1. Rashi’s Apparent Repetition in the Parasha
Someone pointed out that Rashi seems to repeat himself in today’s parasha. At the beginning of Chamishi—the fifth aliyah—Rashi explains that “kol ha’eidah” means the entire community was now ready to enter Eretz Yisroel—the Land of Israel—because all those who were decreed to die in the desert had already passed away. Interestingly, Rashi made a very similar comment earlier in the parasha, right at the beginning, on the words “vayavo b’nei Yisroel kol ha’eidah.” There, Rashi says “ha’eidah ha’shleimah”—the complete congregation.
2. Why Does Rashi Repeat Himself?
The reason Rashi repeats this explanation is because the Torah itself repeats this phrase. In both places, the verse says “vayavo b’nei Yisroel kol ha’eidah,” and it seems unnecessary for the Torah to add “kol ha’eidah”—“the entire community.” It could have simply said “vayavo b’nei Yisroel” with a location, such as “mitbar Tzin”, or in our case, “hoyror.”
The Torah adds these extra words to teach us something specific: that at this point, all those who were supposed to die in the desert had already passed away, and now everyone remaining was ready to enter Eretz Yisroel. That is why Rashi explains it both times—to clarify what the verse is emphasizing.
3. The Unique Status of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam
This raises another question: why does the Torah say it twice? It seems that while all those from ages 20 to 60 died during the forty years in the desert, there were exceptions: Moshe, Aharon, and also Miriam. When Hashem punished Moshe and Aharon for striking the rock instead of speaking to it as commanded, Rashi points out that the verse specifies their sin so we know they were not included in the general decree against that generation. They were different from everyone else.
The Torah wants to emphasize this distinction. When discussing Miriam's passing, there is no explicit reason given for why she did not merit entering Eretz Yisroel. Perhaps for women there was no need for a reason. Rashi notes that the death of tzaddikim—righteous individuals—brings atonement like a sacrifice (kaparah). But still, Rashi does not explain why Miriam did not go into Eretz Yisroel.
4. Distinguishing Between Generational Decrees and Individual Cases
When it comes to Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon, however, Rashi makes clear that their exclusion from entering Eretz Yisroel was due to a specific incident—their sin with the rock—which is stated explicitly in the verse. This sets them apart from those who died as part of the general decree against that generation.
The Torah’s use of “kol ha’eidah” before mentioning Miriam’s death may be meant to distinguish her case—she was already counted among those ready to enter Eretz Yisroel, but she passed away for other reasons. Similarly, before discussing Aharon’s passing, the verse again says “vayavo b’nei Yisroel kol ha’eidah,” highlighting that these were people who had survived until now but would pass away for reasons unique to them—not because of the original decree.
5. Nuances in Rashi’s Language and Further Study
This approach suggests that by repeating “kol ha’eidah”, especially before describing deaths like Miriam’s or Aharon’s, the Torah signals these are separate cases—individuals who were otherwise fit to enter Eretz Yisroel, yet died due to other circumstances.
A closer look at Rashi’s wording reveals subtle differences between his comments in each place. These nuances may provide additional insight into how each case is unique and why each repetition is necessary. This deserves further study and comparison between Rashi’s language on both verses.