Moses seeing the land of Israel before he dies. Dalle -2
The Torah’s Three Explanations for Why Moses Does Not Enter the Land
The biblical authors knew that Moses did not lead the Israelites into the promised land, but the question of why preoccupied them.
Published: June 28, 2023
|
Last Updated: October 28, 2026
I thank Idan Dershowitz for clarifying this point for me. Note that Deuteronomy 34:7, attributed to the Priestly source, contradicts this passage: it says that Moses’ fitness had not declined by the end of his life.
Translations of biblical passages are adapted from the NJPS.
See, for example, Baruch J. Schwartz, “A Bible Scholar’s Simchat Torah: The Joy of Unraveling the Torah’s Mysteries,” TheTorah (2013).
On the nature of Moses’ and Aaron’s wrongdoing in this narrative, see my article, “Moses and Aaron Misuse an Asherah to Draw Water from the Rock,” TheTorah (2023).
Note that this passage is clearly Priestly (P), not Deuteronomic, despite being in the book of Deuteronomy; it is part of P’s conclusion to the Torah.
Additionally, the word מְרִיבָה (meribah), “strife,” occurs both in all the P passages (Num 20:13, 24; 27:14; Deut 32:51) and in the “spies” account in the text of the Shapira manuscripts (Va B I 8, 9), which Idan Dershowitz has recently argued is a precursor of D (The Valediction of Moses: A Proto-Biblical Book, FAT 145 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021], 64 n. 75, 66, 67 n. 78, 135). However, where the Shapira manuscripts have מרבה, “strife,” D has מִלְחָמָה, “war” (Deut 2:14, 16). The element “strife” (מְרִיבָה) is found also in the parallel account of Massah and Meribah (Exod 17:1b–7 at v. 7; cf. v. 2).
Editor’s note: On Kadesh and Kadesh-Barnea as two different locations, see David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “Solving the Problem of ‘Kadesh in the Wilderness of Paran,” TheTorah (2015).
Editor’s note: For another example of this type of harmonizing activity, a well-known feature of the Samaritan Pentateuch, see the discussion in David Glatt-Gilad, “Reimagining the Israelite-Edomite Encounter,” TheTorah (2016).
Before making that turn, however, the Samaritan Pentateuch adds to the end of verse 13 another passage from Deuteronomy (2:2–6), an announcement by YHWH that the Israelites may not take the mountain of Seir, because YHWH has given it to the descendants of Esau (i.e., the Edomites).
Editor’s note: On harmonization in Second Temple literature, see also the discussion in Sidnie White Crawford, “The Many Recensions of the Ten Commandments,” TheTorah (2019).
2 Samuel 19:8; Nehemiah 2:10; 13:8; but see 2 Samuel 20:6.
Thus Ibn Ezra, Radak, Meiri, Sforno, Metzudat David; Thomas W. Mann, “Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses,” JBL 98.4 (1979): 481–494 (at 483 n. 7); and seemingly implied in most English Bible translations.
See Genesis 19:9; 43:6; Exodus 5:22, 23; Numbers 11:11; 20:15; Joshua 24:20; 1 Samuel 26:21; Jeremiah 25:6; Zechariah 8:14; Proverbs 24:8; Ruth 1:21. The subject of this causative verb would most easily be understood as indefinite, as perhaps also in Exodus 5:23. The subject could also be understood with difficulty as YHWH, last mentioned seven verses earlier in verse 25.
The Peshitta translates the verb as wʾbʾš, in the causative aphel stem.
Targum of Psalms; Ibn Ezra, Metzudat David.
The verb מרה, translated here as “to rebel,” is found also in verse 7 of our psalm and in other biblical wilderness traditions, where it always seems to refer to the people against YHWH as in D (Isa 63:10 with “spirit” רוח; Ezek 20:13; Ps 78:17, 40; cf. Exod 23:21).
Ibn Ezra (as alternative), Radak citing his father, Meiri, Malbim; Mann, “Theological Reflections,” 483 n. 7; NLT.
Rashi, Radak, Meiri (as alternative).
Actually, this part is even more complicated, because while הִמְרוּ in Psalm 106:33 is most easily understood as meaning “they rebelled,” from the root מ.ר.ה (thus Targum of Psalms, Radak citing his father, Metzudat Tziyyon, most English Bible translations), it can also be interpreted as “they embittered,” from the root מ.ר.ר (thus Peshitta, Wycliffe, ESV, RSV, NRSV; see Job 27:2; Ruth 1:20; Gen 26:35; Prov 14:10), or even as “they changed,” from the root מ.ו.ר (thus Radak; see Ps 15:4). And see note 16.
Rashi (who, however, sees it as referring to the P verse Num 20:12), pseudo-Rashbam (who refers to the D story) Ibn Ezra, Radak (who refers to the P story).
Ibn Ezra (as alternative), Radak citing his father, Meiri, Isaiah di Trani, Metzudat David, Malbim; Mann, “Theological Reflections,” 483 n. 7; most English Bible translations. Yalqut Shim’oni: it is said of Moses but it means “he swore.”
Another example of harmonistic ambiguity in the Bible is found in 2 Chronicles 3:13b, which says of the two cherubim over the ark in Solomon’s temple: וּפְנֵיהֶם לַבָּיִת. This phrase can be understood as meaning either that they faced the main hall of the temple (Septuagint, Vulgate, most English Bible translations and modern commentaries) or that they faced “inward”, i.e., each other (Peshitta, Targum of Chronicles, some English Bible translations). The first interpretation makes these cherubim match the cherubim in the temple as described in Kings (1 Kgs 6:23–28); the second makes them match the cherubim in the tabernacle as described in Exodus (25:20 = 37:9). See further Raanan Eichler, The Ark and the Cherubim, FAT 146 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021), 255–266.
