Parashas Ki Saytzay 5774

“No Amonite or Moavite may enter the congregation of G-d” because “they did not offer you bread and water, on the road when you left Egypt” (D’varim 23:4-5). In “Iyun HaParasha” (#13), the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” is questioned, since this slight on the part of Amon and Moav occurred during the 40th year in the desert, after the “desert generation” (actually the generation that left Egypt) had already died. Why mention leaving Egypt now? What relevance does what happened almost 40 earlier have with Amon and Moav’s lack of hospitality?

There are actually three times in this week’s Parasha that the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” is used. We are supposed to “remember that which Hashem your G-d did to Miriam on the road when you left Egypt” (24:9) and “remember that which Amalek did to you on the road when you left Egypt” (25:17), both of which happened in the first two years after the exodus from Egypt. Since they were so soon (relatively speaking) after leaving Egypt, this expression is not out of place in either of these verses. Nevertheless, by seeing what it adds to “remembering” those occurrences, we may be able to apply it to what happened in the 40th year as well.

Explaining the commandment to remember what happened to Miriam, that she was punished for speaking negatively about her brother Moshe by contracting a skin disease, Rashbam tells us that “even though she was a prophetess and was Moshe’s sister, she was not given any special treatment and had to be shut in (out of contact with others) for seven days.” He then says that the words “on the road when you left Egypt” are meant to teach us “that even though they were busy getting ready to travel (from Chatzeiros, see Bamidbar 12:17), the nation did not leave until after [her seven days of defilement had ended]; certainly this is true of every other person.” In other words, this expression provides added context, that the need for anyone who contracts this skin disease to be “closed in” for a week is so important that even when it caused the entire nation to be delayed for a week, it still had to be implemented (and on nobility, no less).

Explaining why the Torah adds “on the road when you left Egypt” regarding Amalek’s attack, Malbim references what he wrote in Parashas B’shalach, that none of the usual reasons for waging war applied, two of which are negated by adding “on the road when you left Egypt.” The Children of Israel had no land (yet) to conquer, as they were “on the road,” so the attack couldn’t have been in order to capture land from them. They were not approaching Amalek’s boundary either, as they had just “left Egypt,” so there was no reason for Amalek to stage a pre-emptive attack to prevent being attacked. (Malbim then shows how the next verse negates the three other reasons why a war is waged.) In other words, the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” provides context showing how wicked Amalek was, explaining why G-d declared war on them (see Sh’mos 17:16).

It could therefore be suggested that the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” regarding Amon and Moav was meant to provide context indicating how grievous their sin was, or why it was considered a sin. After all, if a foreign nation passes near a country’s boundary, they would understandably be concerned that the foreigners’ motives weren’t friendly, and not providing them with sustenance would be understandable as well. However, in this case, the Children of Israel had asked Amon and Moav permission to pass through their land peacefully (see Shoftim 11:17).When they refused, rather than attacking, Israel moved on, past their land (11:18) and asked Sichon permission to pass through his land instead (11:19), at which point Sichon attacked Israel (11:20, see also Bamidbar 21:21-23 and D’varim 2:26-32). There was therefore no reason for Amon or Moav to be concerned that the Children of Israel were going to attack them. (They might have even been aware that G-d had expressly forbidden Israel from attacking them, see D’varim 2:9 and 2:19, see also https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/parashas-balak-5770/.)

Without any concern of being attacked by the nation passing near them through the desert, one whose ancestor (Avraham) had treated their ancestor (Lot) so well, Amon and Moav should have shown them some hospitality, but didn’t. By adding “on the road when you left Egypt,” Moshe was providing the context indicating that this was the case. The Children of Israel hadn’t reached their “homeland” yet, even when they reached the boundaries of Amon and Moav, as they were still “on the road.” And even though it was close to 40 years since they had left Egypt, because they hadn’t yet reached their destination, it was still considered part of their trip from Egypt to the Promised Land. Yet, even though there was no danger of being attacked, Amon and Moav still didn’t offer any sustenance.