I can't see what you are saying

Hashem appeared to Miriam and Aharon to respond to their criticism of Moshe. Hashem addressed them:

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

Why should Hashem have to make a special appeal to them to listen? Isn't it the aspiration of every navi to receive the dvar Hashem?

Ohr haChaim: צריך לדעת למה הוצרך לומר כן ודאי כי ישמעו את אשר ידבר, עוד צריך לדעת אומרו תיבת נא כי לא יוצדק לומר האדון לעבדו לשון בקשה.

He gives multiple answers, among them that by saying "Listen to what I am saying" the implication hinted at is that they had not previously been listening, or had not listened and correctly interpreted the dvar Hashem.

A couple of years ago I quoted a piece from the Tiferes Shlomo (I know it's wrong to play favorites, but this is one of my favorite pieces) that he repeats a few places in chumash. When Hashem asked Adam haRishon אַיֶּֽכָּה, Adam responded אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָֽאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי. The Tif Shlomo explains that when Klal Yisrael accepted the Torah, Chazal tell us that we had the ability to be רואים את הקולות. It was a visual as well as an auditory experience. This was the level that Adam was on before the cheit. After the cheit, when Adam experienced אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן -- he heard but did not see the kol Hashem -- he realized that he had fallen from the level he had been on beforehand.

Later in Braishis, how did the brothers know that the person speaking to them was indeed their long lost brother Yosef? Yosef told them (45:12) וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת וְעֵינֵ֖י אָחִ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ין כִּי־פִ֖י הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶֽם: When he speaks, they don't just hear his voice, but וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת, they see it as well. His words are dvar Hashem, not milei d'alma, as their own experience proves.

Here too in our parsha, Hashem was indicating to Miriam and Aharon just how far they had fallen. שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י -- you can hear the words, but you won't experience seeing them the way you should have, the way Moshe does.

I did not see it in the Tiferes Shlomo, but maybe one can suggest that later in parshas Chukas, when Moshe addressed Bn"Y with the words שִׁמְעוּ־נָא֙ הַמֹּרִ֔ים when they were clamoring for water, this was the knock on them.  Since שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו, when Moshe spoke they should have not just heard, but they should have seen the dvar Hashem. Because of their rebelliousness, the people were denied this experience.

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.

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.

question the experts

Back in 2007 I posted the question of my then 6 year old daughter as to why Aharon had to be punished when the sin of mei meriva was done by Moshe.  Commenting in Zos haBracha on the words  תֻּמֶּ֥יךָ וְאוּרֶ֖יךָ לְאִ֣ישׁ חֲסִידֶ֑ךָ, Rashi echoes the same idea: תריבהו על מי מריבה נסתקפתה לו לבא בעלילה, אם משה אמר: שמעו נא המרים (במדבר כ׳:י׳), אהרן ומרים מה עשו?

R' Chaim Elazari suggests that Aharon was culpable for the following reason: The command to speak to the rock was given to both Aharon and Moshe.  When Moshe picked up his staff to strike the rock, Aharon must have known this was wrong.  Yet Moshe was his rebbe as well as the rebbe of Klal Yisrael.  No one had a greater understanding of the ratzon Hashem than Moshe, and Aharon trusted him completely.  How then could he question Moshe's actions?

Deferring to "expertise" of Moshe instead of trusting his own judgment, what he himself had heard, was Aharon's error.  

R' Chaim Volozhiner interprets הוי מתאבק בּעפר רגליהם like the words by Yaakov and the angel ויאבק אישׁ עמו.  We are not supposed to follow authority like lemmings or yes men.  When something does not appear correct, we are supposed to raise questions, to wrestle and struggle to arrive at the truth.  

A nachash, a saraf, or a combination -- why do the pesukim keep switching terms?

The last Mishna in the third perek of R"H writes:

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים משֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳ (שמות י״ז:י״א), וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה. אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי (במדבר כ״א:ח׳). וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה. אֶלָּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִים, וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נִמּוֹקִים.

A bunch of years ago I posted the Netziv's amazing pshat on the first half of this Mishna, but this year I want to look at the second half.  

The Mishna quotes the pasuk עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף and then asks וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה.  Shouldn't it say וְכִי שׂרף מֵמִית, אוֹ שׂרף מְחַיֶּה to match the language of the pasuk?  Why does the Mishna switch terms on us?  

The truth is that it's not the Mishna, but it's the pesukim themselves that set the stage for the confusion of terminology.  Let me call your attention to the highlighted words:

 וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹקים וּבְמֹשֶׁה לָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין מַיִם וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל.

 וַיְשַׁלַּח ה׳ בָּעָם אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים...

 וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל⁠ מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי⁠ דִבַּרְנוּ בַה׳ וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל⁠ ה׳ וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת⁠ הַנָּחָשׁ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּעַד הָעָם.

 וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠ מֹשֶׁה עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל⁠ נֵס...

 וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת וַיְשִׂמֵהוּ עַל⁠ הַנֵּס וְהָיָה אִם⁠ נָשַׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ אֶת⁠ אִישׁ וְהִבִּיט אֶל⁠ נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת וָחָי.

Summary: Hashem sends נְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים.  The people then beg Moshe to remove הַנָּחָשׁ.  Hashem them tells Moshe to make a שָׂרָף.  Moshe responds by making a נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת.  We go from 1) נְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים to 2) נָּחָשׁ , then back to 3) שָׂרָף, and then back to 4) נְחַשׁ again.  

What are we dealing with here -- a נָּחָשׁ, a שָׂרָף , or a combination נְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים?

The SHL"H (quoted in the Yismach Moshe here) explains as follows: the sin of Bn"Y was twofold -- speaking against G-d and speaking against Moshe, וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹקים וּבְמֹשֶׁה  The punishment of נָּחָשׁ was for the sin of speaking against Hashem; the punishment of שָׂרָף was for speaking against Moshe.  

When the people repented for both sins, וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל⁠ מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי⁠ דִבַּרְנוּ בַה׳ וָבָךְ.  Hashem responded and said, "I am mochel my portion, but I can't be mochel for speaking against Moshe."  Therefore,  עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף, since שָׂרָף is the punishment for speaking against Moshe. 

Moshe, however, thought the opposite.  He was willing to be mochel on his kavod, but how can you be mochel on kavod shamayim?  Therefore, he made a  נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת, since נָּחָשׁ is the punishment for speaking against Hashem.

This distinction explains why when Bn"Y requested that Moshe daven for them, they requested  הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל⁠ ה׳ וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת⁠ הַנָּחָשׁ.  The שָׂרָף portion they knew Moshe could be mochel, but the נָּחָשׁ portion, k'lapei shemaya, they knew needed tefilah and Hashem's forgiveness, and so asked Moshe to intervene on their behalf.

Now that we understand how to read the pesukim, we can appreciate the proof of the Mishna and why it switches terms.  כַּיּוֹצֵא בַדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי .  If there was some magic to the cure itself, i.e. Hashem was revealing the way to cure snakebites, then if Hashem said to make a שָׂרָף, it meant only a שָׂרָף would do the trick.  If your doctor writes a prescription for drug X to cure snakebites and you take drug Y, it won't work.  Since Hashem said שָׂרָף, how is it that the  נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת worked?  

Answers the Mishna: וְכִי נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מְחַיֶּה. אֶלָּא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִין כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, הָיוּ מִתְרַפְּאִים, וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נִמּוֹקִים.  QED that it's not the נָּחָשׁ and it's not the שָׂרָף itself that does anything.  It's turning to Hashem that is the real cure.  

current events reflected in the parsha

One cannot help but think of current events when reading the short three pasuk episode (21:1-3) that describes the attack against Bn"Y by Canaan, the captive/hostage taken by them, and the eventual victory by Bn"Y.  We hope to see a similar total victory very soon in our days.

 וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ⁠ עֲרָד יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבִי.

Rashi explains  שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד .  It's not clear how the rest of the pasuk follows from this point.  כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים -- why is the road they took significant, and how does this reason ("כִּי") relate to the death of Aharon as the cause for the attack?   

Netziv and Abarbanel resolve the problem by connecting the parsha not only to the death of Aharon, but to the previous chapter's episode relating to Edom.  In the beginning of the previous perek we read how Bn"Y appealed to Edom for permission to transverse their lands but were denied.  Rather than fight and conquer Edom (which Hashem did not allow), Bn"Y turned away and had to circumnavigate Edom's territory and take a longer route through the desert.  To Canaan, this appeared to be an act of cowardice, proving that Bn"Y wanted to avoid war, even at great cost to themselves.

This was followed by the death of Aharon, which, in addition to the departure of ananei ha'kavid, led the people to rebel and turn back towards Egypt, as Rashi in Devarim (10:6) tells us: 

כשמת אהרן בהר ההר לסוף ארבעים שנה ונסתלקו ענני כבוד, יראתם לכם מן מלחמת מלך ערד ונתתם לב לחזור למצרים, וחזרתם לאחוריכם שמונה מסעות עד בני יעקן,

The net result of these events was that Bn"Y appeared to be marching around like a people lost and afraid, with their morale broken.  

דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים was the path taken by the meraglim.  Spies travel surreptitiously, hoping to avoid detection; they don't come into a country in a parade, like a victorious army.  This is how Bn"Y now appeared to be travelling -- slinking around, hoping to fly below the radar.  Abarbanel writes:

וענינו דרך התרים והמרגלים את הארץ שלא ילכו דרך גלויה ומפורסמת אלא דרך עקלתון ונסתרת לאמר לא תשורנו עין

We seem to have done a total about face from the days of yetzi'as Mitzratim where  ובני ישראל יצאים ביד רמה, a total about face from  אָז נִבְהֲלוּ אַלּוּפֵי אֱדוֹם אֵילֵי מוֹאָב יֹאחֲזֵמוֹ רָעַד נָמֹגוּ כֹּל יֹשְׁבֵי כְנָעַן. 

This is what Canaan heard and saw and what led them to attack.  When you appear weak, it provides the enemy with an opening. 

I would add that although Rashi emphasizes the loss of ananei ha'kavod, perhaps the death of Aharon, coming a few months after the death of Miriam, was seen by Canaan as a creating a leadership vacuum.  

If so, the fact that the response davka came dava from the people -- וַיִּדַּ֨ר יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל נֶ֛דֶר -- without the participation of Moshe or other leaders, and וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע ה׳ בְּק֣וֹל יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל without Moshe being involved, takes on greater significance, as it showed that Bn"Y were not dependent on any individual leader for their success and continuity. 

Despite all the setbacks which set the stage for Canaan's attack, we need to keep in mind the end of the story: Bn"Y won the war.  The lesson learned over 40 years in the desert was one of resilience.  Loss of leadership, loss of morale, setbacks -- all these are heartbreaking, but all these can be overcome.  

R' Mordechai Greenberg, R"Y of Kerem b'Yavneh, writes as follows:

דור ראשון של יוצאי מצרים היה מלא חששות ופחדים. הקב"ה הסב אותו דרך המדבר, ולא העביר אותו בדרך הקצרה ולא דרך ארץ פלשתים, מחשש "פן ינחם העם בראתם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה" (שמות יג, יז). הפחד שלט בהם גם שנה אחר כך, כשהם דחו את דברי כלב בן יפונה וטענו "לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו" (במדבר יג, לא), וסופם שנשארו במדבר ולא נכנסו לארץ. נסתם הגולל על דור המדבר. וכדי להמחיש את חולשתם מסיים הכתוב את פרשת המרגלים במפלתם של ישראל, "וירד העמלקי והכנעני הישב בהר ההוא, ויכום ויכתום עד החרמה" (במדבר יד, מה).

השינוי הגדול ניכר בצאצאיהם של דור המדבר במלחמתם בעמלקי-הכנעני דווקא במקום זה, בחרמה. "וישמע הכנעני... ישב הנגב כי בא ישראל דרך האתרים, וילחם בישראל וישב ממנו שבי" (במדבר כא, א), אך הפעם השיבו מלחמה שערה. ישראל התקדמו באותה דרך שהלכו אבותיהם, "'דרך האתרים'- דרך הנגב שהלכו בה המרגלים (התיירים), שנאמר 'ויעלו בנגב' " (רש"י שם שם), והפעם ברוח נחושה ובגבורה. ואף שהכנעני שבו ממנו שבי, לא נפלה רוחם, אלא נדרו נדר, וה' הצליח דרכם. בעקבות הניצחון נאמר קראו את "שם המקום חרמה" (שם שם, ג), השם שסימל בעבר, לפני ארבעים שנה את הכישלון הגדול, מציין עתה שישראל קיימו את נדרם והחרימו את הכנעני.

parah adumah as a prelude to entering Eretz Yisrael

According to Rashi, the parsha of parah adumha was already given right after kri'as Yam Suf.  Rashi comments on  שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃ (Shmos 16:25)  במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהן: שבת, פרה אדומה, וכיבוד אב ואם.  The gemara (Git 60a) writes that the parsha of parah was given on the day the Mishkan was inaugurated: דאמר רבי לוי שמנה פרשיות נאמרו ביום שהוקם בו המשכן אלו הן פרשת כהנים ופרשת לוים ופרשת טמאים ופרשת שילוח טמאים ופרשת אחרי מות ופרשת שתויי יין ופרשת נרות ופרשת פרה אדומה.  Rashi comments there: . לפי שביום המחרת נשרפה הפרה להיות נטהרין לפסחיהן וקודם לכן לא יכלו לעשותה דבעינן והזה אל נכח פני אהל מועד (במדבר יט) והכי אמרינן במסכת מגילה ירושלמי באחד בניסן הוקם המשכן ושני לו נשרפה הפרה.  Why then does the parsha of parah only appear at the beginning of Chukas, which records events of the final year in the midbar when chronologically it had been given much earlier in time?

This question is addressed by the Rishonim.  Ibn Erza comments right at the start of the parsha ונסמכה זאת פרשה בעבור שהיא לכהן.  Meaning, Korach ends off with the list of matnos kehunah, so the Torah stuck parah here because it is something that is done by the kohen.  I don't understand the sevara, because it begs the question of why parah and not korbanos, or the parsha of negaim, which also require the participation of a kohen.  

Abarbanel writes that although ashes of a parah had been prepared by Moshe at the start of the journey in the midbar, the parsha was given again here in anticipation of the wars that would be fought to conquer Eretz Yisrael, which would bring many more people in contact with the dead, as well as because of the many people who had died during the rebellions against Moshe whose bodies had to be dealt with.  

אמנם בסוף ארבעים שנה שהיו מעותדים להכנס לארץ ראה יתברך שבמלחמת העמים ירבו חללי ה׳ ורבים מבני ישראל יגעו במת לכל נפש אדם בערי׳ שיכבשו גם על פני השדה בחלל חרב או במת או בעצם אדם או בקבר ויטמאו להם ואפר הפרה שעשה משה לא יספיק להם לכן צוה עתה ית׳ למשה ולאהרן אופן עשיית הפרה גם שבסבת הנשרפים פתח אהל מועד מקרח ועדתו מן המתים במגפה במתלוננים רבים מעמי הארץ היו מתטמאים וגם הם ימעיטו אפר הפרה שעשה משה ועל כל הדברים האלה באה הצוואה במקום הזה ממצות הפרה.

The problem with Abarbanel is that the Mishna in Parah (ch 3) records that there have been only 9 parot adumot in history, and only one in the days of Moshe.  There was no need for an additional parah for centuries despite the additional number of people who became tamei. 

Shem m'Shmuel also sees parah here as anticipating the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, but not for the practical reason suggested by Abarbanel. Parah is given here because in order to succeed in our drive to settle Eretz Yisrael, we need to internalize the lesson of parah adumah, namely, that not everything in life needs to make sense or can be understood.  How can one nation possibly fight the 31 kings who lived in Canaan?  How can one nation fight off multiple hostile Arab states, absorb millions of refugees expelled from those Arab States in addition to Holocaust survivors, create a working government and infrastructure with no past experience in doing so?  If you want answers up front before starting, you will never get off the ground.  "Zos chukas haTorah..."  Chazal tell us that Avraham was promised Eretz Yisrael in the zechus of milah.  Milah means  הִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ לְפָנַ֖י וֶהְיֵ֥ה תָמִֽים, with simple faith.  Don't get too bogged down in questions that you cannot answer, in mysteries that you mind can never unravel.  It will work out anyway, whether you understand how and why or not. 

leadership

 וְדִבַּרְתֶּ֧ם אֶל־הַסֶּ֛לַע לְעֵינֵיהֶ֖ם וְנָתַ֣ן מֵימָ֑יו  What did Hashem mean by  מֵימָ֑יו, "it's water?"  Netziv comments  לא יהיה בזה חדשות, אלא ״מימיו״ הרגילים ונעשים לטבע,, which sounds almost like a contradiction in terms, because טבע and water coming from a rock do not seem to go together.

The Be'er Mayim Chaim (sort of appropriate to quote in this parsha) quotes a remez.  If you spell out the letters that make up the word סלע you get the following: samech = סמך, lamed=למד, ayin=עין.  Take the middle letter of each word and you have the letters מים for water.  Now we understand why Moshe hit the rock, the סלע, two times -- he wanted to knock off the first letter and the last letter so that just the middle סלע was left.  The problem is that he could have accomplished the same thing by just speaking to the rock.

The larger point here is obvious: what on the surface looks like a rock can contain mayim chaim inside.  It's up to us to draw it out properly.

Whatever Moshe's sin was, the parsha continues (14:20)  וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח מֹשֶׁ֧ה מַלְאָכִ֛ים מִקָּדֵ֖שׁ אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ אֱד֑וֹם... נַעְבְּרָה־נָּ֣א בְאַרְצֶ֗ךָ.  Moshe knew that he would not enter Eretz Yisrael, so the faster Bnei Yisrael got there, the faster the end of the line would come for him.  Rather than enjoy the opportunity to make an extended detour around the land of Edom and prolong the journey, Moshe immediately sent messengers to ask permission to the shorter route and cut through their territory.  Moshe was not commanded by Hashem to do so; he took the initiative on his own.  That's leadership -- putting the needs of the people above concern for oneself.  

Parshas Balak starts with Balak's observation, וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק בֶּן־צִפּ֑וֹר, that Bnei Yisrael were on his border, and he was afraid that they would wipe him out.   וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מוֹאָ֜ב אֶל־זִקְנֵ֣י מִדְיָ֗ן עַתָּ֞ה יְלַחֲכ֤וּ הַקָּהָל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־סְבִ֣יבֹתֵ֔ינוּ כִּלְחֹ֣ךְ הַשּׁ֔וֹר אֵ֖ת יֶ֣רֶק הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה  Only then does the Torah tell us that וּבָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִֽוא׃.  Why stick that in almost as an afterthought instead of telling us up front something like וַיַּ֥רְא בָּלָ֖ק בֶּן־צִפּ֑וֹר מלך מואב?  Maharil Diskin explains that the expression וּבָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב בָּעֵ֥ת הַהִֽוא׃ is part of what Moav was bemoaning.  Not only is there the danger from Bnei Yisrael, but, nebach, look at who we have as leader to get us through the crisis -- בָלָ֧ק בֶּן־צִפּ֛וֹר מֶ֥לֶךְ לְמוֹאָ֖ב.  (Apply to current events as you like.)  R' Shaul Alter quotes from the Sefas Emes that the Torah could not introduce Balak as "melech Moav" in that first pasuk because the whole thrust of the opening of the parsha is the fear that engulfed Moav.  Someone who is a melech, a leader, does not succumb to fear.  

civility or civil war?

1. Even though our parsha tells us that Aharon died in Hor haHar, we read in Devarim (10:6) וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נָ֥סְע֛וּ מִבְּאֵרֹ֥ת בְּנֵי־יַעֲקָ֖ן מוֹסֵרָ֑ה שָׁ֣ם מֵ֤ת אַהֲרֹן֙ וַיִּקָּבֵ֣ר שָׁ֔ם וַיְכַהֵ֛ן אֶלְעָזָ֥ר בְּנ֖וֹ תַּחְתָּֽיו׃

Rashi there explains that the people backtracked when they saw Aharon death: שם מת אהרן – והלא בהר ההר מת? וצאג וחשוב ותמצא שמונה מסעות ממוסרות להר ההר. אלא אף זה מן התוכיחה: עוד עשיתם את זאת, כשמת אהרן בהר ההר לסוף ארבעים שנה ונסתלקו ענני כבוד, יראתם לכם מן מלחמת מלך ערד ונתתם לבד לחזור למצרים, וחזרתם לאחוריכםה שמונה מסעות עד בני יעקן, ומשם למוסירה, שם נלחמו לכם בני לוי והרגו מכם ואתם מהם, עד שהחזירו אתכם בדרך חזרתכם. 

Targum Yonasan expands on the story: ובני ישראל נטלו מן כופרני בירי בני יעקן למוסרה תמן אגח עימהון עמלק כד מלך בערד דשמע דמית אהרן ואסתלקו ענני יקרא ומדעקת על ישראל על קרבא ההוא בעו למתוב למצרים והדרי שית מטלין רדפו בני לוי בתריהון וקטלו מינהון תמני גניסן והדרו לאחוריהון אף מבני לוי אתקטלו ארבע גניסן אמרו דין לדין מאן גרם לנא קטולא הדא אלא על דאתרשלנא במספדא דאהרן חסידא וקבעו תמן מספדא כל בני ישראל כאילו תמן מית אהרן ואתקבר תמן ובכן שמיש אלעזר בריה באתרוי.

According to T.Y., There was a civil war that took place between those who responded to Aharon's death with fear and wanted to return to Mitzrayim and sheivet Levi, who ran after them to bring them back.  8 familes from Bnei Yisrael were killed in that battle and another 4 from Levi.  When they reflected on the root cause of this tragedy, they concluded that it was because they were not maspid Aharon properly.  In Moseira therefore they once again were maspid,  and that is why the pasuk considers it was as if Aharon died there. 

R' Moshe Tzuriel in his Otzros haTorah asks why those families from sheivet Levi deserved to die in this scuffle.  What did they do wrong?  They were just trying to get those who were running away back on track.

Rav Tzuriel answers that even if you are trying to save others from spiritual destruction, it has to be done with love, it has to be done purely l'shem shamayim, not in a spirit of kana'us that leads to strife.  That was the hallmark of Aharon.  When civil war broke out and families were caught up and killed, that itself showed that the lessons of Aharon's life had not been fully absorbed.

It's an interesting point because we know that sheiveit Levi were the ones who rallied to Moshe's side and took sword in hand to strike those who were guilty of cheit ha'eigel.  (Remember too that it was Shimon and Levi who took sword in hand to attack Shechem and defend the honor of their sister Dinah.) Apparently not all civil wars are equal -- some are more justifiable than others.  In the context of the eigel the Leviim were responding to Moshe's cry of "Mi la'Hashem eilay!" which set the tone for that battle being done purely l'shem shamayim.  Also, because Aharon was involved in the cheit ha'eigel, his presence as a force of calm was perhaps somewhat mitigated.  Here, on the heels of his death, his presence should have been more strongly felt, the impact of his influence more profound.  For civil war to break out in this context is a let down.

2. Maharal draws a yesod out of Rashi in our parsha:

Rashi in Behaaloscha comments on the pasuk הֲצֹ֧אן וּבָקָ֛ר יִשָּׁחֵ֥ט לָהֶ֖ם וּמָצָ֣א לָהֶ֑ם:

 ואיזו קשה, זו או: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ׳:י׳), אלא לפי שזו לא אמר ברבים – חיסך לו הכתוב ולא נפרע ממנו, וזו של מי מריבה היתה בגלוי – לפיכך לא חיסך לו הכתוב

The implication is that Moshe and Aharon's sin in Mei Meriva was in saying שמעו נא המורים to Bn"Y.  Yet in our parsha it seems that the sin was striking the rock and not believing that it would produce water just by talking to it.  Mizrachi formulates the question as follows:

מהכא משמע שחטאו של משה הי׳ מפני שהוצי׳ המי׳ מן הסלע ע״י הכאה ולא ע״י דבור ואלו בפ׳ מתאוננין גבי הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כתב ר״ע אומ׳ שש מאות אלף רגלי ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם וגו׳ מי מספיק להם ואיזו קשה זו או שמעו נא המורי׳ ...משמע שחטאו של משה היה בדבור שמעו נא המורי׳ המן הסלע הזה וגו׳ כמו הצאן ובקר ישחט וגו׳ 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh responds that there is no contradiction.  Both שמעו נא המורים and striking the rock share the same root cause:  

אמנם כאשר תדע האמת, כי שני החטאים מה שאמר ״שמעו נא המורים״, וכן מה שהכה את הסלע פעמיים הכל חטא אחד.  

He explains:

  ומי שעושה מצות השם דרך כעס, בפרט כאשר נעשה להם נס כזה, כמו שעשו הם, שאמרו ״שמעו נא המורים״, וכן שהכו אל הסלע, אין זה אמונה. כי האמונה הוא מי שבוטח בו יתברך, אין לו בו רק שמחה  

A person who is filled with emunah will be b'simcha and not react with anger.  The harsh reaction of שמעו נא המורים was therefore a siman of a lack of emunah, יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי (obviously on the high level Moshe is judged on). Similarly, the whole reason Moshe was told to speak to the rock and not hit it is to demonstrate כי כאשר יקיים מכח דבור, הנה העשיה היא מרצון ומשמחה, וזהו ענין האמונה  To take a rod and strike the rock sets the wrong tone.

A person who has emunah deals with life's challenges with equanimity, מרצון ומשמחה as Maharal puts it.  

L'Sichon Melech ha'Emori -- Ki l'Olam Chasdo

  לְ֭מַכֵּה מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃

 וַֽ֭יַּהֲרֹג מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

לְ֭סִיחוֹן מֶ֣לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֑י כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

וּ֭לְעוֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

Rashi explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים refer to the kings of Canaan conquered by Yehoshua. 

Radak, however, explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים are Sichon and Og. זכרם בכלל, ואחר כך פרט אותם, להגדיל השבח First the pasuk gives shevach in a general sense, and then dives into the specifics and mentions the kings by name.  

Radak goes on to explain  וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ deserves special praise because Sichon and Og are not among the 7 nations of Canaan whose land was promised to Avraham.  Our conquest of those nations is an extra bonus, icing on the cake:

 ועוד חסד גדול מזה, כי לא די שהכה אותם, אלא שנתן להם ארצם לנחלה, שלא באו שאר הגוים, ולא נאספו עליהם להוציאם משם. וזה חסד גדול מאתו, כי חסד הוא תוספת הטובה. ובזו הארץ שנתן להם, הוסיף להם בטובתו, כי לא נתנה לאברהם אבינו אלא מעבר הירדן והלאה שהיא ארץ שבעה גוים ועוד שלשה גוים: קיני וקניזי וקדמוני. ואותם שלשה לא היו להם עד לעתיד לבוא שיהיה מגבול ארץ ישראל

Similarly, R' Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik (Devarim 2) writes:

כי הנה ארץ סיחון ועוג לא נחשבו מכלל שבעת האומות שניתן לישראל כי הלא משרע"ה שלח לו אעברה נא בארצך. וגם עפ"י דין אין עבר הירדן מקודשת בקדושת ארץ ישראל שאין מביאין ממנה בכורים וכמו שנא' ביהושע ואך אם טמאה ארץ אחוזתכם וגו' כידוע שארץ ז' עממין הוא בקליפה זלעו"ז נגד הז' מדות שבקדושה שהם בהתגלות בפועל ועליהם בא המצוה לא תחי' כל נשמה כדי להכניע כל הז' מדות להקדושה. אמנם הג' אומות קני וקניזי וקדמוני שהם אדום ועמון ומואב שהם נגד ג' ראשונות שבקדושה כח"ב אין עוד כח בנו לבררם בעוה"ז בשלימות ולהכניעם עד עת קץ כדאי' מהאריז"ל לכן נצטוו עליהם שלא להתגרות עמם. והנה גם סיחון ועוג המה בקליפה נגד חכמה ובינה שבקדושה לכן דרשו במדרש הפ' הנה כסה את עין הארץ סיחון ועוג שהיו שומרים אותנו וכו' קרא לסיחון ועוג עין הארץ שהם זלעו"ז נגד העיינין שבקדושה שהם מרומזים בחדשים הללו תמוז ואב כידוע מהאריז"ל שתמוז ואב הם בחינת עיינין דמטרוניתא.

According to R' Tzadok, the war against the nations is a spiritual battle as well a physical one.  The seven nations of Canaan can be defeated because we can succeed in the tikun of the seven midos.  Sichon and Og correspond to the klipah of chochma and binah, and their defeat was therefore beyond what might have been expected.

The difficulty with Rashi, which Radak avoids, is that according to Rashi the praises do not follow the chronological order of events, as the defeat of Sichon and Og preceded the conquest of Canaan but is mentioned afterwards.  The difficulty with Radak is the redundancy of first praising Hashem for the defeat of מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים when it could have just mentioned Sichon and Og directly.

Parashas Derachim (derush 7) has an interesting suggestion.  He writes that מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים refers to Edom, Amon, Moav, nations which we were told not to wage war against.  Because Sichon and Og defeated these kings and took part of their land, it made that territory fair game for us to capture.  It is the victory of Sichon and Og over these enemies which we are giving thanks for.

I have no idea what the Sefas Emes (5635) means when he writes that Sichon and Og correspond to the idea of tefillin shel yad and shel rosh.  He then goes on to explain why the mizmor divides וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ and נַ֭חֲלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עַבְדּ֑וֹ כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ into two separate statements.  I have yet to unravel what he means.

when was the parsha of tumas ohel given?

The Torah tells us that Nadav and Avihu died "lifnei Hashem" (10:2).  Toras Kohanim quotes a machlokes where exactly that was.  One opinion is that they were standing in the mishkan offering ketores, but a malach pushed the out.  R' Akiva, however, argues and holds that they died inside the tent. 

פלוגתא איכא בתורת כהני׳ רא״א שמתו בחוץ במקום שהלוים מותרים ליכנס שנא׳ ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות׳ וא״כ מאי לפני ה׳ שנגפן המלאך והוציאן לחוץ רע״א לא מתו אלא בפנים שנא׳ לפני ה׳ ומאי ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות׳ מלמד שנתנו חכה של ברזל לתוך פיהם וגררום והוציאום לחוץ.

If so, asks the Daas Zekeinim, according to R' Akiva, shouldn't the entire mishkan and all the kelim inside it have become tamei tumas ohel?  Yet we don't find that the avodah stopped to allow time to be metaheir everything.

R' Chaim Kanievksi in Taama d'Kra suggests that perhaps the dinim of tumas ohel had not yet been given, and therefore, even though BN"Y may have known there was such a halacha, it was not in effect yet.

I must be missing something, because I cannot figure out what he means.  Rashi quotes from Chazal that the dinim of parah adumah were given in Mara, right after kri'as Yam Suf (Shmos 15:25).  If you don't understand that there is a concept of tumas meis, then you can't really understand what parah adumah is all about.  Did they know some of the halachos of tumas meis but not the din of tumas ohel?  M'heicha teisi to make such a distinction?

Even without the derash quoted by Rashi, we know the Leviim had to be metaheir before serving in the mishkan --  וְכֹֽה־תַעֲשֶׂ֤ה לָהֶם֙ לְטַֽהֲרָ֔ם הַזֵּ֥ה עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֵ֣י חַטָּ֑את (Bamidbar 8:7), and Rashi there explains הזה עליהם מי חטאת – של אפר פרה, מפני טמאי מתים שבהן.  Proof again that the halachos of tumas meis were known (see Netziv at the opening of Chukas).

Furthermore, the gemara darshens (M"K 28) למה נסמכה פרשת פרה למיתת מרים, לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת.  The implication of a "lamah nismicha" question/derash is that had the Torah followed chronological order, the text would appear elsewhere; its location is shifted  to make a point (see Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh to Bamidbar 13:2).  It sounds like these parshiyos of parah and tumah/tahara chronologically were given earlier, but the text is shifted to this location to create the juxtaposition with Miriam's death. 

So what does RCK mean when he writes that the parsha of tumas ohalim had not yet been given?

looking at the nachash ha'nechoshes and seeing yad Hashem

 וַיַּ֤עַשׂ מֹשֶׁה֙ נְחַ֣שׁ נְחֹ֔שֶׁת וַיְשִׂמֵ֖הוּ עַל־הַנֵּ֑ס וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־נָשַׁ֤ךְ הַנָּחָשׁ֙ אֶת־אִ֔ישׁ וְהִבִּ֛יט אֶל־נְחַ֥שׁ הַנְּחֹ֖שֶׁת וָחָֽי׃

"Ain v'haya elah lashon simcha."  The Torah uses the word "v'haya" when speaking about the person bitten by the snakes sent as punishment because sometimes getting bitten, going through suffering, is a simcha.  Sometimes, as the Ohr haChaim explains, without that bite a person would never realize they are on the wrong track and never come to do teshuvah. 

Moshe was instructed to make a nachash ha'nechoshes and anyone bitten would look at it and be cured.  Rashi quotes the Mishna in R"H:

 ואמרו רבותינו: וכי נחש ממית או נחש מחיה? אלא בזמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתרפאין, ואם לאו היו נימוקין.

It was not looking at the nachash that brought about the cure, but rather it was looking up to shamayim.

Maharal asks: if so, what was the point of making the nachash?  Just tell people to daven, to look to shamayim, and then they will be cured!  ואם תאמר, אם כן למה לי נחש, ולמה לי לשום אותו על הנס, אחר שהיה תולה בזמן שהיו מכוונים לבם לשמים   In fact, we know that later in history Chizkiyahu destroyed the nachash ha'nechoshes because people began attributing the power to cure to it, and not directing their attention to Hashem.  So m'ikara mai ka'savar, why introduce it to begin with given the chance that, as in fact happened, people might be led astray?

There are two "ingredients" I think we need to address this.

First, a distinction made by Malbim.  Moshe does not use the word "ra'ah" when he talks about looking at the snake (which is the word Hashem used in speaking to Moshe - see Rashi, see Netziv quoting the Yerushalmi), but rather he uses the word "v'hibit."  There is a difference.  Mablim comments on the pasuk in Yeshaya (5:12) "... v'es po'al Hashem lo yabitu umaaseh yadav lo ra'u"   "  that

 ודע שיש הבדל בין ראיה והבטה, ראיה, הוא ראות העין החושיי ויפול גם על ראיה הפתאומית בלי כונה. והבטה, פורט המשים לב על העצם לדעת ענינו ומהותו.  

Re'iya is the physical act seeing.  Habata is taking notice of something; it is a psychological experience more than a physical one.  Malbim quotes pesukim from all over Tanach to illustrate his point.  The two terms often come together precisely because they have different connotations and are not synonymous.  We say in Eicha, "Re'ey Hashem v'habita..." (1:9).  We want Hashem to not just see what is happening, but to take note turn his attention to it.  Sometimes it works the other way, e.g. "Habeit mi'shamayim u're'ey," we ask Hashem to give us his attention, and then once we have it, we ask him to look down and see what is going on (see this post for a different approach to the distinction between these terms, and also see Netziv).  

Malbim does not use this example, but I think his distinction explains why Lot's wife was punished.  It does not say that she turned and "va'tireh" what happened to Sdom, but rather "va'tabeit ishto mei'acharav."  It's not seeing the destruction of Sdom which was her undoing, but rather  it was the fact that that's where her attention was, that was psychologically the place that she was still rooted in and attached to.  She may have followed Lot out of the city, but in her heart, she was still in Sdom, thinking about the life she once had, rather than running toward a future far away from it.

Second "ingredient": Why a nachash?  Ramban explains that according to nature, if a person is bit by a rabid dog or some other poisonos animal, then looking at the animal or even hearing about the animal will cause the person's condition to deteriorate.  

 וידוע בדרכי הרפואות שכל נשוכי בעלי הארס יסתכנו בראותם אותם או בראות דמותם, עד כי נשוכי הכלב השוטה וכן שאר הבהמות השוטות אם יביטו במים יראה להם שם בבואת הכלב או המזיק וימותו, כמו שכתוב בסיפרי הרפואות ומוזכר בגמרא במסכת יומא (בבלי יומא פ״ד). וכן ישמרו אותם הרופאים מהזכיר בפניהם שם הנושך שלא יזכרו אותם כלל, כי נפשם תדבק במחשבה ההיא ולא תפרד ממנה כלל עד שתמית אותם. וכבר הזכירו דבר מנוסה מפלאות התולדת כי נשוך הכלב השוטה אחרי שנשתטה בחוליו אם יקובל השתן שלו בכלי זכוכית יראה בשתן דמות גורי כלבים קטנים, ואם תעביר המים במטלית ותסננם לא תמצא מהם שום רושם כלל, וכשתחזירם לכלי הזכוכית וישתהו שם כשעה תחזור ותראה שם גורי הכלבים מבוארים, וזה אמת הוא בפלאי כוחות הנפש.  

(Don't ask me how to explain the last part of that Ramban.  This is not the only place he refers to science that is pseudo-science). Hashem did a "nes b'toch nes" here in that looking at the very thing that should have made things worse, actually brought about the cure and made them better.

I think pshat in Ramban is like a gemara in Pesachim 118.  Sefaria translation: Rabbi Shimon HaShiloni taught: When the evil Nebuchadnezzar threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, Yurkamo, the ministering angel of hail, stood before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, I will go down and cool the fiery furnace, and I will save these righteous ones from the fiery furnace. Gabriel said to him: The strength of the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not be evident in this manner, as you are the minister of hail, and everyone knows that water extinguishes fire. Your action would not be regarded as a great miracle. Rather, I, the ministering angel of fire, will descend, and I will cool the furnace from within.

What difference does it make which angel comes to put out the fire?  

If I get in a boxing ring with Rocky Balboa, no one would be surprised if the fight ends in less than one round with me on the floor.  That's how nature works -- the more powerful side wins.  In a clash between fire and water, water wins and puts out the fire.  When Nevuchatnezer threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fire, it was Nevuchadnezer vs G-d, and you could look at that just like me vs. Rocky, or fire vs water.  The teva ha'devarim says G-d is going to come out on top because  He is just more powerful.

But that's not the lesson here.

Hashem did not send the angel of hail to put out the fire.  He sent the angel of fire.  G-d's dominion over nature, over Nevuchdnezer, is not because in a clash of two forces G-d is always the most powerful force, but because minei u'bei there are no other forces besides G-d.  It's not fire vs. G-d's power to put that fire out.  Fire only exists because G-d allows it to.  Any clash between ratzon Hashem and ratzon of the fire is a illusion.  

So too here, had G-d given everyone some antidote to snake venom, then it would be a victory of G-d's power vs biting snakes.  But the lesson here is deeper than that.  The lesson is minei u'bei, a snake has no power other than ratzon Hashem, and therefore what was once poison can itself be the antidote.  

Not let's try to put 2 and 2 together.  For 40 years Bnei Yisrael had been wandering in the desert, surrounded by miracles.  There is the world of teva, but they lived apart from that world, in their own bubble.  In that world, when you have a problem, davening is the cure.  But that's not the world of Eretz Yisrael they were headed to.  In the world of Eretz Yisrael, you have to contend with teva on its own terms.  Food will not fall from the sky and water will come from a river or rain, not from a well or a rock.  Therefore, to teach Klal Yisrael how to contend with the problems they will face in the future, the cure for the poisonous snakes could not come just from simply from looking up to Heaven with trust and kavanah.  It had to come through the intermediary of the physical world, through teva.  

However, even that's not enough, because just like tefilah alone is not an answer to our pains, teva is the full answer either.  Klal Yisrael has to see that there is the dvar Hashem that acts within teva, kodesh that is found within the chol.  When you look (re'iya) at that snake, you have to see (hibit) the dvar Hashem.  Teva is not an independent force; it is just a manifestation of ratzon Hashem.  That's the way to look at everything in the natural, physical world.  

True, in Chizkiyahu's time this message would be a dangerous distraction, but this was the message the generation who entered Eretz Yisrael, making the transition from pure kodesh to kodesh-within-chol, needed to hear.

Moshe's response to Mei Meriva

One thing that struck me in last week's parsha is Moshe's Rabeinu's response -- or lack thereof -- to being told that as a result of the sin of Mei Meriva he will not be able to enter Eretz Yisrael.  After Hashem passes this sentence on Moshe, the parsha immediately jumps (20:14) into the story of Moshe sending messengers to the king of Edom asking permission for Bnei Yisrael to be able to pass through his land.  It's incredible -- here Moshe's lifelong dream of entering Eretz Yisrael has just been crushed, and he doesn't say a word.  There are so many interpretations of what Moshe might have done wrong; you would think that Moshe would ask Hashem to clarify what it was that sealed his fate.  You would think that Moshe would daven and ask Hashem for forgiveness, as he did so many time for Bnei Yisrael, but he doesn't (at least not here and not now).  Instead, it's right back to business as usual, dealing with Edom.

Daughter #1 suggested since Moshe's sin was rooted in his having an emotional reaction to the rebellion (this fits well with the view that holds his sin was getting angry or calling the people rebellious), his response to Hashem's words was one of stoicism.  The response served as a tikun for the cheit. 

every individual counts

Chazal (Taanis 9a) tell us that the mon fell in Moshe's zechus, the be'er came in Miriam's zechus, and the ananei ha'kavod came in Aharon's zechus.  Miriam died -- no more be'er.  Aharon died -- no more ananei ha'kavod.  We read about what happened as a result in Chukas.  Yet, Chazal tell us that the be'er returned and the ananim returned because Moshe was left.  His zechus alone was enough to merit all three gifts.  

Everyone asks: if Moshe's zechus alone was enough to warrant Hashem giving us mon, the be'er, and the ananei ha'kavod, then why at first did the latter two come only in Miriam and Aharon's zechus?

Chasam Sofer answers that each of these three leaders of Klal Yisrael taught us a different lesson.  Moshe taught us the power of Talmud Torah.  Aharon taught us the power of avodah.  Miriam taught us the value of chessed.  (Interestingly, the Torah makes it very clear to us just how important Moshe and Aharon's contribution was.  Only Aharon could wear special bigdei kohen gadol and do avodas Yom haKippurim.  Every parsha in the Torah is a testimony to Moshe's role as teacher of Torah.  But what do we really know about Miriam?  Rav Bakshi Doron writes in his sichos that the greatest chessed is that which is done quietly and without fanfare, that which does not call attention to the neediness of the recipient or to the role the giver plays.  This was Miriam's contribution.  It deliberately remains hidden behind the scenes, as all great chessed should.)  For 40 years in the desert each one inculcated these midos in Klal Yisrael.  After 40 years of Klal Yisrael learning about the power of avodah from Aharon, Moshe could bring back the ananim.  After 40 years of learning about chessed from Miriam, Moshe could bring back the be'er.  However, at the start of the journey, before Klal Yisrael absorbed the lesson of Aharon and Miriam's life, Moshe's own zechus would not have been sufficient.   

The Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo offers a different answer, one that we can take heart in for our own avodah. 

The gemara (Taanis 21b) writes that there was a plague in Sura, but the town where Rav lived was spared.  Everyone thought that the reason they were not affected by the disease was, of course, the zechus of Rav.  The townspeople all had a dream and it was revealed to them that this was not so.  To spare the town from disease was too small a thing to warrant being pushed off because of Rav's zechus.  Rather, the reason they were spared was because of a certain person who would lend out his shovel and spade to the chevra kadisha to do burials. 

Maharasha asks the obvious question: Yesh bichlal masayim manah!  If sparing the town required only minimal zechuyos, so few that even the chessed of just lending a shovel was enough, then certainly Rav's great zechus should have been sufficient.  Why was it revealed that davka Rav's zechuyos had NO part in the matter?

We see from this gemara an amazing yesod: Hashem makes space for the little guy.  Yes, of course Rav's zechus would have been enough to space that town.  But Hashem decided that that was not Rav's role in life.  His role was bigger and better things.  Hashem decided that sparing that town would be the role a simple guy who was willing to lend out his shovel would play in life.

There are tzadikim, talmidei chachamim, roshei yeshivos, greater than you and me.  So what does Hashem want need us for?  What's our contribution?  How is my drop of davening, my drop of learning, making any difference? 

"Ani a'avir kol tuvi al panecha," Hashem tells Moshe.  I'll reveal everything to you, you have the greatest zechuyos.  However, "V'chanosi asher achon v'richamti es asher aracheim," and Chazal add "afilu aino kadai."  My chassadim and rachamus come into the world not just because of you, Moshe.  I choose to use other vehicles as well, even those who are not so worthy.  Even if all the good they do is lending out a shovel for a burial.  I want their avodah too, and have therefore chosen to direct hashpa'ah specifically in their merit and not yours.

Hashem's chessed is not just in the gifts he gives us, but in the opportunities he gives us.  What each one of us does is important.  The mon, the be'er, the ananim could have have come b'zechus Moshe from day #1.  But Hashem deliberately chose to direct his hashpa'ah through Aharon and Miriam so that they too could have a zechus in sustaining Klal Yisrael. 
So too, Hashem carves out a role, a mission, for each individual, an accomplishment that rests on his/her specific zechuyos to the exclusion of what even greater people might accomplish. 

No one else, no matter how great, can make up for your accomplishing what Hashem wants from you. 

haTzur tamim pa'alo - Aharon's death

The Torah tells us that upon reaching Hor HaHar, on the boundaries of the land of Edom, Hashem told Moshe to prepare Aharon for death, "al asher m'risen es pi l'mei meriva," (20: 24) because of their failure to obey Hashem at Mei Meriva. 

Why does the Torah need to give us the geographical detail that Hor HaHar is on the border of Edom?  Rashi explains that it was the fact that Bnei Yisrael came under the influence of Edom which diminished their merits and caused this great tzadik Aharon to be taken from them.

The obvious question: the Torah itself tells us why Aharon died -- "Al asher m'risen es pi l'mei meriva" -- because of episode of Mei Meriva, the hitting of the rock.  Why do we need another explanation involving the influence of Edom to account for his death?

I think the simplest answer is that Aharon died for the sin of Mei Meriva, but why here and why now?  Rashi comes to answer that second question.

Sefas Emes offers another answer that touches on a yesod I thought I wrote about before, but can't find where, so it's good to visit or revisit it.  "HaTzur tamim pa'alo" -- G-d's judgment is perfect.  If a person commits a crime and is thrown into jail, it's not only they who suffer, but it's also their wife, their children, etc. who suffer as well.  There is "collateral damage," if you will, caused by the punishment meted out.  Not so G-d's judgment.  If a person is guilty of sin and needs to be punished, then Hashem does so in such a way that avoids causing pain to the person's wife, children, etc. who don't deserve it.  Everything is precisely measured out and meted out.

Aharon had to die because of the sin committed at Mei Meriva, but what did Klal Yisrael do to deserve to suffer the loss of such a tzadik?  Why should they have to deal with a tragedy like that?  The Torah therefore tells us that Aharon died on the border of Edom, where we fell under foreign influence -- our merits did not measure up, so we deserved to suffer as well.  

Maybe this yesod explains another Rashi as well.  At the end of Ha'Azinu, (32:48) Hashem told Moshe to go "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh," this very day, up to Har Nevo to look out over the Eretz Yisrael and then to die.  Rashi comments that the Torah uses the expression "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh," right in the middle of the day, when everyone can see what is happening, because Klal Yisrael thought that they would cling to Moshe and stop him from dying.  G-d therefore said I'm going to do this in public, right in front of you, and go ahead and see if you can stop me.
What kind of crazy hava amina is it to think you can stop someone from dying?  

Perhaps the answer is "ha'tzur tamim pa'alo," that if we did not deserve to lose Moshe, then irrespective of his sin of Mei Meriva, he would still be with us.  It is only our failure to rally ourselves to a higher level of ruchniyus to deserve his still being with us that let him be taken.  (See this post for a different answer that connects to our parsha as well.)

why Klal Yisrael's tefilah could not save Moshe from dying

Please have in mind that this limud should be a zechus for a refuah sheleimah for Shulamis bas Sarah Sascha.

At the end of the parsha (32:48) Hashem told Moshe to go "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh," this very day, up to Har Nevo, to look out over the Land, and then and to die.

Rashi points out that there are three places where the Torah uses this expression of "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh."  The common denominator between them is that in all three places there was a hava amina by human beings to try to stop G-d, and G-d responded by carrying out his plans in the middle of the day to demonstrate that no force can stop him.  When G-d was about to bring the flood, the dor ha'mabul threatened to destroy the ark; G-d in turn ordered Noach to enter in the middle of the day to prove that they could not stop him.  The Egyptians thought they would prevent Klal Yisrael from leaving; G-d took them out right in the middle of the day to prove the Egyptians wrong.   Finally, here, Klal Yisrael thought that they would cling to Moshe and not let him die; G-d arranged his death in the middle of the day.

We understand the hava amina of taking axes and breaking the ark; we understand the hava amina of taking up arms to stop Klal Yisrael from leaving Egypt.  But how could Klal Yisrael have even had a hava amina of stopping Moshe's death?  What power do human beings have to stop someone from dying?

R' Chaim Shmuelevitz answers that the power we have is the koach ha'tefilah. 

The gemara (Kesubos 104) tells us that when Rebbi was about to die, the tefilos of his generation kept him on earth until, seeing his suffering, his maid caused an interruption to the prayers so that Rebbi could depart this world in peace.   

We just said over the Yamim Noraim that teshuvah, tefilah, and tzedaka can avert an evil gezeirah. 

Now that we know the power our tefilah has, I have a simple kashe: so why didn't it work?  Why did the tefilos of Klal Yisrael keep Rebbi in this world, clinging to life, but G-d forced Moshe "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" to pass away irrespective of what Klal Yisrael wanted and davened for?   

I think the answer to the question is rooted in the nature of Moshe's sin at mei meriva.  Netziv on our pasuk briefly reminds us of his interpretation of that episode, which he elaborates on more fully in Chukas.  Hashem wanted mei meriva to be a "teachable moment," as they call these things in the world of education.  It would be another step in the transition from life in the desert surrounded by miracles to the life of teva in Eretz Yisrael.  What do you do when you life in the world of teva and you face a drought?  Hashem wanted Moshe to show the people that the answer to their needs would come through tefilah and Torah study.  That's how we who live in the mundane world approach G-d with our needs.  But that's not what Moshe did.  Instead, he hit the rock, and through a miracle -- much like the other miracles that happened in the desert -- the rock produced water.  In response, Hashem told Moshe that since he was stuck in the miracle mode of desert life and could not transition to the teva life of Eretz Yisrael, he would not be the one to lead the people there.

Moshe now in our parsha  must pay the ultimate price for his sin and die before entering the land.  Al asher m'altem bi... b'mei merivas Kadesh..." I think is not merely a reminder of what Moshe did wrong, but is an explanation of why tefilah here did not work.   Because he did not capitalize on the koach ha'tefilah to meet the people's needs at Mei Merivah, midah k'neged midah, the koach ha'tefilah could not work on Moshe's behalf here to spare him from his fate.

At this special time of year may all our tefilos for all our needs be speedily answered.

R' Sadya Gaon on "mei" vs "meimei" and the three exceptions to his rule

1) This column on the parsha by R' Nachman Kahane is simply a MUST READ.

I hesitate to excerpt any of it because then people won't click the link; OTOH, some people won't read it anyway and therefore better an excerpt than nothing.  He writes:

In the process of bringing purity and kedusha to the world, one must be prepared to dirty one’s hands and soil one’s clothing if necessary.

This is the diagnosis of the ailment from which we religious people suffer. How much more pleasant to escape the responsibilities of being an active partner in bringing about the redemption of our nation. It was more pleasant to go on with one’s life in Europe in the early 20th century than going to the Galil to drain — the Chula swamp, or to clear the fields of the Jezreel Valley of the stones to prepare the land for planting after 2000 years of dormancy.

We who believe in the Torah and the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael didn’t do it; the Chalutzim (pioneers), whom we mock for their alienation from Torah, did. They fell from malaria, fought off the Arab gangs with no more than sticks in their hands, went into the ocean to bring in our brothers from the refugee ships under the noses of the brutish-British, and they established the State. And the nearly one million religious Jews in chutz la’aretz led by certain people continue to mock, degrade, despise, scorn, and disdain, the “Tzionim”; but to this day continue to sit on the sidelines, spectators of the renaissance of our nation.

Please read the rest.

2) The Chasam Sofer quotes a yesod from R' Sadya Gaon that Rabeinu Bachei cites on parshas va'eira: there is a difference between the words "mei" and "meimei."  "Meimei," like "meimei Mitzrayim," means water that is potable and tastes good.  The makah of dam turned the "meimei Mitzrayim," the good, drinkable water of Egypt, into blood.  "Mei," like "mei Yam Suf," is water that is not usable.  

Chasam Sofer writes that he found what appears to be three exceptions to the rule.  One is in our parsha.  When Bnei Yisrael want to pass to through the land of Sichon, they say "lo nishteh mei be'eir," we won't drink from the water of Miriam's well.  Instead, we will buy your water, "meimecha nishteh…"  Asks the Chasam Sofer: what could be better than the water from Miriam's well?  Shouldn't it be "meimei be'eir," not the "mei be'eir?"

Unfortunately, the Torah got it right.  When they came to the land of Sichon, Klal Yisrael looked at what the people of Edom had and suddenly they lost their appreciation for the gifts Hashem had given them.  They viewed the special water of the be'eir as "mei be'eir," something unpleasant to drink.  The water their neighbor had was "meimecha," it was Perrier.  It's no wonder that immediately following this incident Aharon was taken from them.

The second exception the Chasam Sofer notes is a pasuk we are all familiar with.  Mizmor l'David Hashem ro'i lo echsar…  b'nos desha yarbitzeini al mei menuchos y'nahaleini.  Simple pshat in the mizmor is that we are talking about Hashem giving us pleasant pastures with tranquil springs.  So why "mei menuchos" and not "meimei menuchos?"

Chasam Sofer answers that the mizmor actually means that even when Hashem punishes us, it is still pleasant.  Even if we have only "b'nos desha," vegetables to eat -- we are not living on prime rib or steak; even if it's only "mei menuchos" that we have, water that is unpleasant to the taste, "gam ki eiliech b'gei tzalmaves lo ira ra ko Hashem imadi," under the worst circumstances we are still satisfied because we know despite it all, Hashem is with us.

The third seeming exception is a pasuk less familiar to most of us, so for that you will have to look up the Chasam Sofer : )

3) The Mishna in Parah (2:1) writes that a cow which is pregnant cannot be used as a parah adumah.  The R"AB explains that the you cannot use an animal which has carried a burden for parah adumah.  The pregnant cow is considered to be transporting a burden -- the fetus -- within itself and is therefore pasul.  

The Chelkas Yoav asks (in the Kaba d'Kusyisa): How then can a pregnant woman walk in a reshuas ha'rabim on Shabbos?  Is she not carrying the fetus, just like the cow is carrying the calf within itself?

You probably want to work out some chiluk between hil Shabbos and parah to find an answer, or maybe you have something better to suggest?

Dama ben Nesina's reward of parah adumah

The gemara (Kid 31) illustrates the extent to which one must go to fulfill kibud av with a story.  There was a non-Jew named Dama ben Nesina whose father owned a precious gem.  The Chachamim wanted to buy the stone for the ephod, but when they came to make the deal Dama turned them away.  The keys to the safe were under his sleeping father's pillow and he would not wake his father.  Hashem rewarded Dama for this act of kibud and the next year a parah adumah was born in his herd.  When the Chachamim came to buy the parah, Dama told them that he knows they would pay whatever price he would demand, but he would ask them only for what he lost in profit from not being able to sell them his precious gem.

Two questions:

1) Of all the rewards Hashem could have given Dama, why was it specifically a parah adumah which he was given?

2) Why does the gemara go into such detail extoling Dama's virtues, telling us that he knows the Chachamim would pay any price but he wouldn't demand it.  Do Chazal need to lay it on so thick?

The Kotzker (the same vort is quoted from others as well) explained that when Dama ben Nesina did this act of kibud av there was a tremendous kitrug in shamayin against Klal Yisrael.  Here this non-Jew was willing to sacrifice a fortune for the sake of not disturbing his father -- where is our sacrifice for mitzvos?!  

Hashem therefore caused a parah adumah to be born into Dama's herd.  Kibud av is the ultimate mitzvah sichlis -- it makes sense even to a non-Jew.  Even Eisav understood and fulfilled kibud av!   (See Maharal in Ch Aggados).  Parah adumah is at the opposite end of the spectrum -- it is the quintessential chok, a mitzvah that is incomprehensible.  Dama was willing to give up a fortune to fulfill a mitzvah that made sense to him.  A tremendous zechus, but Hashem set the stage for the Chachamim to top it.  As Dama himself admitted, they were prepared to pay any price for a mitzvah that made no sense to anyone.  

(Parenthetically, we pasken that it is the parent who must bear the cost of kibud av, not the child.  In other words if your father needs a new shirt, it's kibud av to get him the clothes he needs, but you can put it on his credit card.  Whey then is the Dama story a good example of the mitzvah?  He was under no obligation to suffer a loss of his money for the sake of kibud?

Ran gives two answers: 1) there is a difference between kavod, which you don't have to suffer a loss for [assuming the parent can pay], and causing pain to a parent, like waking them from sleep; 2) Dama was only giving up potential profit, not suffering a loss of capital.) 

vayishlach malachim -- messengers of Ya'akov, messengers of Moshe

So much is going on in the parsha, and there is no little time to write!

"Vayishlach Ya'akov malachaim el Eisav achiv..."  I know -- wrong parsha.  But not really -- as we'll see.  "Im Lavan garti..."  I fulfilled my mission.  I kept Torah and mitzvos even in Lavan's home; I came away unscathed.  I've achieved my tikun.  Now that I've perfected myself, I can reach out to you, Eisav my brother, and help you maybe achieve your tikun.  "Vayishlach Moshe malachim mi'Kadesh el Melech Edom..."  (20:14).  Moshe too sends messengers, and they come to the king of Edom and give him a history lesson.  Look at how "achicha Yisrael," your brother Klal Yisrael suffered in Egypt until we were redeemed by G-d.  Rashi suggests that Moshe emphasized brotherhood to hint to Edom that as brothers they should have shared the burden of slavery, but they did not -- only we carried that burden.  Therefore, Edom, you owe us one.  Meshech Chochma suggests that Moshe's point was that we were redeemed by G-d; we did not incite rebellion against Egypt.  There is no danger of letting us pass through your country, Edom; we do not cause trouble.  No executive order or wall is needed.  But Sefas Emes recognizes the parallel language to Ya'akov's shlichus, a shlichus that reverberates throughout history.  We suffered in Egypt and as a nation went through a process of tikun.  We are on the way to fulfill our destiny.  Maybe this time, Edom, you will help us and in doing so, help yourself achieve your own tikun. 

G-d tells Moshe in our parsha to tell Aharon that his time has come.  "Vaya'as Moshe ka'asher tzivah Hashem."  (20:17)  Moshe prepared Aharon for death, faithfully fulfilling G-d's command, no matter how difficult it might have been for him (Rashi).  If it was difficult for Moshe, how much more difficult it must have been for Aharon -- after all, he was the one who was going to die!  Yet, the pasuk only speaks about Moshe.  Did Aharon not know what was going to happen?  Sefas Emes explains that it was not the death of Aharon per se that troubled Moshe.  What bothered Moshe is that he saw the chain of events that would unfold without Aharon: the dissipation of the ananei ha'kavod, the attack of Amalek/Cana'an, the complaints of the people that would follow.  His beloved Klal Yisrael would suffer.  As hard as death is, sometimes life for those who remain behind, struggling to cope and come to terms with loss, with a different, changed existence and set of relationships, can be just as hard. 

So Aharon died and Canaan attacked.  "Vayishb mimenu shevi," they took a captive.  "Alisa la'marom shavisa shevi..." (Teh 68:19)   Chazal tell us that when Moshe went upstairs to get the Torah, it was being held captive by the malachim, who did not want to let it go. (Sefas Emes elsewhere notes that the fact that Torah is called a captive shows that the Torah is really meant for us here on earth, to elevate our mundane lives.  It's not meant for the heavens.)  Torah is like the cord that allows us to plug into Hashem to get chiyus.  Before Hashem gave us the Torah he offered it to the nations of the world, but they chose to reject it.  Therefore, their chiyus is dependent upon us.  "Vayishb mimenu shevi," the Canaani wanted to take back that dependence, to take back what they gave up, to try to seize their own chiyus instead of revolving around us.

Finally, at the end of the parsha we get to the complaint of Bnei Yisrael that the mon was inedible, "nafsheinu katzah b'lechem ha'kilokel."  For 40 years they had been eating mon and suddenly it's no good?  We discussed this last year here.  There is a unique din by the chatzotzros: while other klei hamishkan made by Moshe could be used until they wore out, the chatzotzros had to be put in genizah after Moshe died.  R' Yechezkel Sarna (I think - can't remember the source 100%) explains that the purpose of the chatzotzros trumpets was to call together the people to give them instruction.  What the Torah is telling us is that the call to the people used in Moshe's generation would not work in the next generation.  Each generation needs it's own call.  So too, each generation needs its own food, it's own nourishment.  The mon could be the most spiritual thing to eat, but that was good only for the dor hamidbar.  The new generation that was entering Eretz Yisrael need something else to sustain them.  

We have to be smart and thing about what our generation needs -- what is the trumpet call that will gather us, what is the food that will nourish our souls.  What worked in the past will not necessarily work in the present.