ובני ישראל נסעו מבארות בני יעקן, "The Children of Israel journeyed from Be-eroth-bney Yaakon.⁠" Rashi, feeling the need to explain how this apparently unrelated verse fits in here, and posing the rhetorical question if these wells came to the place called Mosserah, explains the verse by following aggadic interpretations, saying that seeing this is where Aaron was mourned in style, it appeared to the people as if this was where he had died.

Ibn Ezra, forever attempting to find a straightforward interpretation clearly suggested by the text, [author's words, not mine. Ed.] is hard pressed saying the words בארות בני יעקן (of the descendants of Se-ir, Edom) were not places by the same name mentioned in Numbers [The name of this individual appears in the Bible three more times, in Chronicles I 1,42, in Numbers 33,31, and 32. Ed.] He claims that the place is the one we know as Kadesh. Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, מוסרה mentioned here is not identical with the מוסרות mentioned in Numbers Only the "Kadesh" mentioned in Numbers 33,37 is identical with בארות בני יעקן. The name of the desert surrounding הר ההר is מוסרה. From that location the Israelites moved on to Gudgoda. Gudgoda is not the name of a mountain. It is a term for a region comprising Tzalmona, Punon, and Ovot. (Numbers 33, 31-42) Yotvata, is the place referred to as באר, as we know from Numbers This is also why it is described as ארץ נחלי מים, a land with brooks and rivulets providing water. The region responded favourably to water diviners. The verse (7) משם נסעו הגוגודה belongs with ויכהן אלעזר תחתחו "and Eleazar, his son, performed the priestly duties in his stead.⁠" (6) I have already explained that after departing from Mount Sinai the (individual) Israelites no longer offered offerings on the Altar. [Ibn Ezra on Exodus]

It is possible that when arriving at Tzalmona they began to offer these sacrifices again and that is when Eleazar began his duties in practice. Perhaps on New Year's Day, as well as on the Day of Atonement, these rites were performed. [In his commentary on Exodus 29,42 Ibn Ezra justifies the non-performance on most days with the non-availability of the requisite amounts of wine and olive oil, etc. Ed.] The justification for referring to Eleazar as performing his duties as his father's successor at this point is that as a result of the golden calf episode the firstborn who up until that time had performed the priestly duties were exchanged for the Levites who had remained loyal, and among their various duties was the one to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders during the journeys of the Israelites. Already in Numbers 6,23 Eleazar had blessed the people together with his father, i.e. had performed some priestly functions.

Nachmanides refuses to accept any part of Ibn Ezra's commentary on this subject (locations) declaring that the sudden emergence of locations that had not been mentioned in Parshat Massey is totally inadmissible. Furthermore, he sees nothing strange in locations appearing as having slightly different names on different occasions. He quotes numerous examples of this being the case. The Torah does so not only when referring to place names, but also when referring to the same people by different names. In this case where there is hardly any different between מוסרה and מוסרות, there is even less reason to "make a federal case" out of such nuances. He also sees nothing special about the variation from חור הגדגוד in Numbers 33,32, and הגדגודה in our verse here to justify looking for Ibn Ezra's far-fetched stretching of the meaning of the text on these two occasions. He feels that the various locations mentioned here are so close to one another that they did not warrant separate mention in Numbers chapter 33. By allowing for the fact that the camp of the Israelites was about 12-15 kilometers in length, the front section had reached another location before the rearguard had even left it. He assumes that the people hardly moved more than 3 or 4 kilometers in an average day's journey. When the Israelites journeyed sometimes for only a single day, they could easily have straddled both locations while encamped. He also argues that quite possibly, seeing mountains are named, the top of the mountain was named by a different name from the base of the same mountain, although both names fitted the same location. In a location known as חשמונה (Numbers 33,29) there were numerous wells in the field, collectively known as the wells of the sons of Yaakon, בארות בני יעקן, in order to water their flocks. The Israelites passed that region in their journeys and moved on to a place known as מוסרה. They encamped around the wells known as בארות בני יעקן, and remained there for some time. Moses singled out two places, Gudgoda and Yotvata as areas that were also well watered, skipping others which did not have much to commend them, seeing they had all been mentioned already in Parshat Massey. It is also possible that when Aaron ascended the mountain הר ההר to die there, a mountain that was facing the place known as מוסרה, that the people then moved back to Mosserah to mourn and eulogise Aaron in a manner befitting such a beloved leader. This is what is reported here when Moses writes that they journeyed from בארות יעקן to מוסרה, and that the notables of the people used these 30 days to each pay their respects to Aaron at his grave, ascending the mountain where he had died in order to do so. The Torah had not actually written that the people made camp in בארות בני יעקן. Once the thirty days of mourning were over, they moved on at greater speed all the way to Gudgodah. From there they moved to Yatvata The location was known as Yatvata on account of the abundant supply of drinking water in that region. This was by way of contrast with the desert of Tzin, which qualified for the description ציה וצמאון, completely devoid of water, a region in which one could only perish from thirst. The reason why Moses inserted reference to the death of Aaron at this juncture, may have been that he had already mentioned praying on behalf of Aaron who might have died many years earlier if not for Moses' prayer. He wanted the people to know and to remember that if Aaron did not die until the fortieth year this was proof that that he had not been guilty of sin but died of old age. He did not die until his son Eleazar was sufficiently mature to become his successor.

As to the formulation (verse 6) ובני ישראל נסעו, "the Children of Israel journeyed" (in the third person), as opposed to Moses speaking in these portions in direct speech i.e. "you have done,⁠" "I have done, etc.,⁠" Moses spoke to them in direct speech when he admonished them. Here he was merely relating some historical facts, without implying criticism of the people.