Dasan and Aviram

Aside from Korach himself, the only other members of his rebellion that Moshe addressed directly were Dasan and Aviram. וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא נַעֲלֶה.  Not the 250 people נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם, who were, as Netziv explains נשיאי עדה: מנהיגי הדור. Not On ben Pelet (granted, the Midrash explains his absence, but al pi peshuto?) Not anyone else. Why is it that Dasan and Aviram alone captured Moshe's attention? Why were they worthy of being the focus of Moshe's attentions?

Before we can answer that question, we need to first understand how we got to this point and what the backround to Korach's rebellion was. Ramban writes it was Moshe's failure to attain full kaparah for the people in the meraglim episode, which resulted in the decree that they die in the midbar, which set the stage for his leadership to be:

וכאשר חטאו במרגלים לא התפלל משה עליהם ולא בטל הגזרה מהם, ומתו נשיאי כל השבטים במגפה לפני ה׳ (במדבר י״ד:ל״ז) ונגזר על כל העם שיתמו במדבר ושם ימותו, אז היה נפש כל העם מרה, והיו אומרים בלבם כי יבאו להם בדברי משה תקלות. ואז מצא קרח מקום לחלוק על מעשיו, וחשב כי ישמעו אליו העם. וזה טעם: להמיתנו במדבר (במדבר ט״ז:י״ג) – אמרו: הנה הבאת אותנו אל המקום הרע הזה ולא קיימת בנו מה שנדרת לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, כי לא נתת לנו נחלה כלל, אבל נמות במדבר ונהיה כלים שם

We see this same theme echoed in Dasan and Aviram response to Moshe's peace overture toward them:

הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר

You brought death upon us and yet you still want to serve as our leader?

The Sefas Emes in Likkutim takes a different approach, one which is very creative and original. Sefas Emes also turns our attention back to the episode of the spies, but he focusses on the description of what happened as related in parshas Devarim (1:22)

וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ נִשְׁלְחָה אֲנָשִׁים לְפָנֵינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ לָנוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ

Rashi comments:

ותקרבון אלי כולכם – בערבוביא. להלן הוא אומר: ותקרבון אלי כל ראשי שבטיכם וזקניכם (דברים ה׳:י״ט) ותאמרו הן הראנו וגו׳ (דברים ה׳:כ׳) – אותה קריבה היתה הוגנת: ילדים מכבדים את הזקנים ושלחום לפניהם, וזקנים מכבדים את הראשים ללכת לפניהם. אבל כאן: ותקרבון אלי כולכם – בערבוביא: ילדים דוחפים את הזקנים, זקנים דוחפים את הראשים.

The clamoring to send spies came from the youth, who jumped forward to present the idea.  They forced the elders, the roshei ha'matos, to stand back, while they took charge.

Rashi interprets Moshe's response וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינַי הַדָּבָר, to mean בעיניי, ולא בעיני המקום, but Sefas Emes suggests that perhaps the meaning is בעיניי, ולא בעיני הזקנים.  The idea to send spies found favor in Moshe's eyes, but not in the eyes of the other leaders, those זקנים who had been shunted aside.

If correct, this explains why although the spies as described in last week's parsha were כֻּלָּם אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה, the list of their names does match any earlier list of roshei matos/nesiim. Abarbanel observes שלא היו הנשיאים האלה אותם שהקריבו בחנוכת המזבח כי אלו היה נשיאים אחרים and he writes:

אם שנאמר שהראשונים מתו גם הם בתבערה ונמצא שלא חיו אחרי חנוכת המזבח אלא כמו שלשה חדשים. או שמנו אלה להיות מרגלים בלבד נשיאים כראשונים. ולא הלכו אותם שנמנו בראשונה בחנוכת המזבח.

According to Sefas Emes, it makes perfect sense. The original roshei matos/nesiim were the ones who had been pushed aside when the mob demanded that spies be sent. ילדים דוחפים את הזקנים means that the original elders lost their power and were usurpsed. The young upstarts replaced the original leaders with their own slate, and these were the people chosen to be sent.

Who were those original zekeinim? When Moshe asked Hashem for help with his job in Be'haaloscha, Hashem told him (11:16) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי הֵם זִקְנֵי הָעָם וְשֹׁטְרָיו Rashi comments:

אשר ידעת כי הם וגו׳ – אותם שאתה מכיר שנתמנו עליהם שוטרים במצרים בעבדת פרך והיו מרחמים עליהם ולוקין על ידם, שנאמר: ויכו שטרי בני ישראל (שמות ה׳:י״ד), עתה יתמנו בגדולתן כדרך שנצטערו בצרתם

These were the people who took the hit in Mitzrayim when there was a demand for more bricks. Now they got their reward. 

Lets look back at that episode in Mitzrayim and see who these people are. The Torah tells us that when these officers came to complain to Pharoah that his demands were unjust and he sent them away, they met Moshe and Aharon on the way out, and gave them a piece of their mind (Shmos 5:19). וַיִּפְגְּעוּ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן נִצָּבִים לִקְרָאתָם בְּצֵאתָם מֵאֵת פַּרְעֹה Rashi there comments: ורבותינו אמרו: כל נצים ונצבים דתן ואבירם היו. Among those leaders, among the people who took it on the chin (or in this case, the back), were Dasan and Aviram!

There is an amazing Targum Yonasan in parshas Beshalach. וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר (14:3) Most of the meforshim explain that Pharoah was not talking TO Bnei Yisrael, as they had all left. He was speaking ABOUT Bnei Yisrael. But the Targum Yonasan translates וימר פרעה לדתן ולאבירם בני ישראל דמשתיירין במצרים מיטרפין הינון עמא בית ישראל בארעא Dasan and Aviram stayed behind, and it was to them that Pharoah was speaking. How did they survive makkas choshech? How were they zocheh to cross Yam Suf? Maharil Diskin answers that it was in the zechus of their taking it on the chin for others. If you suffer so that someone else doesn't have to, Hashem is willing to overlook a lot.

Sefas Emes concludes with a genius pshat in Dasan and Aviram's complaint הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר We all read it like Abarbanel reads it, המעט בעיניך שהעליתנו מן הארץ שהיא היתה בעצם ואמת ארץ זבת חלב ודבש שהיא ארץ מצרים להמיתנו במדבר, meaning Dasan and Aviram were referring to Mitzrayim as their "land of milk and honey," a truly horrific statement.  What else could they be referring to? Where else had they lived?  But Sefas Emes disagrees. Dasan and Aviram were in fact referring to Eretz Yisrael. They were telling Moshe that they had been the leaders, and had they been asked, they would have said the idea of sending spies is a terrible one and bound to result in tragedy. Eretz Yisrael was in our hands! אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ was ours!  In their mind, it was like they were living there already.  But, הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ , you, Moshe, snatched it away from us. You listened to the young upstarts who displaced us, and thereby got us stuck in the midbar.

Dasan and Aviram, make no mistake about it, were not nice people. That being said, you cannot take their redeeming qualities away. They suffered in order to spare others. Even before stepping foot in Eretz Yisrael, they viewed it as if it was theirs already -- not just some unrealized dream.  Hashem spared their lives despite their wickedness, took them through the midbar despite their flaws, until this point. Is it therefore any wonder that Moshe would make the extra effort to reach out to them in particular, to see if he could bring them back from the brink?

There are a lot of people who sadly may not be as religious as we would like, who dont hold to our standards of kashrus or shmiras shabbos.  But while we sit at home and enjoy our cholent and kugel, some of those people are taking it on the chin for Klal Yisrael sitting in a tank or a bunker in Gaza or elsewhere.  They suffer so we don't have to.  And for them, Eretz Yisrael is not just a dream, but it's a reality, it's their home, which they treasure and fight to hold on to, for all of our sake.  If Hashem could overlook the wrongs of Dasan and Aviram, surely He can overlook their faults too.  And if Moshe can go the extra mile to extend a hand to them, maybe we can do the same.  Dasan and Aviram did not have a happy ending, but that doesn't mean every story like theirs has to end the same way.

the medicine of kedushas ha'aretz -- R' Nosson Ra'anan on the meraglim

There were indications from the get-go that the spies mission would not be successful, and Moshe, Yehoshua, and Kaleiv suspected as much:

1) Hashem's response of, "Shlach lecha if you think it is a good thing to do but I am not going to tell you to do it," was an obvious clue that this was a bad idea, otherwise why would Hashem not commanded Moshe to take action.

 

2) Moshe changed Yehoshua's name and davened that he be spared from being negatively influenced by the other spies.

 

3) Kaleiv took a detour to daven at the kever of the Avos for help, indicating he suspected something was awry with this mission.

 

Why then did Moshe go through with it? 

 

One can easily make the mistake in reading the parsha that things were hunky-dory, and the spies  mission to Eretz Yisrael is what stirred the pot and created havoc.  The truth is 180 degrees the opposite.  The mission to Eretz Yisrael was not the problem; it was the potential solution.  We already saw in last week's parsha that Bn"Y were grumbling.  There was the episode of the misoninim, the episode of kivros ha'taavah, Miriam's mistaken criticism of Moshe.  The wheels were coming off the bus.  The problem facing Moshe was what to do about it.  The people needed something to boost their spiritual energy enough to get them across the finish line.  Just being in the midbar, albeit surrounded by ananei ha'kavod, the be'er, the mon, was not enough.  This is why Moshe decided to sent shluchim into Eretz Yisrael.  Rav Nosson Ra'anan, R' Kook's son in law, explained that Moshe's hope was that a taste of kedushas ha'aretz would have the needed impact.  You see 17, 18 year old kids who go off to Eretz Yisrael and they come back after a year and they are completely transformed.  Ain hachi nami, it's being away from home, it's a time ripe for maturation, it's being immersed in yeshiva, that makes an impact, but above and beyond all that, it's the effect of kedushas ha'aretz.  If kedushas ha'aretz has such an effect on a 18 year old growing up in our society, kal v'chomer hu that it would rub off and have an effect on the dor dei'ah.  Whatever the flaws of the spies, whatever the flaws within the nation, Moshe saw the experience of tasting Eretz Yisrael as the one thing that could save them.  If only the people had been receptive to the medicine...

the connection between the meraglim and the humility of Moshe

Rashi writes that the connection between parshas shlach and the previous parsha's concluding story of Miriam speaking against Moshe is that the spies failed to learn the dangers of lashon ha'ra from what happened to Miriam: למה נסמכה פרשת מרגלים לפרשת מרים? שלקת על עסקי דיבה שדיברה באחיה, ורשעים הללו ראו ולא לקחו מוסר.  I want to suggest a slightly differnt connection between the two.  To get there, I want to start with a different question, one raised by R' Noson Gestetner.  The Rambam paskens at the end of hil rotzeiach (12:14):

וכן כל המכשיל עור בדבר והשיאו עצה שאינה הוגנת או שחיזק ידי עוברי עבירה שהוא עור ואינו רואה דרך האמת מפני תאות לבו הרי זה עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול הבא ליטול ממך עצה תן לו עצה ההוגנת לו:

 Rashi tells us that Moshe asked Hashem whether he should send meraglim or not.  Hashem responded, "I'm not going to tell you what to do -- it's up to you."  לדעתך, אני איני מצוה לך, אם תרצה שלח  Why did Hashem not tell Moshe that this was a bad idea?  What happened to the principle of הבא ליטול ממך עצה תן לו עצה ההוגנת לו? 

 

R' Gestetner answers that the catch in this case, as in many other cases, is that  עצה ההוגנת לו really depends on the free choice of a person.  By way to analogy, if a person is sick and asked what they should do, we would almost without thinking say to go to a doctor.  However, that's not really always true.  Rambam writes in Bechukosai (26:11)

 

והכלל: כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים לא יתנהג ענינם בטבע כלל, לא בגופם ולא בארצם, לא בכללם ולא ביחיד מהם, כי יברך השם לחמם ומימם ויסיר השם מחלה מקרבם עד שלא יצטרכו לרופא ולהשתמר בדרך מדרכי הרפואות כלל,

 

If our spiritual level is high enough, Ramban says that we don't need doctors.  What the עצה ההוגנת לו for a person is very much depends on where they choose to be holding in ruchniyus (if you want to be nitpicky, Ramban is speaking about where the entire nation lives up to that level, not just individuals, but you get the idea.)

 

Hashem therefore could not answer Moshe, because the answer really depended on where the people chose to be holding in their ruchniyus.  If the people chose to live with full bitachon, then there was no need for meraglim.  There was no need for war.  If the people chose to go about things b'derech ha'teva, then the proper course of action was indeed to send the spies.   Hashem could not answer without interfering with free choice, and so Moshe was left to his own thoughts.

 

Here is where I would like to part ways a bit with Rav Gestetner.  Perhaps Hashem did in fact answer Moshe.  Unlike Rashi who because of that extra word לְךָ reads שְׁלַח לְךָ as Hashem merely allowing Moshe to do as he pleases, Ramban sees it as a command.  I'll take the best of both worlds.  Maybe it was a command, but it was a command only לְךָ, for "you," for Moshe.  Meaning, on the spiritual level of Moshe Rabeinu, sending spies would have been a mitzvah -- the mitzvah of kibush ha'aretz, as that is the normal way to set out to co   a land.  There would be no danger involved.  However, if the project is carried out by those with less bitachon, then the project will lead to failure and tragedy.

 

Rashi tells us that when the spies were sent, כלם אנשים – כל אנשים לשון חשיבות הוא, ואותה שעה כשירין היו, yet later in that same perek (13:26) Rashi himself tells us להקיש הליכתן לביאתן, מה ביאתן בעיצה רעה, אף הליכתן בעצה רעה.  Sounds like a contradiction.  Maharal answers:

 

אבל משנשלחו, והיו שלוחיהם של רשעים, למדו ממעשיהם, ונעשים כמו המשלחים עצמם. לפיכך כאשר נתמנו – כשרים היו, ואחר המינוי מיד – רשעים היו.

 

The spies were כשירין , but as soon as they becamed agents of the people, they absorbed and took on the character and midos of those sending them, and became corrupted.

 

That's what Hashem was telling Moshe.  שְׁלַח לְךָ  For YOU, Moshe, there is a ttzivuy to send spies, to make them your agents, because in that case nothing bad will happen.  However, what happened is that Moshe appointed the spies to be agents of the people, not just his own shluchim.  Because of that, as Maharal tells us, we ended up with a different story entirely.

 

So why didn't Moshe make the spies his and only his shluchim?  We read in last week's parsha, and I think this is the connection between the parshiyos:  וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.  Moshe did not view himself as special.  It was Hashem, not Moshe himself, who told Miriam and Aharon that Moshe was head and shoulders above them, but those words would never have come out of Moshe's own mouth.  When Moshe heard  שְׁלַח לְךָ he understood the YOU not as referring to himself alone -- after all, was he better than anyone else? -- but as referring to the collective YOU of the nation as a whole.  And so he sent the spies not as his personal agents, but as agents of the people, and that led to tragedy.    

shaylos based on second hand info

HaKsav vhaKabbalah comments on the words  וַ֠יֹּאמְר֠וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָהֵ֙מָּה֙ אֵלָ֔יו אֲנַ֥חְנוּ טְמֵאִ֖ים לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם of the people who wanted a chance to offer pesach sheni:

 היה ראוי לקצר ויאמרו אליו, מה הוא האנשים ההמה שהוסיף מגיד שאין נשאלים אלא לבעל המעשה (ספרי) אם הוצרך אדם דבר לשאול, הוא בעצמו ילך לשאול, ואם שולח שלוחו אין משיבין לו, כי השליח אינו יודע לסדר הענין היטב לכן הוסיף האנשים ההמה, בעלי המעשה עצמם סדרו שאלתם

 

Davka the people who have a question or an issue to raise are the one who have to come to ask the shayla -- האנשים ההמה -- not messengers or third parties.

 

This applies l'maaseh.  I did not have a chance to look up the sources first hand, but there seems to be some discussion in a case, for example, where your wife is cooking dinner and accidentally mixes up milchig and fleishig, should you be the one calling the Rav to ask the shayla since it's your dinner, or should your wife be the one to ask since she is the בעל המעשה who did the cooking?  Perhaps a better example, which I did not see discussed, would be how to apply this to taharas ha'mishpacha shaylos. 

The obvious takeaway lesson from from this din is that second hand information does not cut it.  Only someone who is involved first hand knows and can convey the facts of a case accurately and only armed with that information can proper decisions be rendered.  

Miriam's wait -- נצב vs עמד

I saw a question raised by R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah that I am going to take the liberty of embellishing on by connecting it to last week's haftarah.  In last week's haftarah an angel comes and tells Manoch's wife that she will have a baby and he instructs her not to drink wine or become tamei since the baby will be a nazir from birth.  Manoach apparently did not buy his wife's story, so the angel came back and repeated the message for him.  Manoach offered the angel food, but the angel declined because angels don't eat.  Manoch asked the angel it's name, and the angel answered that that it has no regular name because it's name reflects its mission and an angel's mission can change from one day to the next.   Manoach then offered the food he prepared as a korban, and the navi tells us that the angel rose back to shamayim through the fire that consumed the korban וַיְהִי֩ בַעֲל֨וֹת הַלַּ֜הַב מֵעַ֚ל הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ הַשָּׁמַ֔יְמָה וַיַּ֥עַל מַלְאַךְה׳ בְּלַ֣הַב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ.  Amazing.  You would think that if Manoach had any doubt whether this was an angel or not all bets would be off at this point.  But not so fast!  The navi continues and says: לֹא־יָ֚סַף עוֹד֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ ה׳ לְהֵרָאֹ֖ה אֶל־מָנ֣וֹחַ וְאֶל־אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ אָ֚ז יָדַ֣ע מָנ֔וֹחַ כִּֽי־מַלְאַ֥ךְ ה׳ הֽוּא:  When the "person" never reappeared, it was then and only then that Manoch knew it was an angel.  Why was that the clincher?  Why was it the fact that the angel never came back again that convinced Manoach that this could not have been a regular person? 

Imagine a person who suggests a shidduch to a young man and gives them a bracha that it should work out and he be zocheh to get married.  The young man accepts, and the shadchan sets up the date.  Don't you think the person who suggested the match would either call the boy afterwards, or even informally, next time they bump into the boy, ask how the date was?  Actually, they would probably make a point of bumping into him to ask.  And if they go out a few times, the person who suggested the match might nudge the parents and ask when they get a mazel tov (and not just because they want to collect their shadchanus :)  And when the wedding comes, don't you think the shadchan will be sure to attend in order to tell everyone how they were the one who introduced the couple?  That's human nature!  We want to see how things work out, we want to monitor the progress of what we put in motion.  R' Eliyahu Baruch Finkel from the Mir explained that the "makeh b'patish" that convinced Manoach that he was dealing with an angel is the fact that the angel lacked this very human quality.  The angel never came back.  The angel was not curious to check in after a few months to see if Manoach's wife was wearing maternity clothes yet; he didn't stop by to ask how the pregnancy was progressing; he didn't show up at the bris to see the new baby his bracha had helped bring into the world and take a bow.  He just walked away and that was it.  A human being doesn't act that way.  Our curiosity and desire to see things unfold is an inescapable part of our nature.

 

Rashi writes at the end of our parsha:

 

והעם לא נסע – זה כבוד חלק לה המקום בשביל שעה אחת שנתעכבה למשה כשהושלך ליאור, שנאמר: ותתצב אחתו מרחק וגו׳ (שמות ב׳:ד׳).

 

Miriam prophesized that her baby brother would be the one to lead Klal Yisrael out of galus.  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see what would happen to that baby?  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see if her nevuah would come to fulfillment?  So why, as R' Neriah, does she get a reward for going to watch that basket holding her brother as it floated down the Nile?  What's the big deal?

 

We translate that pasuk ותתצב אחתו מרחק to mean, "His [Moshe's] sister stood afar [and watched]," but that translation does not do justice to the text.  There are two different words in Hebrew for standing: עמד and נצב.  The root עמד is used when we are talking about physical position, i.e. getting up from sitting to  take a standing position.  The root נצב is like the word stand in the expression "stand by."  You don't have to get up out of your chair to stand by.  It's being in a mental state of anticipation, of expectation; it's not about physical position.  When you hear, "stand by," you know something is going to happen, it's just a question of what.  (Compare with Malbim Yeshayahu 3:13)  When Moshe stood at Yam Suf and told Bn"Y הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה׳ (Shmos 14:13), he didn't mean they all have to get up on their feet.  What he meant was get ready, Hashem is about to do something.  Ramban comments on  אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם that  שאתם עומדים *ומזומנים* לפני השם כדי לעבור בבריתו,  you are prepared in anticipation of entering Hashem's bris.  And when we read at the beginnng of Parshas vaYeira that Avraham saw  וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו, it means, as Seforno writes,  פונים אליו כממתינים לדבר עמו, they were waiting *expectantly* to speak with Avraham, בהיותו פנוי מן המראה הנכבדת, until Avraham finished his conversation with G-d.

 

Yes, it's human nature to want to see how things will turn out.  But that's not what Miriam was doing when she went to follow the basket containing baby Moshe.  When you watch a baseball game, you are watching to see how things will turn out.  Either team can win or lose.  The shadchan who suggests a match, even if they give a bracha, has no idea whether it will work out or not.   But when you watch Mission Impossible, you know the bad guys aren't going to win, and I hope I didn't just spoil all eight movies for anyone.  You know how it will turn out in the end before you even start watching.  But you watch anyway, expectantly, in anticipation of all the stunts, thrills, and action that will bring victory to Ethan's team.  That's what the root  נצב  is all about.  ותתצב אחתו מרחק  Miriam had no doubt that her prophecy would be fulfilled, just like she didn't need Moshe to announce הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה by Yam Suf; she had her tambourine in hand already from the moment they left Egypt.  וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה *מַה* יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ - not אם יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.  She expected and believed that Hashem would work things out.  It was just a matter of observing to see how it would unfold. 

I'm left with one question.  If what I wrote is correct, then wouldn't it have made more sense in our parsha  ויאמר אלהם משה עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה׳ לכם. for the pasuk to use the word נצב?  Moshe wasn't telling the people to stand on their feet, he was telling them to anticipate an answer from Hashem?

the GR"A's five year plan

Maaseh Rav quotes that the practice of GR"A was to start each day after davening by learning 2 blatt of gemara.  The new editions of Maaseh Rav quote commentaries that look for mekoros for the practices of the Gaon, and on this section they point to the gemara (Chulin 24):

 כתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ח, כד) מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים אי אפשר לומר שלשים שכבר נאמר כ"ה ואי אפשר לומר כ"ה שכבר נאמר שלשים הא כיצד כ"ה ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו ה' שנים שוב אינו רואה

 

These meforshim say by covering 2 blatt a day you can finish shas in 5 years and check to make sure you hopefully see siman bracha.

 

I don't understand this explanation.  First of all, simple math: 365 days a year at 2 blatt a day means covering 730 blatt a year.  At that pace you can finish shas (2711 blatt according to daf yomi cycle, which includes Ylmi Shekalim for whatever reason) in less than 4 years, not in 5 years.  Even if we chop off some time because our lunar calendar has 354 or so days in a year, you gain it back because of the leap years.  If you want a 5 year cycle to finish shas, doing 1.5 blatt a day seems closer to the mark.  Is there some magic to a round number of doing 2 blatt as opposed to 1.5 a day?  Did the GR"A maybe factor in more time to do the masechtos ketanos as well and the mishnayos not covered in the Bavli?  Or is this just a "b'erech" calculation?

 

It also seems that the test of siman bracha comes during the first 5 years of training.  After that, inertia takes over and either you have it or you don't.  Why should one follow a 5 year regime throughout one's life?

 

Putting aside the GR"A, there is a different question asked on that gemara: l'mai nafka minah to whether one sees siman bracha or not?  One has a chiyuv to learn whether one enjoys it or not, whether one finds the material easy or not, whether one sees bracha or not!

 

By way of analogy, the gemara writes that a person should always learn even she'lo lishma.  The gemara also says that someone who learns she'lo lishma deserves to have never come into the world.  Tos resolves the contradiction by distinguishing two types of she'lo lishma: a "neutral" she'lo lishma desire for kavod, money, etc. which is acceptable, and a negative she'lo lishma where one learns in order to argue with others, which is unacceptable.  Maharal and R' Tzadok quoting Mahar"Ch Ohr Zaru'a offer a simpler answer.  Yes, learning she'lo lishma is a terrible thing, but what's the alternative if that's all one is capable of doing at the moment?  Not learning?!  That's not an option.  A person can't live without learning.  So even if it's terrible, learn that way anyway.  Here too, after five years if a person takes stock and realizes they just don't have the brains for a daf gemara and there is no siman bracha in it, what's the alternative?  Not learning!?  There is no such option.  So what's the point of this meimra of Chazal?  

 

Some Achronim cite the gemara (Kid 29b):

 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִלְמוֹד וּבְנוֹ לִלְמוֹד – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּנוֹ זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּח וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ – בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ.

 

and suggest that if there are limited resources, best to invest in a person who does see siman bracha than the person who is struggling. 

 

I think the simplest pshat is the Meiri:

 

לעולם יהא אדם חרוץ בלמודו בילדותו להשתדל בו כמה שאפשר לו כדי שתהא יגיעת ילדותו מועלת לו לעולם כבר אמרו כל תלמיד שלא ראה במשנתו סימן יפה עד חמש שנים שוב אינו רואה:

 

Chazal are not speaking from the perspective of someone looking back *after* 5 years and taking stock of whether they have had success in learning or not.  Chazal are forward looking, speaking from the perspective of someone about to start this 5 year journey.  The point is to inspire a person *before* the 5 years are up to give it his all, because those initial 5 years determine the trajectory of the future. 

sotah and the sanctity of the machaneh

Sefer Bamidbar opened with the setup of the machaneh in the midbar.  We then jump to a different array of topics -- sotah, nazir, birchas kohanim -- that seems out of place.  About 10 years ago I posted the Ralbag's beautiful explanation that the Torah is working from the macro to the micro.  First, it addresses the sanctity of the camp as a whole.  We have the halachos of sending those who are tamei out of the camp.  Then we turn to the family unit, and we have the parsha of sotah which is designed to restore shalom bayis.  Finally, we have the kedusha of the individual, the greatest heights of which are realized by the nazir. 

In the Sichos of R' Yissachar Meir from Yeshivat HaNegev he proposes that the entire parsha revolves around the one theme of kedushat ha'machaneh.  The springboard for this approach comes from a question raised by Seforno on the parsha of gezel ha'ger.  The Torah describes this sin as follows (5:6):

 

אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּה׳

 

Why is theft called a מַעַל בַּה׳ when it is a sin bein adam l'chaveiro?  Seforno comments:

 

כבר באה הקבלה (בבא קמא ק״ט.) שזה נאמר על גזל הגר, כי אמנם הגוזל אותו מחלל שם אלקיו בעיני הגר אשר בא לחסות תחת כנפיו. ולכן יקרא מועל בקדש, וחייב אשם כמשפט כל מועל בו.

 

The ger thinks he is joining am ha'nivchar and taking a step up in kedusha.  Ripping him off is liable to make him question that assumption and even question his commitment.  Is that what Judaism  is all about? Is this how a holy nation behaves?  The theft in this case leads to a chilul Hashem, מַעַל בַּה׳.

 

R' Yissachar Meir takes things in a bit of a different direction and suggests that the ganav fears being discovered by the police or his neighbors so he sneaks around to do his dirty work, but he has no fear of G-d seeing what he is doing.  In his mind, G-d's presence is absent from the machaneh.  This is his מַעַל בַּה׳.   

That's why when there is no one else to return the theft to, the payment goes to the kohen.  It's the kohen's job to bring about hashra'as haShechina, through his avodah in the Mikdash, through his teaching Torah.  The tikun for failing to respect the presence of Hashem in the camp is to enable those who safeguard and reveal His presence to do their job. 

 

In that same vein, he reads the parsha of sotah as not just about preserving shalom bayis between husband and wife, but  about preserving standards of tzenius and kedusha in the machaneh as a whole.  Immorality has to be rooted out because G-d is immanant. 

 

R' Yisschar Meir does not quote it, but I think his approach helps explain a midrash later in our parsha.  Commenting on the gift of the nasi of sheivet Yissachar, the Midrash writes:

 

קָרְבָּנוֹ קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת וגו׳ – בָּא נְשִׂיא שִׁמְעוֹן וְהִקְרִיב עַל סֵדֶר מַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וְלָמָּה הִקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ כְּנֶגֶד מַעֲשֵׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דּוּגְמַת מַעֲשֶׂה שִׁמְעוֹן אֲבִי הַשֵּׁבֶט, לְפִי שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן קִנֵּא עַל הַזְּנוּת וְהָרַג כָּל אַנְשֵׁי שְׁכֶם עַל שֶׁעִנּוּ דִּינָה אֲחוֹתוֹ, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא: וַיִּקְּחוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר וְאֶת חֲמוֹר וְאֶת שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ הָרְגוּ לְפִי חָרֶב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם וַיֵּצֵאוּ (בראשית ל״ד:כ״ה-כ״ו). וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיָה הוֹרֵג בַּנּוֹאֲפִים וּבַסּוֹטוֹת, כְּמָה דְּתֵימָא: וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מַיִם קְדשִׁים בִּכְלִי חָרֶשׂ וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן וגו׳ (במדבר ה׳:י״ז), וְאוֹמֵר: וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל וגו׳ (במדבר ה׳:כ״ז), וּלְכָךְ הִקְרִיב שְׁלֻמִיאֵל קָרְבָּנוֹ עַל סֵדֶר מַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, זִכָּרוֹן לְמַעֲשֵׂה שִׁמְעוֹן. קָרְבָּנוֹ קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת וגו׳, קַעֲרַת, כְּנֶגֶד חֲצַר הַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיָה מַקִּיף אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַיָּם מַקִּיף אֶת הָעוֹלָם.

שְׁלשִׁים וּמֵאָה מִשְׁקָלָהּ – כְּמָה דְּתֵימָא: אֹרֶךְ הֶחָצֵר מֵאָה בָאַמָּה (שמות כ״ז:י״ח), וְהַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיָה בְּתוֹכוֹ שְׁלשִׁים אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים

 

The Midrash goes on to connects all the elements of his gift to the Mishkan, e.g. פַּר אֶחָד בֶּן בָּקָר – כְּנֶגֶד יְרִיעוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיוּ שֶׁל מִינֵי צִבְעוֹנִין, and עִיר עִזִּים – כְּנֶגֶד הָאֹהֶל שֶׁהָיָה יְרִיעוֹת עִזִּים, etc. 

 

If the parsha of sotah was just a matter between  husband and wife, then what does that have to do with the construction of the Mishkan?  True, וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיָה הוֹרֵג בַּנּוֹאֲפִים וּבַסּוֹטוֹת, but is that really the essence of what the place is about?  Hypothetically, if not for the korban mincha brought by the sotah, couldn't the entire ceremony just as well have taken place somewhere outside the Mishkan? 

 

If we understand, as R' Yissachar Meir suggests, that the parsha of sotah is not just a personal matter between husband and wife but is really about preserving the sanctity of the machaneh, then the answer is clear.  Bringing about and preserving the hashra'as haShechina in the machaneh is *exactly* what the function of the Mishkan is.  The sotah ceremony is not incidental to the Mishkan, but is part of its very purpose.