when can a kohen become not a kohen? The chiddush of the Aderet and the bracha given to Pinchas

The gemara Zevachim 101b tells us that even though Aharon and his children had been anointed as kohanim and been invested in their job during the days of miluim, Pinchas was not counted among them and it was not until this parsha that he became a kohen:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם 

The gemara quotes a second opinion

 רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. 

Meaning, it was later, in the days of Yehoshua, when Pinchas was sent as an emissary to prevent the people living in Eivar haYarden from breaking away, that he became a kohen.  What does this second opinion do with the pasuk in our parsha  ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״?  The gemara answers that the pasuk is a bracha.  Rashi and Tos disagree how to interpret that answer.  Rashi explains בשרו שלא תפסוק כהונה מזרעו אבל עדיין לא נתכהן:  Pinchas would in the future be blessed with eternal status as kohen, but it did not happen yet.  Tos explains מיד היה יכול להיות כהן אלא שתחילה צריך להלבישו ולמושחו ולחנכו בחביתין כדין הדיוטות המתחנכים בחביתין כדאמרינן בסוף התכלת (מנחות דף נא:) אבל שמא לא נתרצו לו כל ישראל באותה שעה מפני שהרג נשיא שבט עד ששם שלום בין השבטים בימי יהושע ואז נתרצו לו והלבישוהו [ומשחוהו] וחנכוהו בחביתין:   Pinchas was already appointed kohen by Hashem, but there is a process that has to be followed before he could serve and do avodah and that process depends on Bn"Y acquiescing.  At this point, Bn"Y was not yet on board with what Pinchas had done to Zimri, and so the process was delayed until the days of Yehoshua.  (There is actually a third view, quoted in Zohar, that Pinchas became a kohen with Aharon and his children, but because he killed Zimri he would have lost the kehuna status and been barred from avodah if not for Hashem's intervention and renewal of his status.)

 What's the hesber of the machlokes Rashi and Tos?  One approach I saw is that the gemara (Nedarim 35b) has a safeik אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  The Rishonim ask why this is a question when the gemara (Kid 23b) proves conclusively that they shluchei d'Shemaya:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי? 

Ran answers that Rav Huna's conclusion is correct, but the sugya in Nedarim wanted to explore whether there was a proof from a Mishna or braysa to support that conclusion.  Tosfos in Kid answers that Rav Huna is maybe only half right.  Undoubtedly the kohanim are שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא, as Rav Huna proved.  The safeik in Nedarim is only whether kohanim ALSO have a status as  שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן.

 

Rashi holds like the Ran, that a kohen's role is purely  שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  It is up to Hashem alone to appoint someone to that role.  Tos l'shitasam holds that a kohen also fills a role of being שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן; therefore, even if Hashem granted Pinchas the status of kohen, if Bn"Y were not yet prepared to go along with that decision, he was unable to serve. 

 

Ramban explains the bracha to Pinchas  לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם that וצוהו שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם.  Isn't every kohen a כהן לעולם?  Is it possible to be a kohen and not be a כהן לעולם? 

 

The gemara (Brachos 46) relates that Rav Zeira became very ill and recovered.  Rabbi Abahu hosted a party to celebrate, and invited Rav Zeira to say ha'motzi to start the meal.  Rav Zeira declined, as there is a din that the baal ha'bayis should be the one to break the bread.  Asks the Rashba: didn't Rabbi Abahu know that?  What was Rabbi Abahu thinking?  Rashba answers that since the meal is in Rav Zeira's honor, it is like he is the baal ha'bayis.  L'halacha, the MG"A paskens based on this Rashba that the baal ha'bayis can defer and choose to honor someone else.  Ad kan the sugya.  The Aderet writes that he doesn't understand how the Rashba's question even gets off the ground. There is a Yerushalmi that indicates that Rav Zeira was a kohen.  Of course Rav Zeira should have been given the honor to be the one to break bread because a kohen always gets first dibs!  To get around this issue the Aderet serves up a big chiddush.  He suggests that perhaps this episode occurred after the famous Purim seudah in which Rabbah became so inebriated that he (if the gemara is to taken literally) killed Rav Zeira, who was his guest, and then, after realizing what he did, davened and brought Rav Zeira back to life.  True, Rav Zeira 1.0 was a kohen, but maybe a person who is reborn, Rav Zeira 2.0, is a different person entirely, and therefore no longer a kohen! 

 

R'  Meir Don Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (78:3) writes that if the Aderet is correct, then we understand what the Ramban in our parsha meant.  Pinchas = Eliyahu, and Pinchas 1.0 is just the first iteration of his time on earth.  Although other people may change status when they come back, Pinchas is blessed, as Ramban writes שהוא כהן לעולם  -- even after coming back to our world for another round, no matter how many times around, he remains a kohen and does not lose his status. 

 

When a letter with this chiddush reached Rav Chaim Berlin, he wrote back to the Aderet that surely he meant this as Purim torah, as there is a black on white gemara against him.  Sanhedrin 90b:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

 

How could Aharon eat terumah after techiyas ha'meisim?  According to the Aderet, wouldn't Aharon 2.0 be a different person than Aharon 1.0 and therefore not have the status of a kohen? 

 

This topic became a to-do.  It's hard to believe the Aderet meant this as a joke because he repeats the chiddush in a few places.  Some rallied to defend the Aderet because they could not believe a genius like that missed a gemara.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos (shoresh 3) writes that after techiyas ha'meisim there will be a new miluim process to sanctify the kohanim just like there was the first time around.  This suggests, in line with what the Aderet wrote, that without such a process Aharon 2.0 would not have the same kohen status as Aharon 1.0.  Surely the Ramban did not forget the gemara in Sanhedrin!  One is forced to say that the gemara in Sanhedrin means that Aharon would be able to eat terumah after the new miluim process is completed.

 

R' Meir Don Plotzki elsewhere (in the Kli Chemdah) says that he is not so happy with this chiddush.  What he says reminds me of an old joke, and sadly I have to admit that I wrote this whole shtickel this week just so I could say this old, bad joke.  A guy who came to the Rabbi and said that he wants the Rabbi to make him a kohen.  The Rabbi told him that it's just not possible.  The guy said, "Come on Rabbi, I'll give $10,000 to the shul if you make me a kohen."  Once again the Rabbi brushed him off.  The guy was not to be disuaded and said, "Rabbi, I'll give $100,000, just make me a kohen."  The Rabbi once again refused, but was curious and asked the man why he wanted so much to be a kohen.  The guy responded, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen."  The Kli Chemdah knew the joke and argues that being a kohen is not like a din or a status or like being right or left handed.  It's a function of a person's lineage.  If your father is a kohen, you're a kohen.  If Rav Zeira or anyone else comes back for round 2.0, their "being" must still have had a father, a grandfather, etc. so how can it be that they are not a kohen? 

 

This topic is an even bigger to-do.  Is 2.0 really the son of the same father as 1.0?  Is he chayav in kibud av?  When Elisha haNavi brought the child of the Isha haShunamis back to life, he told her שְׂאִי בְנֵךְ.  Sounds like the parent is still the parent even though the child is on life 2.0  Is his wife still his wife, or does he need to do kiddushin all over again?  Chazal tell us at mattan Torah "parcha nishmasam" of Klal Yisrael, it was like they died and underwent techiyhas ha'mesim.  Nonetheless, afterwards Hashem commanded "shuvu lachem l'ohaleichem," to return to living together as husband and wife, presumably without a new kiddushin being done.  Sounds like the wife/husband of 2.0 remains the same as that of 1.0.  (Don't think this is all pilpul and theory. Maybe it applies l'maaseh to someone r"l pronounced clinically dead on the operating table, for example, but then somehow recovers?) 

There is pilpul on top of pilpul on these issues.  Tein l'chachan v'yechkam od, this is just roshei perakim to whet the appetite.  

Hein Am k'Lavi Yakum -- having a self-image of greatness

Thanks to current events everyone now knows the pasuk  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא... (23:24).  HaKsav v'haKabbalah points out that Chazal in a number of places darshan the word הֶן to mean one, e.g. Shabbos 31b

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ אֶלָּא יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ שׁוֹאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָאָדָם הֵן יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא חׇכְמָה וְגוֹ׳״ — שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי קוֹרִין לְאַחַת ״הֵן״

He suggests this is the basis of Targum Yonasan's explanation of הֶן עָם as a standalone phrase: יחידאה הוא עמא הדין, we are one people, a single entity.  The strengh of our nation כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא has its roots in our coming together as one.

 

The Aruch in his explanation of the word הֶן says the same vort and adds that if we pair up the letter of aleph-beis, matching bottom of a unit with the top, e.g. aleph/1 pairs with tes/9, beis/2 pairs with cheis/8, etc. the letter hey has nothing to pair with other than itself.  If you do the same with letters in the units of ten, e.g. yud/10 pairs of tzadi/90, etc. the nun with have nothing to pair with other than itself.  Hey-nun הֶן עָם we stand alone; we do not rely on outsiders for support. 

 

The rest of the pasuk speaks about the strength of Am Yisrael being like that of a lion.  Netziv suggests that כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא is not just repetition common in poetry, but reflects two different ideas. כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם refers to the might of the lion.   וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא means rhat aside from that physical might, the lion also knows it is the king of the jungle, and therefore pushes itself to live up to that image of greatness:

 

אריה יש לו טבע התנשאות הנפש, שעל כן מכונה בשם ׳מלך החיות׳, וזה מועיל לו הרבה להפיק רצונו יותר מכפי כוחו גם כן, באשר אינו רוצה שיגרע כבודו אם לא ימצא ידו לעשות מה שהחל או מה שראוי לפניו שיחוש לכבודו.

 

The Yerushalmi in the first halacha in Brachos describes how David haMelech would get up in the morning:

 

הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אָמַר עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִינּוֹר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אִיתְעִיר יְקָרִי מִן קוֹמֵי אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי. אִיקָרִי לָא חָשִׁיב כְּלוּם מִן קֳדָם אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי.

 

Meaning, he would say to himself that he must awaken his kavod (יְקָרִי) to stand before the kavod of Hashem, and then he would add that his kavod is nothing compared to kavod Shamayim.

 

My esteemed cousin R' Avraham Wagner recently put out a sefer on Ylmi and he comments on this gemara that there are two steps in the process here: David started with a recognition of his own kavod - וַיִּגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ בְּדַרְכֵי ה׳ - and only then moved onto the next step of acknowledging that compared to kavod Shamayim, his honor was worth nothing.  This is a common theme among baalei mussar.  A person has to have a sense of self worth and value.  If a person thinks they are worthless and can't accomplish anything, they would never get out of bed in the morning.  The Shulchan Aruch in the first halacha where it talks about starting the day tells us יתגבּר כּארי.  The halacha is not about how strong you are, but like the Netziv explains on our pasuk, it's about your self image.  You have to view yourself as a lion, as the king.  The king has great things to accomplish and doesn't have time to linger in his pajamas.  That's how David haMelech pushed himself out of bed.  You can then move on to step 2 and take that greatness and surrender it to Hashem.  However, if you skip step 2 and think you are a worthless nobody, then what are you surrendering?  What's the big deal of saying Hashem is even greater than you are if you don't think you are anything special anyway?  

 

Part of emerging from galus is to not only become a nation with great ability, but to learn to think of ourselves as a great nation, to develop the self-image of being great.  Ibn Ezra writes that at Yam Suf there were 600,000 Jews  against only 600 of Pharoah's chariots but they couldn't fight.  The people still had the mentality of slaves and could not stand up for themselves.   Baruch Hashem, as we emerge from galus, we will develop not only our abilities, but וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, a mindet of greatness as well.

tzaar baalei chaim

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim learns from the fact that the malach admoninished Bilaam for striking his donley that there is an issur d'oraysa of causing tzaar baalei chaim.  Achronim ask why the Rambam quotes this as the source for tzaar baalei chaim instead of the mitzvah of perikah, of unloading a donkey, which seems to be the gemara's source.  Furthermore, the Rambam (hil rotzeiach ch 13) paskens that there is no chiyuv to help a nochri unload his donkey.  If we are concerned about the suffering of the animal, what difference does it make if the owner of the animal is a jew or a nochri?  It seems that the Rambam does not hold that tzaar baalei chaim is a d'oraysa.

The Ohr Sameiach (hil shabbos ch 25) answers that when the gemara speaks about tzaar baalei chaim it is a case where the animal's suffering happens m'meila; it is a result of something else the animal is doing, like carrying a burden.  In that circumstance the sugya debates whether tzaar baalei chaim is d'oraysa or not, and whether/when a person has to do something about it.  The Rambam in Moreh is talking about something else entirely.  The Rambam is speaking about a person directly, deliberately causing pain to an animal, like Bilam did when he hit the donkey.  That, says the Rambam, is for sure an issur d'oraysa. 

 

The meforshei Rashi bring up the topic of tzaar baalei chaim in last week's parsha.  When Bn"Y complained about the lack of water, Hashem promised  וְהוֹצֵאתָ֨ לָהֶ֥ם מַ֙יִם֙ מִן־הַסֶּ֔לַע וְהִשְׁקִיתָ֥ אֶת־הָעֵדָ֖ה וְאֶת־בְּעִירָֽם׃ (20:8)   Rashi there comments: ואת בעירם – מכאן שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  The Taz in his Divrei David asks what the proof is from here that שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  Maybe the reason Hashem promised water to the animals is because of tzaar baalei chaim?  Why doesn't Rashi say that Hashem promised water because of tzaar baalei chaim?

 

The question is really a double problem.  First there is the textual question: what in the text motivated Rashi to ascribe the motive for giving water to חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל and not to tzaar baalei chaim?  Taz answers by noting that the pasuk uses the word בְּעִירָֽם -- THEIR animals.  If tzaar baalei chaim was the issue, then the ownership of the animal is irrelevant.  The stress on it being THEIR animal at risk puts the emphasis on the loss incurred by the owner.  (One could argue that Hashem's response is simply a reflection back of the complaint וְלָמָה הֲבֵאתֶם אֶת קְהַל יְהֹוָה אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה לָמוּת שָׁם אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעִירֵנוּ where the people spoke about the suffering of THEIR animals, which in context makes perfect sense.)  But there is second question lurking behind the scenes.  Granted that the words of the pasuk suggest the concern here was חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל, but why was the pasuk not concerned with the issue of tzaar baalei chaim?  Shouldn't the animal's pain be at least as much a cause for concern as what its loss might mean to the owner? 

 

This is not just hypothetical quibbling, but perhaps makes a nafka mina l'halacha.  Is one obligated to try to alleviate an animal's pain that one did not cause?  If the source for tzaar baalei chaim stems from the Torah's obligation to assist in unloading an animal, then perhaps the chiyuv only applies in similar such cases where a person was the cause of the suffering in the first place, e.g. by burdening the animal.  However, if our pasuk can serve as a source for tzaar baalei chaim, the concern extends even to cases where the suffering, in this case the thirst, was not caused by human intervention (see Shabbos 128b בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם)

 

R' Moshe in Derash Moshe suggests that the reason tzaar baalei chaim is not an issue here is because the parsha is speaking about the miracle of producing  water from a rock.  It is only humans that merit the level of hashgacha pratis that gives rise to Hashem performing miracles on their behalf.  Animals do not warrant the same.

krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz - chiddush of the Shibolei ha'Leket

The Shibolei Leket (263)  says a chiddush regarding krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz.  On other fast days we start the kri'ah wih "va'yichal Moshe..." and we read until the end of Moshe' tefilah (32:11-14).  We then skip ahead to 34:1-10 where the 13 midos are mentioned.  The theme of the kri'ah is tefilah (va'yichal...) and teshuvah (the 13 midos), which are what you are supposed to be doing on a fast day.  Says the Shibolei haLeket, on 17 Tamuz don't skip those middle pesukim -- read the parsha straight through.  Why?  Those intervening pesukim talk about the eigel and the smashing of the luchos.  The mishna tells us that this is one of the tragedies that occurred on 17 Tamuz. Therefore, it reflects the theme of the day.

 Achronim debate whether kri'as haTorah on a fast day is like kri'as haTorah of Yom Tov, i.e. it is one of the ways we demarcate the day, like a "mei'ein ha'meora" decalation, or whether the krias haTorah is part of the nihugei taanis, i.e. just like on the Y"T of Sukkos we celebrate by shaking a lulav and on Pesach we eat matzah, part of what we have to do on a taanis is read pesukim that arouse us to do teshuvah.  Whether someone who is not fasting can get an aliya on a taanis may hinge on this question.  If the kri'ah is part of the nihugei ha'yom of taanis, then someone who is not fasting cannot get an aliya as they are not involved in the nihugei ha'yom.  If the kri'ah is a din in the day, then whether one is personally fasting or not does not matter, as the status of the day remains the same. 

According to Shibolei ha'Leket, the kri'ah of 17 Tamuz is a reflection of the nature of the day, as we are recounting the historical event of cheit ha'eigel and sheviras ha'luchos that took place.

Was the Be'er in the Zechus of Miriam or the Zechus of Avraham?

Unlike the previous episode at Refidim where Moshe hit a rock and it produced water, in our parsha, 40 years later, Moshe was told to speak to the rock and it would produce water.  Why then was Moshe was told to take his staff?  If he wasn't supposed to hit the rock, what was the purpose in having it? 

Maharasha B"M 86b asks the following:  The gemara there relates that the be'er was given to Bn"Y as a reward for Avraham bringing water for his guests/the malachim to wash with:

 

  דאמר ר' חמא בר' חנינא וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשכר שלשה זכו לשלשה בשכר חמאה וחלב זכו למן בשכר והוא עומד עליהם זכו לעמוד הענן בשכר יוקח נא מעט מים זכו לבארה של מרים

 

However, the gemara (Taanis 9a) tells us that the be'er appeared in Miriam's merit:

 

ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר שלשה פרנסים טובים עמדו לישראל אלו הן משה ואהרן ומרים וג' מתנות טובות ניתנו על ידם ואלו הן באר וענן ומן באר בזכות מרים עמוד ענן בזכות אהרן מן בזכות משה מתה מרים נסתלק הבאר שנאמר ותמת שם מרים וכתיב בתריה ולא היה מים לעדה וחזרה בזכות שניהן מת אהרן נסתלקו ענני כבוד שנאמר וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד מה שמועה שמע שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה לו רשות להלחם בישראל והיינו דכתיב ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן אמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו כדדריש ר"ל דאר"ל כי משמש בארבע לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא חזרו שניהם בזכות משה מת משה נסתלקו כולן

 

Which is it that got us the be'er -- Avraham's merit or Miriams?  Interestingly, the gemara in B"M which tells us that the be'er was in Avraham's merit even calls it בארה של מרים, alluding to her merit!

 

Maharasha answers that it would have sufficed for the be'er to appear for a short period as a reward to Avraham.  It took the zechus of Miriam for it to remain with Bn"Y for all 40 years in the midbar.  Iyun Yaakov answers that to reward Avraham the be'er might have appeared at any time.  It was in Miriam's zechus that it appeared in the midbar when needed by Bn"Y.  Shem m'Shmuel offers an answer that gets to the fundamentals of what the miracle of the be'er was all about.  There are "tzvey denim" is the miracle of the be'er: 1) a water source springing up (no pun intended) in the middle of a rock; 2) the water being able to penetrate through the rock and flow out to the people.  

 

הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר אֲגַם מָיִם חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם

 

Netziv comments:

 

הוכחה שכך רצונו יתברך, ממה שעשה בשעה שהכה צור להוציא מים לצורך ישראל – כתיב (תהלים קה,מא) ״פתח צור ויזובו מים הלכו בציות נהר״, ביאורו, שמתחילה לא הוציא מים בשפע רב משום דאם כן היו אומרים דאין זו בריאה יש מאין אלא ברכה ביסוד המים שבכל צור, על כן מתחילה ״פתח צור ויזובו מים״ – פירוש, יסוד המים שבו יצאו לחוץ, ונשאר אותו הצור כאבן חלמיש שמוציאים ממנו אש באשר אין בו את יסוד המים, ואחר כך ״הלכו בציות נהר״ וראו הכל את כח הנס.

והן הן הדברים: ״ההפכי הצור״ מתחילה ל״אגם מים״, ואחר כך כשנעשה ״חלמיש״ – ״למעינו מים״. ירדן וההרים דברים נפלאים יותר מהנדרש לצורך הענין.

 

Like Netziv, the Shem m'Shmuel sees the pasuk as reflecting two stages, just in the reverse of the way Netziv presents it.  First the stone had to become an אֲגַם מָיִם, like a marsh, a place where water could penetrate and flow.  Secondly, the stone became לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם, meaning, there was a source within the stone from which water sprang. 

 

Hashem gives us the gift of a neshoma that is לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם, an inner spring of ruchniyus from which we can draw strength.  However, that spring won't do any good if a person has a heart of stone that nothing can penetrate.  It's up to us to soften that inner rock wall and fulfill הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר אֲגַם מָיִם.

 

This is why both the zechus of Miriam and the zechus of Avraham were needed for the be'er.  It was in Miriam's merit that there was a spring within the rock; that there was a source of water where none was apparent.  It was in the merit of Avraham that the stone became permeable and those waters were able to flow outward and provide sustenance.  Avraham did not allow his age, his feeling ill and recovering from his milah, or the heat of the day to stop him from serving his guests.  Physical hardship melted away in the face of his perseverance.  So too, the walls of physical rock melted away in the path of the spring inside.

 

At Refidim, the start of Bn"Y's 40 year journey, the people's hearts still needed to be softened up.  Moshe was told to strike the rock, as it takes force to break down barriers.  Only then could the waters work their magic.  Fast forward 40 years later, to the end of the journey, to our parsha.  Hashem tells Moshe that he only need speak to the rock.  By this point, are the hears of Bn"Y not soft enough, not permeable enough, to allow in the dvar Hashem?  And yet Moshe is told at the same time to take his staff.  We have bechira.  If need be, we can choose to seal ourselves off, in which case only the staff will do.

 

Sm"S quotes a Zohar that says that if not for the hitting of the rock, we would not have Torah shebaal peh, with all its kushiyos and teirutzim and difficult sugyos.   וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְנָתַן מֵימָיו -- the water of Torah would just flow naturally and be easily absorbed and understood.  If only our hearts were not still so made of stone...  But because they are, we need to work on ourselves.  We need to toil over every kasha and teirutz, because it is that investment of hard work that pounds away at the rock within, eventually allowing the water to flow.