another interrupted narrative

I want to return to my post at the end of last week and add two points before moving on to something new.  Last week we discussed why perek 9 jumps around -- it opens with Moshe telling us that he davened for the cheit ha'eigel to be forgiven, but then the chapter moves on to other rebellions in the desert before coming back to Moshe's tefilah and telling us what he said.  Shouldn't the words of Moshe's tefilah come earlier in the perek, when the fact that he prayed is first mentioned?

The truth is that this type of structure is not so uncommon (R' Reuvain Klein's comment to the post brought out this idea).  For example, we have in chapter 1 of Braishis זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃ (1:27), but the details of how Chavah was created, the fact that Hashem put Adam to sleep and took out his side, is elaborated on only later in chapter 2, as Rashi there notes.  Even though all those details could have been spelled out earlier, the Torah holds off and recapitulates later after first giving us the broad strokes and outline.  

In a shiur I once heard from R' Menachem Leibtag he made a parenthetical observation that we sometimes see endnotes to a perek or parsha.  For example (this was the example he gave), Beshalach 16:16 speaks about gathering an omer of mon, but what's an omer?  We have to wait until the last pasuk of the perek for the definition -- an endnote, if you will --  וְהָעֹ֕מֶר עֲשִׂרִ֥ית הָאֵיפָ֖ה הֽוּא.  Or, to come back to Braishis (my example), it's only after we get through the whole story of the creation of woman, her (and man's) sin of eating the eitz ha'daas, and the banishment from Eden that the Torah tacks on at the end of perek 3 וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי.  Here too, in our perek, maybe the words of Moshe's tefilah are like an endnote to the perek.

Turning to perek 10, here we again have an interruption that breaks up the narrative.  The perek starts with Moshe being given second luchos as a result of his prayers on behalf of Bnei Yisrael.  Then the perek shifts to the death of Aharon, which took place in the 40th year of the travels through the desert:

וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נָ֥סְע֛וּ מִבְּאֵרֹ֥ת בְּנֵי־יַעֲקָ֖ן מוֹסֵרָ֑ה שָׁ֣ם מֵ֤ת אַהֲרֹן֙ וַיִּקָּבֵ֣ר שָׁ֔ם וַיְכַהֵ֛ן אֶלְעָזָ֥ר בְּנ֖וֹ תַּחְתָּֽיו׃

 מִשָּׁ֥ם נָסְע֖וּ הַגֻּדְגֹּ֑דָה וּמִן־הַגֻּדְגֹּ֣דָה יׇטְבָ֔תָה אֶ֖רֶץ נַ֥חֲלֵי מָֽיִם

and then once again returns to the topic of Sinai to discuss the election of the Leviim in place of bechorm and the additional 40 days Moshe spent on the mountain (10:11):

בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֗וא הִבְדִּ֤יל ה׳ אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י   Rashi comments  בעת ההיא הבדיל וגומ׳ – מוסב לעיניין ראשון.

Why break up the narrative?

Rashi and Ramban offer their own answers, but I want to focus on Ibn Ezra and Seforno.  The previous chapter ended with Moshe's tefilah not only for Bnei Yisrael, but specifically for Aharon as well. Ibn Ezra explains that our chapter spells out Hashem's answer to those prayers.  The response to Moshe's breaking the luchos was the giving of the second luchos, mentioned at the start of our chapter; the response to his prayer for Aharon was Aharon being given a reprieve and living for another 40 years until his death. 

Seforno also sees the description of what happened to Aharon as a follow up to Moshe's tefilah, but with an entirely different message.  Bnei Yisrael saw just how powerful the tefilah of a tzadik is, as through his prayers Moshe was able to avert Hashem's punishment of the people, and yet when Aharon passed, rather than accord him the honor that was due a tzadik, they were more interested in looking for pasture land for their sheep, מִשָּׁ֥ם נָסְע֖וּ הַגֻּדְגֹּ֑דָה וּמִן־הַגֻּדְגֹּ֣דָה יׇטְבָ֔תָה אֶ֖רֶץ נַ֥חֲלֵי מָֽיִם.  Seforno writes:

 אף על פי שראו שתפלת הצדיק מגינה על דורו, ושראוי להתאונן על מיתתו, הנה קצתם או רובם שהיו רועים במדבר נסעו למוסרה, למצוא מים ומרעה לצאן. ובעודם שם, מת אהרן ויקבר... ויכהן אלעזר – ולא באו להתאונן על המיתה ולא להתאבל על הקבורה, ולא חששו לכבד אלעזר שכהן תחתיו  

Seforno fits nicely with the idea that Sefer Devarim is a mussar talk.  Moshe is holding the people accountable here for taking Aharon's death too lightly.

I would like to suggest the flip side of the Seforno/Ibn Ezra as an explanation to the perek's structure.  Moshe is not touting the effectiveness of his tefilah on behalf of Aharon (or the tefilah of a tzadik in general), but to the contrary, he is emphasizing its limits (which fits with the message Rashbam read into the previous perek).  Moshe places Aharon's death in year 40 in the context of what happened at Sinai to convey the message that Aharon's death in year 40 was a result of the cheit ha'eigel in year 1.  Although Moshe davened directly on his behalf, and Aharom had his own many other acts of tzidkus to his credit, he still was held accountable and paid a price for his wrongdoing.