after leaving Kivros Hata’avoh, since that place was called Taveirah. For this reason Rashi explained that it was “after this journey.”

Who were preceded. Meaning that Scripture uses abbreviated language. והקימו (they erected) either refers to those who erected, or it refers to the sons of Gershon and Merori who were mentioned previously. It is not possible to say that the Kehosites erected it before the arrival of the sons of Gershon and Merori. He adds that this was “when the cloud rested” and “the signal for making camp…” because without this it would have appeared that the sons of Gershon and Merori who traveled before the camp would encamp in any place that saw fit. But this is impossible because it is written “they camped by the word of Hashem” (9:18). The meaning of “by the time of their arrival” is “before they arrived,” because the intent of this statement is that at the time when they arrived the Mishkon was set up and they would immediately place the Ark and the Holy vessels inside.

The departure of the two banners. Meaning that the sons of Gershon and Merori would travel before the camps. When the Torah writes “the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled” (v.13) and afterwards it is written “and dismantled the Mishkon” (v. 17), Re’m explains that “the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled” means that they prepared to travel but not that they actually traveled, as it is explained there in depth. If so, the sons of Merori and the sons of Gershon preceded the sons of Kehos by two banners. Before the banner of the camp of Yehudah traveled, and immediately after they saw the cloud depart, Aharon and his sons came in and dismantled the Paroches and covered the Ark with it. The sons of Gershon and the sons of Merori then dismantled the Mishkon and loaded it onto the wagons and traveled. However, the Ark and the Holy vessels in the load of the sons of Kehos would remain covered and placed upon poles until the banner of the camp of Reuven traveled.

They traveled in the shape of a box. Like Rashi explains in Parshas Bamidbar (2:9) — the banner of Yehudah was on the east, Reuven’s on the south, Ephraim’s on the west and Don’s on the north. Therefore they had to spread out to a width of two banners and consequently [Don] had to be heavily populated. However, according to the opinion that they traveled one after the other in the shape of a beam, and deriving this from “gatherer for all the camps” — even if Don was not heavily populated, they could gather whatever was lost. You might ask: The tribes [traveling under the banner] of Yehudah were more populous than the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Don, because the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Yehudah comprised 186,400 while the tribes [traveling under the banner] of Don totaled only 157,600, as the Torah writes in Parshas Bamidbar (2:9, 31). (Gur Aryeh) answers: Yehudah traveled first, given that he was the king, and therefore the last to travel was Don who had the largest population after Yehudah.

Another opinion is that they traveled in the shape of a beam. When they camped, it was in the shape of a box, as is written in Parshas Bamidbar. You might ask: According to the opinion that they traveled like a beam, how do we understand the words “as they camp, so shall they travel” (2:17). The answer is that as they camped — each man with his banner and his camp — so too they traveled; as it is written “Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own banner, and each man at his own camp” (1:52).

This is the order of their journeys. Rashi is answering the question: “These are the journeys” implies that it refers to the places where they camped and traveled from. However, here the Torah does not expand on the details; instead it describes them later in Parshas Masei. Thus Rashi explains that this is the order of their journeys, meaning that “these are the journeys” refers to the order of their journeys — how they would journey, who was first and who was last.

On that day they journeyed. Meaning on the day when the cloud was removed. One should not say that since the cloud preceded them by three days in order to prepare the way, they certainly traveled on the next day. For this reason Rashi explains that they traveled immediately. Re’m explains that “They journeyed on that day” refers to the twentieth day of the second month. However, “Bnei Yisroel traveled on their journeys” (v.12) merely means that they traveled according to the order of the banners journeying.

This was Yisro. Rashi is answering the question: It is not clear to whom the phrase “Moshe’s father-in-law” in this verse refers — whether it refers to Reuel or to Chovav his son? He answers that it refers to Chovav who was Yisro, as it states “Of the children…” Re’m There are those who ask: Surely Rashi already gave this explanation in Parshas Yisro? Furthermore, why did he have to mention that Yisro had many names? The answer is that Rashi was answering the question: The Torah writes “Chovav son of Reuel…” This presents a difficulty either way; if Chovav was Yisro, and Reuel was his father — then Yisro was not called Reuel. But if Chovav was the son of Yisro, meaning that Yisro was called Reuel then he could not have been called Chovav. If so, how do we find that he had seven names? Rashi answers that Chovav was Yisro and that he was also called Reuel. And do not be surprised that Yisro was called Reuel when his father was also called Reuel. With regard to his father, his actual name was “Reuel,” this is to be contrasted with Yisro who was called Reuel because of his actions — for he became a ריע לאל (a friend to God).

Within three days. For it is not written “we are הולכים (going)” rather “נוסעים (journeying).” This implies that this was [still] their first journey, except that they sinned in the incident of the complainers. And what Rashi comments “within three days…” his proof is because in this passage it is written “they traveled from the mountain of Hashem a journey of three days” (v. 33).

And he thought he would enter. You might ask: In Parshas Shemos, Rashi explains the [meaning of the] words “in the hand of another whomever you wish to send” (4:13) that ultimately Moshe would not bring them into the Land, or be their redeemer in the future. From there we see that Moshe knew that a decree had been issued [so why did he now think that he may enter]? The answer is that he certainly knew that he would not enter the Land to be a leader over them, nonetheless he thought that he would enter like [an ordinary] person amongst them. However this raises a difficulty: At the end of Parshas Shemos (6:1) Rashi explains that “You will see what will be done to Pharaoh, but you will not see what will be done to the seven kings of the nations when I bring them in to the Land.” This implies that he would not enter at all. The explanation is that he certainly thought that he would enter, however the conquest of the Land of Israel lasted fourteen years and Moshe thought that Hashem was telling him that he would not [live to] see those fourteen years, rather that he would enter and die there. Therefore Rashi here states that he thought that he would enter, but not that he would bring them in — for Moshe knew that he would not bring them in. We also see this in Parshas Chukas (20:12). [One might ask:] In Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 15:17) Rashi comments on the phrase “you will bring them” that Moshe prophesied that he would not enter the Land of Israel, apparently not even as an ordinary Jew, while here Rashi comments that he thought that he would enter. The answer is that he prophesied but he did not know what he prophesied. (Nachalas Yaakov) He answers the difficulty stemming from the verse (Shemos 6:1) “Now you will see…” — but you will not see the war with the seven kings. The verse is to be understood as follows: The decree of “because you did not believe in Me” (Bamidbar 20:12) had not yet been issued. Regarding that decree the Torah writes “therefore you will not bring this congregation in to the Land.” Rashi explains that He swore precipitously so that they would not engage in lengthy prayer over this, implying that they would have been able to annul the first decree through prayer. Therefore Moshe here says “we are journeying” because he was not concerned about the decree of “Now you will see…” because he thought that it would be annulled through prayer. Consequently, he did not wish to involve himself in lengthy prayers until the time came, and this is why he said “we are journeying.”

Whether for the sake of my properties or for the sake of my family. Because “to” is written twice. Rashi’s comment means to say “whether I go for the sake of my properties,” which I have as an inheritance and I will go to sell. Or “whether I go for the sake of my family,” in order to convert them — as we find (Shemos 18:27) that “he went to his land” where Rashi explains “to convert the members of his family.” Nonetheless it was his intention to return there but not to settle. I have found this said in the name of the Maharal of Prague.

So that they will not say. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he request that Yisro go with him, surely the journey would have been for his own benefit. Then, since he did not want any favors, Moshe should have left him. Rashi explains “so that they will not say…”

Past tense. Meaning because he had seen the miracles and wonders that Hashem did for Yisroel. And that is what the verse is saying “You were eyes for us,” meaning that you saw it all with your eyes.

Future tense. According to the first explanation the word לנו (for us) raises a difficulty, therefore Rashi brings another interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty: Since the Divine Presence was among them and enlightened their eyes through Moshe, why would they need Yisro? Consequently Rashi brings the last interpretation. However, according to the last interpretation alone there is a difficulty that the Torah should have said “you shall be like eyes for us.” Therefore all the reasons are necessary.

A fertile area of Yericho. דושנה [means] fertile land.

They traveled in one day. For if not so, why does it say “a journey of three days.”

Went with them. Meaning that it was the Ark which traveled in front of them that went with them to war. Moshe made it before he brought down the second set of Tablets, and it was not the Ark that Betzalel made after Yom Kippur. After they removed the second Tablets from that Ark and placed them in the one that Betzalel had made, the broken Tablets were placed in it and remained there. This Ark would go out with them to war, as well as journeying in front of them. However, the Ark which contained the second Tablets would journey in the midst of the camp, as it is written in this Parshah (v. 21).

Seven clouds. The seven clouds are enumerated in Sifri: (1) “The Cloud of Hashem was above them” (here). (2) “Your Cloud stands” (Bamidbar 14:14). (3) “And in a Pillar of Cloud You go” (ibid.). (4) “When the Cloud tarried” (ibid. 9:19). (5) “When the Cloud was raised” (Shemos 40:36). (6) “If the Cloud was not raised” (ibid. v. 37). (7) “For the Cloud of God was over the Mishkon” (ibid. v. 38). All of them were related to the journeying and encampment of Bnei Yisroel. See Nachalas Yaakov and Gur Aryeh.

That this is not its place. And where is its place? Above in Parshas Bamidbar along with the banners and the journeying where the Torah writes “The Tent of Meeting journeyed, the camp of the Levites…” (2:17). It would have been correct for this to have been written after that verse, therefore Hashem made the nuns as an indication, meaning that this chapter should have been written fifty (nun has a numerical value of fifty) chapters previously. For this reason the Torah wrote the nuns backwards to teach that its place is fifty chapters above and not fifty chapters below.

Between one punishment and the next. You might ask: The last punishment — “the people were like complainers” — is clear; however what was the first punishment? The answer is that above it is written “and they traveled from the Mountain of Hashem” (v.33) while it should have said “they traveled from the Mountain of God.” This teaches that they left like a child who runs off from school. It is also termed a punishment because they turned away from Hashem.

Those gathered together … These are the pursuers. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah should have written the opposite, because it is typical first to flee, and afterwards, out of fear for the pursuers, to disperse. But here it writes first “they will disperse.” Therefore Rashi explains that “they will flee” does not refer to those who will disperse. R. Yaakov Triosh.

These are the haters of Yisroel. (Nachalas Yaakov) It appears to me that Rashi explained so because it is not possible to use the term “hate” toward Hashem. Nonetheless I do not know why he did not make this comment on the words “May your enemies disperse” which is written before. Kitzur Mizrochi answers that it is because the words “those who hate you have raised [their] heads” that is brought as a proof fits better with the words “those who hate you,” rather than “your enemies,” since there it does not mention enemies.

Twenty-two thousand. “Myriads” and “thousands” refer to two myriad and two thousand, for if not so, Scripture should say only “Come to rest Hashem, among the myriads of Yisroel,” because “a myriad” on its own always refers to ten thousand. And we do not find anywhere that Scripture mentions thousands in conjunction with myriads.