“And the Children of Israel traveled from B’eros B’nay Ya’akan to Moseira; there Aharon died, and he was buried there, and his son Elazar took over as [the High] Priest” (D’varim 10:6). Since this verse was stated by Moshe in the middle of his recounting what had happened at Mt. Sinai during the first year after leaving Egypt — specifically the sin of the golden calf, his prayers on behalf of the nation, and G-d forgiving us (to the extent that He didn’t destroy us, reinstated our covenant with Him, and let us continue on to the Promised Land) — inserting two verses about what happened in the 40th year seems out of place. Why did Moshe mention these travels (and the ones in the next verse) smack in the middle of the narrative about the first year? What significance did Aharon’s death in the 40th year, and his son taking over as the Kohain Gadol, have for this narrative? Additionally, since he was addressing the nation — the “Children of Israel” — when he spoke these words, why did he refer to them in the third person, rather than in the second person (as he had been doing all along, e.g. 10:4 and 10:10)?

Rashi adds two more questions before suggesting any answers. First of all, they didn’t travel from B’eros B’nay Ya’akan to Moseira, but from Moseira to B’eros B’nay Ya’akan (see Bamidbar 33:31). Why was the order reversed? Secondly, Aharon didn’t die in Moseira, but at Hor Hahor (Bamidbar 20:22-28 and 33:38). Why is Moseira referred to as the place where he died? To answer these two questions, Rashi references the Midrash (Y’rushalmi Yoma 1:1; see also Tanchuma Chukas 18/42 and M’chilta B’shalach Vayasa 1), that after Aharon died and the clouds of glory left, the nation became afraid from the war with the king of Arad and retreated eight stations, the last of which was going to Moseira from B’eros B’nay Ya’akan. At Moseira there was a civil war, with much bloodshed, until everyone agreed to return. (The return trip is alluded to in D’varim 10:7.) Reversing the order of B’eros B’nay Ya’akan and Moseira reflects this retreat, since this was the order in which they traveled during the retreat.

Rashi continues (based on the Y’rushalmi and Pirkay d’Rebbi Eliezer 17) by saying that since Aharon’s death led to what had happened, they mourned for him there (in Moseira) before heading back, and it was therefore considered as if he had died there. Bringing it back to why the reference to this incident was inserted here, Rashi (based on the Y’rushalmi and Vayikra Rabah 20:12) says it teaches us that the death of the righteous (in this case, Aharon) is as difficult as the day the Luchos were broken. Since this only explains why Aharon’s death is mentioned here, but not why the circumstances surrounding Aharon’s death was alluded to, Rashi adds that retreating back to Egypt and away from G-d is as difficult to Him (as it were) as the day the golden calf was made.

It can be suggested that since the eight-station retreat was unsanctioned, it might have been considered as if those who participated because of their personal fears had sinned as individuals, but it was not a “national sin.” Therefore Moshe said it was “the Children of Israel” who retreated, i.e. it was a sin on a national level. And since the loss of a righteous person is tragic even if someone else takes over his position, Elazar becoming the Kohain Gadol is mentioned when Aharon’s death is compared with the Luchos being broken. [That two of the stations they retreated to had their own water sources might have been mentioned to teach us that this retreat back towards Egypt was not based on a water shortage.]

Although it’s pretty clear that this two-verse insertion is referencing the nation’s retreat to Moseira (despite Ibn Ezra’s objections), if the reason it was inserted was to compare things to the breaking of the Luchos and to the golden calf, these verses should have been inserted earlier — before Moshe got to the part of the narrative where he received the second Luchos — as the second Luchos not only symbolize a level of reparation for the first Luchos being broken, but also represent a level of forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf. Why insert something in order to create a comparison with another thing after the effect of that “other thing” has been mitigated?

Rashbam and Chizkuni suggest that this insertion was intended to preempt anyone from thinking that Moshe’s prayer on behalf of Aharon (D’varim 10:20) didn’t work, as even though he died, it wasn’t until the 40th year, when the nation traveled from B’eros B’nay Ya’akan to Moseira. However, since this occurred only a few months before Moshe said this to the nation, why would Moshe need to remind them of this? Besides, if this was the reason for the insertion, why was it placed here, rather than immediately after mentioning that he prayed for Aharon?

These two verses were inserted between Moshe telling the nation that he put the second Luchos in the wooden ark that G-d had commanded him to make and Moshe telling them that it was at that time that G-d chose the Tribe of Levi to serve in the Mishkan/Temple. The reason Moshe had been commanded to make a wooden ark was because at that point (before the third set of 40 days), there had not yet been a commandment to build a Mishkan, or the commandment to build a Mishkan had been rescinded due to the sin of the golden calf and had not yet been reinstated. Therefore, there was no gold-plated ark with a gold cover adorned with Cheruvim to put the Luchos into. [Interestingly, there is no mention of an ark to put the first Luchos into; it is only when G-d agreed to give Moshe the second Luchos that he was commanded to make an ark for them. True, there is no mention of an ark for the second Luchos until D’varim (10:1), and just as its omission in Sh’mos (34:1-4) obviously doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, so too an omission regarding the first Luchos doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t one. Nevertheless, if there was a wooden ark for the first Luchos, unless there wasn’t enough room for both the second Luchos and the broken pieces of the first Luchos, or G-d didn’t want them to be in the same ark together, it is curious that Moshe had to make a wooden ark specifically for the second Luchos.] Either way, having to put the second Luchos into a wooden ark was the result of G-d first agreeing to have a Mishkan (or to reinstate it) at the end of that 40-day period (on Yom Kippur) despite already agreeing to giving us a second set of Luchos before those 40 days even started. The part of the narrative Moshe had ended with before the otherwise out-of-place insertion therefore had an inference to the Mishkan being commanded (or reinstated), and the narrative after the insertion was about who would serve in the Mishkan.

Besides the Levi’im taking over the role that had been filled by the first-born causing some consternation (see Bamidbar 17:16-18:7), Aharon being the Kohain Gadol (High Priest) had been challenged as well. And when Moshe recounted the story of the golden calf, Aharon’s role in it was referenced too, specifically that G-d was angry with him and that Moshe had to pray on his behalf (besides his prayers on behalf of the rest of the nation). Yet, when the Mishkan was built, Aharon was appointed the Kohain Gadol. In order to preempt any notion that Aharon was not worthy of the position, at the point where the Mishkan entered the narrative Moshe reminded them of how important and worthy Aharon was. After all, after his death, despite his role as Kohain Gadol being aptly filled by his son Elazar, the nation retreated eight stations, and mourned for him so extensively at that eighth station that it was considered as if he died there. There should therefore be no question that despite his role in the golden calf, Aharon was the right choice to be Kohain Gadol.

Because the purpose of the insertion was to remind the nation of Aharon’s worthiness, which was done by mentioning what had occurred immediately after he died, it was also important for Moshe to mention that it was the nation — the Children of Israel — that had retreated, and not just individuals. By highlighting how adversely Aharon’s death had impacted the nation, Moshe underscored how worthy he was to represent them as the Kohain Gadol.