mitzvah for a ben noach to bury their dead?

The Chasam Sofer comments (d"h yatz'u) on the pasuk 

וּמִצְרַ֣יִם מְקַבְּרִ֗ים אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִכָּ֧ה ה׳ בָּהֶ֖ם כׇּל־בְּכ֑וֹר וּבֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם עָשָׂ֥ה ה׳ שְׁפָטִֽים

that the Torah tells us that the Mitzrim were involved in burying their dead because there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to do so, and therefore one might have thought the zechus of the mitzvah would protect and aid the Egyptians, kah mashma lan and even with the zechus of that mitzvah the Jewish people left בְּיָ֣ד רָמָ֔ה לְעֵינֵ֖י כׇּל־מִצְרָֽיִם

I have not done any research on the matter, but off the cuff I have no idea where the Chasam Sofer got the idea that there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to bury their dead.  Which one of the 7 mitzvos bnei noach does this fall under?

chalukas ha'aretz, arei migrash and miklat, and the requirement to tear kri'ah in Chevron

1) Rambam paskens in Taanis 5:16

מי שראה ערי יהודה בחורבנם אומר ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע. ראה ירושלים בחורבנה אומר ירושלים מדבר וגו'. בית המקדש בחורבנו אומר בית קדשנו ותפארתנו וגו' וקורע.

If you look at the same din quoted in the Tur (siman 561), there is one slight difference:

הרואה ערי ישראל בחורבנן   אומר על הראשונה שרואה ערי קדשך היו מדבר וקורע  

Why the change from ערי יהודה to ערי ישראל?  R' Zolti in Mishnas Yaavetz (#48) explains that the issue here revolves around the following question: when kedusha rishona was batlah, was the chalukas ha'aretz done by Yehoshua also batlah?  

Meshech Chochma on our parsha comments (35:13):

שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם – יתכן דאמרו בסוף סוטה שמשחרב מקדש ראשון בטלו ערי מגרש ללוים, וא״כ אז לא היו בבית שני שייכים ללוים הערים שלהם, ואז לפי דעתי לא קלטו רק הששה ערים בלבד, שמה שקולטין הערי מקלט, נראה דאינו אלא דוקא אם הן מחנה לויה, וכמו שאמרו בסוף פ״ב דמכות מקום ממקומך, ופרש״י שתהא מחנה לויה קולטות, ואף ערי מקלט יהיו ערי לויה, אמנם המ״ב עיר כיון שלא נתנו בבית שני ללוים, לא היו קולטין רק הששה ערים לבד, שקליטת המ״ב עיר ילפינן מועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר (מכות י׳), וכל זה כשהן של לוים, אבל לא כשהן של כהן, לכן בששה ערים הללו אמר שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם, פירוש, אף שהם שלכם ולא של לוים. ודו״ק. אמנם עיקר הטעם מה שלא נהגו ערי מגרש בבית שני לא ידעתי. ואולי מטעם זה בטל התרומ״ע מן התורה, וכמו שאמרו בירושלמי מאליהם קבלו המעשרות, יעוין ברמב״ם מטעם אחר. והדברים נעלמים עדיין, עד ה׳ יאיר עיני. ועיין ד״ה ב׳ ק׳ י״א כי עזבו הלוים את מגרשיהם, וק׳ ל״א ולבני אהרן כו׳ מגרש עריהם, יעו״ש. ואולי משום דבית שני לא היה החלוקה עפ״י או״ת, לכן לא היה ערי מגרש. וביהושע כתוב אלעזר הכהן באורים ותומים.

According to M.C., during bayis sheni the cities of leviim did not serve as cities of refuge because there was no chalukas ha'aretz done as was done by Yehoshua, and therefore these cities did not really belong to the leviim.  Not only was the kedushas ha'aretz batlah, but the chalukah was batlah as well.

This point is at the heart of the disagreement between Rambam and Tur.  According to the Rambam, the cities are still  ערי יהודה as designated by Yehoshua.  That division stands irrespective of whether kedushas ha'aretz is batlah or not.  According to the Tur, the cities are now ערי ישראל, shared by all of Klal Yisrael, because the chalukas ha'aretz was batlah as well as the kedushas haaretz.  Until there is a new chalukah, the cities are not considered cities of Yehduah.  (According to the Tur, we tear for these cities not because they are under the jurisdiction/sovereignty of sheiveit Yehudah, but rather because they fall *geographically* in an area that was assigned to Yehudah, which was the area most proximate to Yerushalayim.)

2) The Shaarei Teshuva on the SA comments on this din:

בש"ע ס"א הרואה ערי יהודה כו' וכתב בר"י בשם מזה הבעל חסד לאברהם שכתב נהגו העולם שלא לקרוע על חברון תוב"ב שמעתי בשם גדולים לפי שחברון מערי מקלט שניתנו ולאו מערי יהודה מיקרי וכתב בגליון בר ברתי' הרב הגדול בדורו מוהר"ר אברהם יצחק ז"ל שדברים חלושים הם עכ"ל ואף אנא אמינא דאין לסמוך ע"ז עכ"ל:

The Chessed l'Avraham makes two assumptions: 1) the cities of refuge and 42 cities of the leviim were given to them as their portion in chalukas ha'aretz; 2) that chalukah still stands, and therefore there is no requirement of kri'ah in Chevron since as a city of refuge it falls under the portion of Levi, not Yehudah.

The second assumption revolves around the issue we discussed above.  The first assumption seems to be anticipated in a machlokes in the Yerushalmi.

The Mishna (Maaser Sheni end of ch 5) writes:

 מִיכָּן אָֽמְרוּ שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּמַמְזֵרִים מִתְװַדִּים אֲבָל לֹא גֵרִים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים מְשׁוּחְרָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף לֹא כֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם שֶׁלֹּא נָֽטְלוּ חֶלֶק בָּאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ לָהֶן עָרֵי מִגְרָשׁ.

The Yerushalmi, according to girsa of the GR"A (his peirush in parenthesis), comments:

(תני למחלוקת ניתנו. (פי' הערי מגרש לכהנים) דברי ר' יוסי ר' מאיר אומר לבית דירה ניתנו. (פי' ולא למחלוקת:

The Rambam paskens like R' Yosi, which would support the Chessed l'Avraham's position.

yishuv ha'aretz -- without machlokes; should Rachav have been spared?; an Ohr haChaim that speaks to our times

A simple question: Why didn't Moshe tell the members of the tribes of Reuvain, Gad, and Menashe that they cannot settle in Eiver haYarden because by doing so they would be forgoing the mitzvah of kibush/yishuv Eretz Yisrael?   

Seforno answers (32:33):  כדי שלא להכנס במחלוקת הסכים משה לדבריהם

I don't understand.  If the Bnei Reuvain and Gad did not want to observe Shabbos, would Moshe have accepted that and given in to avoid machlokes?  If they didn't want to put on tefillin, would Moshe have accepted that to avoid machlokes?  Aderaba, we see in the end of of Sefer Yehoshua (ch 22) that when the Bnei Reuvain and Gad built a mizbeiach in Eiver haYarden which the other tribes mistakenly thought was an act of rebellion against Hashem , they did not just let it go.  They immediately called Reuvain and Gad to task and demanded an explanation.  Why then here did Moshe give in here to avoid machlokes?

I think what you see from here is that the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz in particular is dependent on not having machlokes.  We are in the three weeks, and we all know that churban bayis sheni happened because there was machlokes and sinas chinam.  We were be banished from the land because machlokes and yishuv ha'aretz are tartei d'sasrei.  The two cannot go together.  Eretz Yisrael is the fulfillment of our dream to live as a nation.  If we can't get along with each other and there is no unity, then how are we a nation?  If we are not a nation, why do we deserve a homeland?  

Moshe gave in to make peace because yishuv ha'aretz by force or coercion would defeat the whole purpose of the mitzvah.  It can only be done b'shalom.  

2) Ohr HaChaim has a comment that is mamash ruach hakodesh on the pasuk (33:54) and speaks to our times:

 וְאִם־לֹ֨א תוֹרִ֜ישׁוּ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵ֣י הָאָ֘רֶץ֮ מִפְּנֵיכֶם֒ וְהָיָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תּוֹתִ֣ירוּ מֵהֶ֔ם לְשִׂכִּים֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וְלִצְנִינִ֖ם בְּצִדֵּיכֶ֑ם וְצָרְר֣וּ אֶתְכֶ֔ם עַל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַתֶּ֖ם יֹשְׁבִ֥ים בָּֽהּ׃

He makes two points.  First, אין והיה אלא לשון שמחה.  You think that not clamping down and finishing off the enemy will bring you simcha, וְהָיָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תּוֹתִ֣ירוּ מֵהֶ֔ם.  Maybe you think it will be to your benefit in some way, e.g. you have cheap labor, you buy favor with the EU and US, etc. Forget about it -- it's not going to work.

Secondly, if you give the enemy a foothold, not only will you have problems in the areas that you leave aside for them, whether it is Gaza or Area C or anyplace else, but you will have problems in the areas that you have conquered, the areas that you think are under your control now.  The problems will be in הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַתֶּ֖ם יֹשְׁבִ֥ים בָּֽהּ, whether it be Tel Aviv, Yerushalayim, or elsewhere c"v.

3) The Yalkut Shimoni writes an amazing chiddush on this same parsha:

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי (דברים כ׳:י״ז) ״כִּי הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִימֵם״, וְאַתֶּם לֹא עֲשִׂיתֶם כֵּן אֶלָּא (יהושע ו׳:כ״ה) ״וְאֶת רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה״ וְגוֹ׳ הֶחֱיָה״ וְגוֹ׳, הֲרֵי יִרְמִיָּה בָּא מִבָּנֶיהָ וְעוֹשֶׂה לָכֶם דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְשִׂכִּים בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלִצְנִינִם בְּצִדֵּיכֶם, לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר ״דִּבְרֵי יִרְמִיָּהוּ בֶּן חִלְקִיָּהוּ״.

According to the Yalkut, its not the terrorist in Jenin that the pasuk is warning us about, but rather it's Yirmiyahu haNavi who came from the lineage of Rachav.  This is the thorn in our side that will plague us because we don't eradicate the sheva umos. 

(Once upon a time I quoted from R' Tzadok that this is why the pasuk says  והיה, a lashon of simcha.  The tochacha of the navi, which is a painful thorn in our side, is what eventually drive us to do teshivah and bring us out of galus.)

Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi, who needs a refuah shleima and learning his Torah should be zechus to bring that about, quotes the Yalkut Shimoni in Sefer Yehoshua (2:11):

אמר הקב״ה לרחב את אמרת כי ה׳ אלקיכם הוא אלקים (יהושע ב׳:י״א) ניחא בארץ שמא בשמים ממעל את אמרת מה שלא ראית בעיניך חייך שבנך עומד ורואה מה שלא ראו הנביאים כמד״א נפתחו השמים ואראה מראות אלקים (יחזקאל א׳:א׳)

How can we square the two views?  On the one hand, we see from Rachav is given lavish praise for her believing in Hashem, and as a result is rewarded by having among her offspring Yechzkel haNavi, who saw the maaseh merkava, beyond what all other nevi'im saw.  Yet on the other hand, the Yalkut in our parsha is critical of Bn"Y for leaving her alive (the Yalkut must hold that she did not have giyur)?  

He writes that it's no stira. וְהָיָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תּוֹתִ֣ירוּ מֵהֶ֔ם לְשִׂכִּים֙ בְּעֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וְלִצְנִינִ֖ם בְּצִדֵּיכֶ֑ם is like a law of nature.  There may be good reason for Rachav to be made an exception to the rule, but rules don't work that way.  Barring a miracle, if Rachav were to jump off the wall of Yericho, the law of gravity would assert itself and she would fall to the ground no matter that she had hidden the spies or that she had professed belief in Hashem.  So too, no matter how worthy she may have been, the outcome of sparing her life would inevitably be painful.  That pain may come in the form of a prophet like Yirmiyahu and not c'v a terrorist from Jenin, but pain of some sort is inescapable and unavoidable.  

4) That section of the parsha ends off  וְהָיָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּמִּ֛יתִי לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת לָהֶ֖ם אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם.  Here too, we have the word וְהָיָ֗ה, and אין והיה אלא לשון שמחה, which again seems very difficult in this context.  How can there be any simcha in  אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם?  The Ohr haChaim is silent here, but the Agra d'Kallah comes and helps us out, albeit a bit on the desrushy side.  He explains that the original plan at the time of yetzias Mitzrayim was for Hashem to take care of the fighting for us and for us to sit back and watch the show.  For better or worse, we chose the path of doing things for ourselves.  Hashem did not command us to send meraglim to spy out how to conquer the land because it was not necessary, but we chose to do so.  The challenge is for us to recognize that even when we seem to be doing things ourselves, behind it all is still yad Hashem -- not us.  The only difference is whether we have a nes nigleh or nes nistar.  The pasuk promises וְהָיָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּמִּ֛יתִי לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת לָהֶ֖ם, what I Hashem planned to do myself to those nation, אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם, I will do through you.  I will bring about the same result, but couch it in the efforts you put forward.  He writes:

 ויהיה כאשר דמיתי לעשות להם אני בעצמי ואתם תעמדו מנגד, יומשך הענין שאעשה לכם בעשייתכם בטבע בחרב ובחנית במלחמה טבעיות, ואף על פי כן אני העושה וזה יהיה הנסיון, והבן מאוד

This is the time of year to work on the  והבן מאוד.

what about our nachala?

After the Bnei Menashe complain that if the Bnos Tzelafchad inherit, the nachala of their sheivet will pass to other tribes, the Torah acknowledges their claim and gives over the halachos of yerusha to prevent such an occurrence:

וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֤ב נַחֲלָה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה כִּ֣י אִ֗ישׁ בְּנַחֲלַת֙ מַטֵּ֣ה אֲבֹתָ֔יו יִדְבְּק֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

Immediately one pasuk later, we have what seems like a repeat:

וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֧ב נַחֲלָ֛ה מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר כִּי־אִישׁ֙ בְּנַ֣חֲלָת֔וֹ יִדְבְּק֕וּ מַטּ֖וֹת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

The Tiferes Shlomo explains in a vort that you have to learn especially now during the three weeks, that each sheivet has a nachala that is a perfect fit for who they, for their spiritual identity.  The Bnei Menashe therefore wanted to hold on to and treasured that portion of Eretz Yisrael that was davka meant to be theirs.  As a result of that great desire, they were zocheh to have revealed through them this cheilek in Torah.  

If you have such a tremendous cheishek for your portion in Eretz Yisrael, so much so that you are not even willing to give it to another sheivet, to another family in Klal Yisrael, וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֤ב נַחֲלָה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, then kal v'chomer that לֹֽא־תִסֹּ֧ב נַחֲלָ֛ה מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר,  your nachala will never pass outside Klal Yisrael and be taken over by some other nation.  

Cries out the Tiferes Shlomo, how can we leave Yishmaelim living in our holy city of Yerushalayim and not make it completely ours?!  Where is our cheishek for our nachala?

 ומעתה נכון מאמר הכתוב שנית ולא תסוב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר הוא כמ"ש כי מענין הסבת נחלה משבט אל שבט אחר נוכל להבין להקפיד על הסבת נחלה זהו ירושלים הקדושה ביד האחרים הישמעאלי' היושבי' עליה בעוה"ר וצריך להתעורר בתשוקה להמשיך הדין הזה להתקיי' לא תסוב נחלה למטה אחר הם הישמעאלי' כנ"ל. 

With this yesod he explains the pesukim in Nitzavim (29:21-23):

 וְאָמַ֞ר הַדּ֣וֹר הָאַחֲר֗וֹן בְּנֵיכֶם֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יָק֙וּמוּ֙ מֵאַ֣חֲרֵיכֶ֔ם וְהַ֨נׇּכְרִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָבֹ֖א מֵאֶ֣רֶץ רְחוֹקָ֑ה וְ֠רָא֠וּ אֶת־מַכּ֞וֹת הָאָ֤רֶץ הַהִוא֙ וְאֶת־תַּ֣חֲלֻאֶ֔יהָ אֲשֶׁר־חִלָּ֥ה ה׳ בּה

גׇּפְרִ֣ית וָמֶ֘לַח֮ שְׂרֵפָ֣ה כׇל־אַרְצָהּ֒ לֹ֤א תִזָּרַע֙ וְלֹ֣א תַצְמִ֔חַ וְלֹא־יַעֲלֶ֥ה בָ֖הּ כׇּל־עֵ֑שֶׂב כְּֽמַהְפֵּכַ֞ת סְדֹ֤ם וַעֲמֹרָה֙ אַדְמָ֣ה וּצְבֹיִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר֙ הָפַ֣ךְ ה׳ בְּאַפּ֖וֹ וּבַחֲמָתֽוֹ

 וְאָֽמְרוּ֙ כׇּל־הַגּוֹיִ֔ם עַל־מֶ֨ה עָשָׂ֧ה ה׳ כָּ֖כָה לָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את מֶ֥ה חֳרִ֛י הָאַ֥ף הַגָּד֖וֹל הַזֶּֽה

Why is it only הַדּ֣וֹר הָאַחֲר֗וֹן , that last generation, who will ask about the churban ha'aretz?  

Because, answers the Tiferes Shlomo, it's the fact that they are moved and disturbed by Eretz Yisrael being in such a state that makes them the 'dor acharon,' the last generation to have to see it that way.  

When we cannot tolerate Eretz Yisrael being forlorn, that is the needed isarusa that will bring geulah and repair and redemption.

כי הדור ההוא אשר יתנו עיניהם ולבבם לשאול ע"ז והם ידאבו על חורבן הארץ וירושלים כנ"ל ועל ידי תשוקתם ודאבון נפשם על הארץ הנה יתעוררו הגאולה והם יהיו הדור האחרון קודם הגאולה

Let that generation of 'dor ha'acharon' be ours.

arei leviim and nachala in Eretz Yisrael

The gemara in Brachos (20) raises the question of whether women are obligated in birchas hamazon or not.  It's not a mitzvas aseh she'hazman gerama, so why should they not be obligated?  Rashi explains that when you say birchas ha'mazon you thank Hashem for Eretz Yisrael, and since women did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael, they are therefore exempt.  Tos. does not like that sevara because kohanim also do not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael, and yet we don't find that they are exempt from reciting birchas hamazon.  Tos suggests that women are not obligated for a different reason.  Since in birchas hamazon we thank Hashem for bris milah and for Torah and women are not obligated in either of these mitzvos, they therefore are exempt.  (The meforshim talk about what about the other brachos of birchas hamazon besides "nodeh lecha..." that do not mention bris or Torah).

In defense of Rashi, achronim point out that the kohanim and leviim had the arei ha'leviim, so they did have a portion in the land.  Obviously Tos was not moved by that consideration, and the question is why not.  

It could be the shoresh of the machlokes here is what we mean by getting a portion of land.  Rashi acknowledges that there were women who did in fact receive a cheilek in Eretz Yisrael, e.g. Bnos Tzelafchad, but he explains that they did not receive that cheilek as a nachala the way men did, but rather as a yerusha from a parent.  When it comes to the arei haleviim, do we look at these cities as the nachala of sheivet levi, or perhaps they are really the nachala of the other shevatim, just those shevatim have a mitzvah to surrender some of their portion to the leviim to live in in exchange for the leviim and kohanim's service in the mikdash? 

The Minchas Chinuch has a different safeik that I think may hinge on this same point.  Kohanim and leviim do not receive a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael because they are supposed to devote themselves to working in the mikdash instead of farming.  They receive terumos and maasros, as we read in our parsha, for the same reason.  Rambam (Hil Shemita ch 13) has a chiddush din that kohanim and leviim can receive a portion in future lands conquered by a king that expand the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, but Rambam holds (see Raavad) that the mitzvah of teru"m still applies in that territory.  Minchas Chinuch (408:1) wonders whether the same applies to arei leviim: will the leviim receive additional cities designated as arei leviim in these future territories, or not?  I would say that if arei leviim are the nachala of leviim, just like Reuvain and Shimon and every other sheivet gets a nachala, then in those future territories where the leviim are getting a regular portion of land like everyone else anyway, there is no need for the special nachala of arei leviim.  But if arei leviim are really the nachala of the other shevatim, just there is a mitzvah upon the shevatim to surrender part of their portion to the leviim in exchange for their work in the mikdash, then perhaps that mitzvah applies irrespective of whether the leviim get their own portion of land or not.  

the yahrzeit of Aharon

Netziv points out that the Torah does not give the date of Moshe's death or the date of Miriam's death. Only the date of Aharon's death -- Rosh Chodesh Av -- is recorded (33:38).  Why?

ללמדנו שאותו החודש גרם להיות לשטן לגדולת עבודת המשכן שהיתה ע״י אהרן הכהן הראש. ומזה סימן לדורות דבחודש אב יהא נחרב בית המקדש.

The month of Av portends tragedy for avodas haMikdash. The loss of Aharon foreshadows the loss of Beis haMikdash and korbanos.

chazak chazak chazak

Aruch haShulchan 139:15:

ודע דבקרא ד"לא ימוש" כתיב: "חזק ואמץ". ומזה נהגו לומר למסיים ספר "חזק חזק ונתחזק!" 
ויש רוצים שיאמרו "חזק" שלוש פעמים שהם במספר "משה", ונכון הוא.

homeland for everyone

Why is it that the arei miklat in chu"l did not function as sanctuary cities (we had the idea first) until after kibush v'chiluk and the arei miklat were set up in Eretz Yisrael?  Meshech Chochma suggests (see here for a second hesber that he offers) that had there been refuge cities in chu"l without there being any in Eretz Yisrael then anyone who kills b'shogeg would immediately flee Eretz Yisrael and run to chu"l.  The Torah does not want even murderers (true, they are shogeg) to be forced to leave Eretz Yisrael!  

Tzror haMor on Bnos Tzelafchad (a segulah for shidduchim)

Everyone always wants to find segulos for shidduchim.  Look no further than the Tzror ha'Mor at the end of our parsha:

להורות כי לפי שבנות צלפחד חבבו הארץ. זכו בשכר זה שכל השבטים היו רצים אחריהם. וכולם היו רוצים וחפצים להזדווג להם. באופן שכשראו זה ראשי האבות של מנשה. נתייראו שיזדווגו לשבט אחר. והם היו רוצים להשיאן לבניהם.

The reward for the Bnos Tzelafchad having such great love for Eretz Yisrael is that everyone wanted to marry them!  (Dont be so cynical and think that it was only because they suddenly found themselves blessed with a portion of land = $$$).  This is what worried the leaders of sheivet Menashe.  With so many suitors, the Bnos Tzelafchad were liable to marry out of the tribe and take their portion of land with them to another sheivet. 

The parsha relates their complaint and Moshe's response:

Vayikrivu roshei ha'avos... m'mishpichos Bnei Yosef (36:1)
...kein matei Bnei Yosef dovrim (36:5)
Mimispichos bnei Menashe ben Yosef hayu l'nashim (36:12)

Why again and again is Yosef mentioned here?  We all know Menashe is the son of Yosef?

Recall Rashi in last week's parsha explained that the Torah introduced the Bnos Tzelaphchad by giving us their yichus all the way back to "..Menashe ben Yosef" (27:1) because:

למשפחותא מנשה בן יוסף – למה נאמר, והלא כבר אמר: בן מנשה? אלא לומר לך: יוסף חיבב את הארץ, שנאמר: והעליתם את עצמותי (בראשית נ׳:כ״ה), ובנותיו חיבבו את הארץ.

Yosef was a Zionist, he loved Eretz Yisrael.  The Bnos Tzelafchad were a chip off the ol' block and reflected that same attitude.

This is why the Torah stresses Yosef's identity in explaining the argument of the leaders of Mensahe.  "Where did that love of Eretz Yisrael through which you earned a portion of nachala come from?" they argued to Bnos Tzelafchad.  "It came from the genes of our sheivet -- the genes of Yosef hatzadik who loved Eretz Yisrael.  Therefore we have a right to hold that land in within the tribe because if not for the genes you got from us, you wouldn't have a claim."

Hashem responds to their complaint by saying:

 לַטּ֥וֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶ֖ם תִּהְיֶ֣ינָה לְנָשִׁ֑ים אַ֗ךְ לְמִשְׁפַּ֛חַת מַטֵּ֥ה אֲבִיהֶ֖ם תִּהְיֶ֥ינָה לְנָשִֽׁים׃

Which is it?  Can the Bnos Tzelafchad marry "la'tov b'eineihem," whoever they liked, or must they marry "l'mishpachas avihem," only within their sheivet? 

Chazal resolve the issue (see Ramban, Meshech Chochma) by darshening that Bnos Tzelafchad could marry whoever they liked, but as an eitzah tovah they should marry within the sheivet. 

Tzeror haMor explains pshat is that Hashem is agreeing with the leaders of Menashe -- the land should not be taken from the sheivet.  However, half of sheivet Menashe lives in Eiver ha'Yarden.  Someone who lives there might marry one of the Bnos Tzelafchad and maybe just keep an apartment in Eretz Yisrael for vacations.  Therefore, Hashem also said that they should not only marry within the sheiveit, but women such as these who so strongly feel a love for Eretz Yisrael should marry "la'tov b'einehem," only to those who they consider "tov," those who share their same idealism and outlook and passion for Eretz Yisrael.

three questions

We have in our parsha the mitzvah d'oraysa of conquering and settling Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara (Shabbos 108) relates that when Shmuel became aware that a "gavra rabba" was coming from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel he sent Karna to check out whether he was a talmid chacham or not.  The gavra rabba was the great sage Rav.  Karna asked him three questions to test him:

1) How do we know that tefillin must be written only on the hide of a tahor animal?
2) How do we know that only red colored blood (dam nidah) is tamei?
3) How do we know that the mitzvah of milah is to cut the foreskin?  (Maybe the orlah referred to is just metaphorical?)

The gemara quotes derashos that Rav gave to answer all three of the questions.

Why did Karna ask these questions in particular?  Did he just pull three random issues in halacha out of a hat, or was there some deeper meaning to the queries?

Rav Kook explains that Karna was in fact trying to take the measure of Rav's attitude toward Eretz Yisrael.  What was the hashkafa of this person who was making yerida to Bavel?  Each question had a message behind it:

Karna's first question was meant to convey that the letters of tefillin may be holy, but they do not float in a vacuum -- you can't put a davar she'b'kedusha on that which is tamei.  So too, Torah ultimately cannot take root in an environment of tumah.  Ain Torah k'toras Eretz Yisrael.  As great as the yeshivos in Bavel might be, they are not a permanent substitute for our homeland.

The second question was meant to hint to Rav that Eretz Yisrael was acquired through heroic red blood spilled by our people.  That alone makes it worthy of being cherished even were it not for its kedusha.

The third and final question was meant to convey that our love of Eretz Yisrael needs to translate itself into concrete action.  It's not enough to celebrate an "idea" of Israel.  We have to aspire to take on the physical work of building a tangible, real country.

Karna was in effect saying, "Dear Rav, Welcome to Bavel.  But don't forget from where you came, as that is the real home of Am Yisrael."

Everyone these days is getting "woke," but sadly we are the last to wake up.  Eight years of Obama y'mach shemo should have been enough evidence that our idyllic stay here in the US is coming to an end, but we are slow to get the message.  Hashem prodded up a little harder and onto the stage stepped AOC, Rhashida Tlaib, Linda Sarsour, Ilhan Omar.  And still we sleep.  The Jewish News out west reports, "The Aug. 4 primary offers a path to oust the outspoken, pro-BDS congresswoman, but Jews are staying out — or backing her."  What hope is there if you support your own enemies?  And what of our brothers and sisters who think they can engage with BLM advocates though "dialogue" and "education?"  


Hashem gave us such a chessed -- our own country.  Every yeshiva, every day school, should be drumming one message into kids: make aliya, make aliya, make aliya.  Do it while you are young and have few responsibilities.  Take advantage of the opportunity to get out of this galus on your own terms.  Fulfill a mitzvah d'oraysa.  Instead, we continue to sleep, thinking the Five Towns are safe, Teaneck is safe, heilege Lakewood is safe.  Build your beautiful home there, where you are comfortable, drive a big SUV, work in some profession where you can keep your hands clean, and what could be bad?  What indeed?

This is not what Hashem wants from us.  Period. 

lo tisov nachala l'mateh acheir -- keeping the land ours

The leaders of Menashe complained to Moshe that giving land to Bnos Tzelafchad opened the door to the possibility of their tribe losing territory.  Were Bnos Tzelafchad to marry outside their sheivet, then their husbands from another sheivet might inherit their property.  In response, Hashem commanded, "V'lo tisov nachala l'Bnei Yisrael mi'mateh el mateh..." (36:7) that the Bnos Tzelafchad or any bas yoreshes should marry only within their own sheivet.  The parsha then continues, "V'lo tisov nachala mi'mateh el mateh acheir...," (36:9) almost word for word a repetition of the earlier pasuk.  Why reiterate the same point?

When Bnos Tzelafchad came before Moshe in Parshas Pinchas to request their father's portion of land, the Torah introduces them as "Bnos Tzelafchad ben Cheifer ben Gilad ben Machir ben Menashe l'mishpachas Menashe ben Yosef." (27:1)  Rashi explains that the Torah traces their lineage all the way back to Yosef because they were following in the footsteps of Yosef who  also exhibited great love for Eretz Yisrael. Yosef demanded that Bnei Yisrael promise to remove his bones from Mitzrayim and carry them with them to Eretz Yisrael when they would leave.

The complaint of the leaders of Menashe stemmed also from this great love of Eretz Yisrael that was built into the DNA of the offspring of Yosef.  Their story is a parallel to the story of Bnos Tzelafchad: the complaint that they would lose a portion of land, and Hashem's response with a law that had not yet been revealed to Moshe.

(Interesting that if you count Matos-Masei as one unit, this is the 9th parsha we will read in BaMidbar.  The Ishbitzer in Mei HaShiloach in P' Balak writes that the 9th pasuk of any parsha contains a deeper meaning al derech sod (see also Mei HaShiloach on next week's parsha of Devarim).  Nine is the midah of yesod which corresponds to Yosef ha'tzadik, who hid his tzidkus while outwardly acting like an Egyptian viceroy.  So perhaps the ninth parsha contains the sod of Yosef ha'tzadik as well in the form of Yosef's love of Eretz Yisrael while living in galus.)

The Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo writes that just like the complaint of  "lamah nigara" gave rise to the laws of Pesach Sheni and the opportunity to bring a korban even after the fact, so  too, the complaints of Bnos Tzelafchad and the leaders of Menashe is what gave rise to Hashem giving these halachos that would ensure they receive their portion.  It's the desire for the land, it's the strength of the claim one advances, which itself gives rise to Hashem's response of giving the land and guaranteeing its possession.

 "V'lo tisov... mi'mateh el mateh," is talking about the inter-sheivet transfer of land.  But the parsha is also telling us something else, writes the Radomsker.  When our love for Eretz Yisrael is so great that we are not willing to give up any portion of what should be ours, then "lo tisov... mi'mateh el mateh acheir," then Hashem will ensure that the land remains ours and never is taken by an "acheir," an outsider.  You want to see a Jewish Yerushalayim, not a Jewish quarter, or a Jewish Chevron, or to again have a Jewish Gush Katif?  Then increase your love of Eretz Yisrael and demand it.

"Sha'alu shlom Yerushalayim yishlayu ohavayich" (Teh 122:6)  Radomsker explains that it's cause and effect: when will it be that we will live in shalvah, tranquility, in our land?  When we are "sha'alu shlom...," when we ask Hashem to give us our land back, when we complain loudly enough about it not being ours. 

It's no coincidence that these themes come up during the three weeks.  Sefas Emes in P' Pinchas writes that we read the parshiyos of korbanos at this time of year because it reminds us that we need to aspire to have a Mikdash back where we can do avodah.  Perhaps here too, the episode of Bnos Tzelafchad, of Menashe, reminds us that we need to cherish Eretz Yisrael and demand a return to our Land.

no place to run

The Midrash opens Parshas Masei by telling us that although many great people -- Ya'akov, Moshe, David -- had to flee from their enemies, throughout our 40 years of travel in the desert not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't even have to run away from the snakes and scorpions.

Earlier this month we discussed yet again the famous Ohr haChaim, based on the Zohar, that says a human being, being a ba'al bechira, poses a greater threat than an animal because a human being can decide to act as he/she pleases irrespective of G-d's plan, but an animal is basically a robot.

Our Midrash seems to contradict that view, as it implies (...not only did we not have to flee from enemies, but we didn't have to flee from animals either...) that the snakes and scorpions posed a greater danger than human enemies. 

I paraphrased the Midrash in order to convey what I think is its simple meaning, but if you read it carefully, the words suggest a deeper meaning.  Sefas Emes points out that it does not say that we did not have to flee from danger, but rather "lo hinachti eschem livro'ach," G-d did not let us flee.  It's not that we encountered no danger in the desert.  On the contrary, the desert was filled with dangers.  G-d, however, did not let us run away from them.  We were forced, with his help, to face down the threats.

All of life's challenges are there to being us closer to G-d.  Sometimes a person davens that Hashem deliver them from needing a refuah, a shiduch, employment, etc. and Hashem enables them to escape the situation of need -- the person is able to flee from danger.  But there is another way to come closer to Hashem when faced with an obstacle.  "Min ha'meitzar karasi K-h" -- a person can find Hashem from within the dire straits themselves.  Rather than escaping the situation, the person can discover that Hashem is right there with them in their suffering, in their sorrow, in their needs, and that itself gives them the ability to overcome.  "Bein ha'metzarim" = "Min ha'meitzar..."  We are hedged in with no way out, no place to run.  "Lo hinachti eschem livro'ach."  But "imo anochi b'tzarah," Hashem is here with us, and an appreciation of that truth is itself a way out.

On a completely different topic...  has anyone else noticed the numerous ads for various events, some of which do benefit worthwhile organizations that this post should take nothing way from, that are basically exercises in gluttony?  Each one boasts of bigger and better meats prepared by various  "master" barbequers (how hard is it to throw some food on a grill?  Even I can do it!),  hand rolled cigars (I kid you not), scotch tasting, etc. etc. 

Maybe I don't like it because my subconscious is bothered by the fact that I never get to go to one of these things, but I just can't square in my mind things like this with concepts like kedusha and tahara.  You want to do something like this in your own backyard -- be my guest.  But is this what you want associated with yeshivos?  With community mosdos?  You can't even put a woman's picture in a yeshiva journal because it somehow is beneath our lofty standards of kedusha, but stuff like this goes? 

I don't understand it, but there is much in life I don't understand. 

why hold the kohen gadol responsible for other's crimes?

Someone who murders b’shogeg must stay in an ir miklat until the death of the kohen gadol. The Mishna writes that the mothers of the kohanim would deliver food to the arei miklat to prevent those inside from praying for their son’s demise . What does the kohen gadol have to do with the plight of the murderer? The gemara explains that the kohanim are to blame for the murderer being there, as they should have davened for rachamim.

How does the gemara know that the kohen did not daven? Maybe the kohen did his part and davened, but it's the zechuyos of the murderer and/or the nirtzach that are wanting? If I daven all day for the Mets to win, it could be that they lose because my davening is not good enough, but it could also be that the Mets just don’t have anyone on the team who can hit or field! (Yankee fans, please substitute Yankees in that sentence.) 

Secondly, the gemara says that even if the kohen gadol is appointed just before the verdict on the murderer is announced, he is still to blame for not davening that the court rule in the murderer's favor.  What good will his prayers do at this point?  It’s like a kid in school who takse a test and then davens that he/she will get a good grade. The answers are on the paper already – tefilah is not going to change the facts. Beis din has to pasken based on the events that occurred. Is the kohen supposed to daven for beis din to make an error and rule incorrectly?

The underlying assumption of these questions is that beis din works like a computer – you plug in the facts, and out comes the psak based on some formula. It doesn’t work that way. The Mishna in Makkos writes that R’ Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon boasted that they could completely do away with capital punishment.  They would ask detailed questions of the witnesses that they would inevitably be tripped up and have their testimony impugned.  Rabban Gamliel responded that this approach would inevitably encourage crime.  Surely R' Akiva would not want to free the guilty and surely Rabban Gamliel did not have in mind that the innocent should be handed a death sentence!  R' Shaul Yisraeli explained the machlokes here based on Tosfos' view that in addition to the required derishos v’chakiros, beis din has a right to further question witnesses.  The witnesses are not bound to answer these additional detailed queries, but if they do, they must answer correctly.  There is no machlokes between R’ Akiva and the other Tanaim – it is a matter of what circumstances allow for.  Where society was as a whole ethical and crime, especially a heinous crime like murder, was an aberration, beis din could seek to avoid capital punishment knowing that this would not lead to an increase in immoral behavior.  But when society was plagued by social and moral ills,  a tough stance on crime was needed and beis din could not afford to not mete out capital punishments.

The kohen gadol, as a leader in Klal Yisrael, is responsible for the moral state of society as a whole.  That is what he should be davening for and working to improve.  Had society been more just and more ethical, it would be possible for beis din to interrogate the witnesses more fully and see that no penalty of ir miklat or capital punishment is ever carried out.  But because society is not on that level, the murderer must suffer a more severe penalty for his deeds.

(Side note: isn't R' Akiva's position fascinating?  Even though there is a clear mandate of u'bi'arta ha'ra mi'kirbecha and testimony to incriminate the wrongdoer, he uses a loophole of sorts [that's probably too charged a word to use] to circumvent the seemingly inevitable outcome of death because of his belief that justice would not be served in that way.  Isn't that allowing a subjective value judgment of what the "right" outcome should be to enter into the equation?  Isn't that deliberately tilting the scales one way?  Something to ponder.
Side note #2: see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 3 p. 87 for a different approach to understanding the power of the kohen's tefilah and his responsibility.)

On a completely different note, apropos of the 9 days, the Tiferes Shlomo derech derush comments on the pasuk describing the boundaries of Erertz Yisrael, "V'hisavisem lachem l'gevul keidmah...." (34:10), literally translated, "You will turn the border..." that perhaps the word "v'hisavisem" is an allusion to the word "ta'avah," desire.  We have to have a ta'avah for Eretz Yisrael -- to want to be there, to want the Shechinah to return there.

ramban on the mitzvah of yishuv ha'arertz

The Ramban in last week’s parsha (33:53) writes that “v’horashtem es ha’aretz v’yishavtem bah” is a mitzvah to conquer and live in Eretz Yisrael.

על דעתי זו מצוות עשה היא, יצווה אותם שישבו בארץ ויירשו אותה כי הוא נתנה להם, ולא ימאסו בנחלת ה'.

He then adds something that I think is a little surprising. Let me explain with an example: taking a lulav on Sukkos is a mitzvas aseh. If I were to ask what a bitul of that aseh would be, I think you would answer (as would I) that the bitul aseh is not taking a lulav. The negation of P is not-P. You wouldn’t immediately say that taking the branch of an orange tree or an apple tree is the bitul aseh, except in the sense that if you do these things you have failed to take the lulav and are guilty of not-P.

So what constitutes a bitul aseh of yishuv ha’aretz? Had you asked me, I would have said it's not settling the land, assuming there is no good reason to not do so. Ramban, however, writes:

. ואלו יעלה על דעתם ללכת ולכבוש ארץ שנער או ארץ אשור וזולתן ולהתיישב שם, יעברו על מצוות ה'.

Why does he talk about planning to conquer some other land and settling there as the bitul of the mitzvah? Even if I don’t plan to conquer some other land and make it my home, the every fact that I didn’t settle in Eretz Yisrael given the opportunity to do so should count as a bitul mitzvah! I’m not sure what to make of what he is saying. It’s almost as if there was an issur aseh involved here, and just remaining passive is not enough to violate the issue – it requires at least making some affirmative plan to do something, i.e. to conquer some other county, in order to reach the threshold of having violated that issur. Notice that he ends the sentence where he speaks about the mitzvah by switching to the negative, "v'lo yimasu b'nachalas Hashem."  Furthermore, it seems that the bitul of the mitzvah can only be through a communal effort (a din in the tzibur) -- the Ramban phrases it in the plural, and logically speaking, conquering a different country is not something that could be undertaken as an individual effort.  Is the chiyiv to conquer and settle Eretz Yisrael a chovas hatzibur, or is each individual responsible to make whatever effort he/she can to live there?  I have more questions than answers here.

dedicate your shabbos to toras eretz yisrael

Just as seforim bring down that it’s not a coincidence that Parshas Pinchas, which contains many mitzvos of korbanos haregel, usually falls out during the three weeks when our attention is focused on the churban haMikdash and the loss of korbanos, I’m sure it’s not by chance that we read Parshas Masei, which contains the command to conquer and settle Eretz Yisrael and describes the borders of Eretz Yisrael, during this time period.  It’s a bit scary to think that for hundreds and hundreds of years Jews have read this parsha and could only dream of fulfilling the mitzvah of returning to Eretz Yisrael and securing it’s borders, and here we have the privilege and opportunity to live it.  I have a suggestion: dedicate your divrei Torah this Shabbos to Eretz Yisrael and to add to the zechus of those defending it. 

The Torah uses a peculiar word when setting out the borders of Eretz Yisrael: “V’hisasvisem lachem m’gevul keidma…” (34:10)  Rashi explains that the word “hisavisem” is like the word “tisa’u,” which means to turn, i.e. the border slants.  I’m sure, however, that when you first heard that word “v’hisavisem” your mind associated it with the word: “ta’avah,” desire.  That’s not by chance says the Radomsker.  The Torah is hinting that you have to have a ta’avah for Eretz Yisrael.  Ta’avah is usually a bad thing, but not when it comes to the desire to return to our homeland.  Adds the Radomsker, even if you can’t act on that ta’avah right now, having the desire itself is a tikun for galus.  This Shabbos lets work on arousing our ta’avah for Eretz Yisrael.

It takes an army to win a war, but it takes more than that as well.  Rashi comments on the pasuk, “Zos ha’aretz asher tipol lachem b’nachalah…” (34:2) that Hashem will throw down and tie up the angelic forces of our enemies. We are fighting an enemy that believes in the antithesis of justice and morality (see my wife's post here); we are engaged in a clash of values. Victory depends on our rededication to Torah morals and values that are true and just.  If we do what is right, all the phony and false ideologies that are just pretenders to justice will have no leg to stand on.  The pasuk here hints at exactly how to do that, explains the Maor v’Shemesh.  “Asher tipol lachem,” the downfall of the enemy will come “b’NaCHaLaH” = through our fulfilling Nafsheinu CHiksa L’Hashem.  On Shabbos we have a neshoma yesirah, so we can add a double measure of nafshienu chiksa l’Hashem.

The Torah warns that if we fail to finish off our enemies they will be a thorn in our side and “v’haya ka’asher dimisi la’ason lahem e’eseh lachem.”  (33:55-56)  The Midrash in many places tells us that the word “v’haya” connotes simcha.  What kind of simcha is there in Hashem telling us that what he was going to do to the enemy will come back to us?  And what are we to make of such a promise – Hashem’s covenant with Klal Yisrael is eternal; he would never destroy us the way our enemies are meant to be destroyed?

The Igra d’Kallah explains that in an ideal world we would not have to take up arms against our enemies.  Hashem would do the fighting for us; there would be overtly miraculous victories.  However, Klal Yisrael did not live up to that standard.  Instead of open miracles taking place and our enemies simply dissolving, we have to take up arms, we have to fight.  This is the test Hashem challenges us with.  That being said, miracles will still take place to ensure our victory – just they will be hidden in the derech hateva, hidden behind what looks like our own accomplishments and deeds. 

The pasuk here is telling us is that even if we fail to live up to the ideal of Hashem doing all the work for us, even if the enemy is left as a test for us to do battle with, “v’haya,” Hashem will still have great simcha.  “Ka’asher dimisi la’asos lahem,” the fight that I, G-d, personally would have taken care of with overt miracles, “e’eseh lachem,” I will do through you, by bringing about those miracles through the derech ha’teva of your actions.  Out soldiers are living this pasuk.

The parsha ends off with the complaint of the leaders of Menasheh that if girls who inherit a portion of land (like Bnos Tzelafchad) get to marry whomever they want, it would mean that land would pass from sheivet to sheivet, as their husbands/children who inherit them may be from another sheivet.  R’ Tzadok haKohen points out that we have a whole holiday of T”u b’Av to celebrate the day that the shevatim liften the ban against marrying into sheivet Binyamin – having the shevatim intermingle is a good thing!  Nonetheless, the love of Menasheh for Eretz Yisrael, the desire to preserve their cheilek in Eretz Yisrael and not surrender it to anyone else (each of us has a unique cheilek that corresponds to our unique neshoma) outweighs that value.  A new parsha of Torah came into being as a result of their complaint, as a result of their love of Eretz Yisrael.

We have a halacha that whoever mourns for the churban will be zocheh to experience the simcha of geulah, but there is also another path to merit geulah says the Radomsker.  Chazal tell us that the reward for oneg Shabbos is a “nachala b’li meitzarim” --   derech remez, a portion without a bein ha’meitzarim.  Especially this Shabbos we should keep in mind the words we add in bentching: “… she’lo te’hei tzarah v’yagon b’yom menuchaseinu," that there be no pain and suffering for ourselves or for those fighting on our behalf, "...v’hareinu Hashem Elokeinu b’nechamas Tzion irecha…," so that we see nechamas Tzion and all of Eretz Yisrael.

a question of priorities

There were three cities of refuge in Eiver haYarden alone and another three for all of Eretz Yisrael.  It seems that that Eiver haYarden had a disproportionate share of murderers compared with the rest of Eretz Yisrael.  I heard an interesting thought from R' Meir Goldvicht as to why this should have been the case.  Bnei Reuvain and Gad made a deal with Moshe.  They told Moshe that they will leave behind their cattle, their wives and children, and lead the rest of Bnei Yisrael in battle on the condition that they can have the land of Eiver haYarden.  When he accepted the deal, Moshe corrected one thing they said.  He told them to build cities for their wives and children and a place for their cattle -- a home for their children is the first priority, cattle second.  Although Bnei Reuvan and Gad got the message that their children's needs were paramount, the fact is that for the long campaign of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael their children grew up with no fathers.  Most of the male population served as soliders and there was no one home to help raise families.  As a result, the society of Eiver haYarden was tainted in a way that other communities were not.

Nedarim 22 records that Ula witnessed the murder of one of his travelling companions en route to Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara asks how this could be -- the pasuk of "v'nasan Hashem lecha shem lev ragaz" applies to Bavel, not Eretz Yisrael.  The gemara answers that the murder happened before they had crossed the Yarden.  It seems from this gemara that there is a segulah aspect to Eretz Yisrael not being a land in which murder occurs.

emphasizing the miraculous

The Rambam (and Ralbag and a few other Rishonim that we generally lump together in the "rationalist" camp) generally try to minimize the extent of the miraculous in the Torah.  It is surprising therefore that the Rambam of all people explains that the reason the Torah lists the places Bnei Yisrael traveled in the midbar at the beginning of Parshas Masei is in order to demonstrate that Bnei Yisrael did not stick close to centers of civilization and oases, but rather wandered deep into the desert (as we see from the names of their rest stops) where they had no access to provisions other than the mon and water from the well of Miriam. This explanation (as opposed to some of the others) heightens the nature of our miraculous survival in the midbar.

speech! speech!

The leaders of sheivet Menashe were concerned lest Bnos Tzelafchad marry men from other shevatim and their property pass through inheritance by their husbands or children to other tribes.  The Torah's solution (al pi peshuto shel mikra -- see below) was that Bnos Tzelafchad must marry only within their own sheivet.   The Torah prefaces this ruling by saying, "Latov b'eineihen t'hiyena l'nashim," that the Bnos Tzelafchad may marry whomever they desire -- and then adds the stipulation so long as whomever they desire is from their own sheivet. Wouldn't it have been more to the point to just tell the Bnos Tzefchad who they **can't** marry -- which is the whole point here -- without these introductory words?

According to one opinion in Chazal (B"B 120), the prohibition against marrying members of other shevatim applied to everyone **except** the Bnos Tzelafchad. The order of the pasuk according to this view makes perfect sense. The Torah first sets out the law: Bnos Tzelafchad were legally entitled to marry whomever they desired. The Torah then follows up with a bit of advice: Even the Bnos Tzelafchad should stick to their own sheivet. (The Netziv writes that the reasoning behind this advice is not just a matter of keeping property within the sheivet, but is a far broader directive -- don't flaunt being different. Just because you can take advantage of a special privilege that sets you apart doesn't mean doing so is a good idea.)

The Ksav Sofer offers a different answer (in keeping with the pshuto shel mikra that Bnos Tzelafchad could not marry outsiders) based on a a chiddush he quotes from the Panim Yafos. Although both husbands and children could inherit, the real issue sheivet Menashe had was specifically with husbands inheriting.  Although children of the Bnos Tzelafchad would count as members of their father's sheivet, the Panim Yafos writes that ultimately, since children have only a kinyan peiros(see Gittin 48a-b), the property of the children remained owned by their tribe of Menashe. Given this premis, Bnos Tzelafchad had a way to avoid the problem raised by the leaders of their sheivet. All they had to do was find husbands who would forgo their right to inherit, i.e. husbands who would agree to marry with a tnai that they are mochel on any potential yerusha.

What kind of husband, says the Ksav Sofer, would agree to such a deal? Obviously, one who is desperate to get married, even at the cost of sacrificing any chance to reap potential inheritance. (I guess the Ksav Sofer did not go for Hollywood-like romantic notions of a group of prince charmings gladly sacrificing their right of yerusha for the sake of their beloved Bnos Tzelafchad.  All I can say is that the value of land meant much more back then...). If this was the only way out for the Bnos Tzelafchad, they would be forced to shoot very low in their shidduch expecations! Therefore, the Torah here prefaces it's solution, namely that Bnos Tzelafchad marry only within their sheivet and therefore not have to force their husbands to forgo the right to inherit, with the positive message that the Bnos Tzefchad would now be free to marry whomever they desire, even from the cream of the crop of Menashe.

Before seeing the Ksav Sofer I understood the pasuk almost the reverse of the way he did. Rather than take it as good news, I understood the message that Bnos Tzefchad may only marry other members of their same sheivet to be pretty bad news. Their shidduch pool just shrank to 1/12 of what it was beforehand! (Imagine the shidduch crisis editorials of that time.) Rather than overwhelm the Bnos Tzefchad with this announcement, the Torah first puts a positive spin on things -- don't worry, you still can marry whomever you desire. Only after first stressing the silver lining does the Torah reveal that they"whomever you desire" has a caveat thrown in: provided the person is a member of your own sheivet.

The mussar haskel of either reading of the pasuk is to be sensitive about how bad news is delivered. Don't just deliver the facts without also addressing the emotional content (speaking personally I know this is easy to write but hard to practice.)  The Torah goes out of its way to stress the positive side of the solution being offered to Bnos Tzelafchad not just as a matter of spin, but out of sincere concern that they realize the good that can come out of the situation.

The Ksav Sofer earlier in Matos demonstrates again how by placing a secondary detail first the Torah subtly communicates an important message. Moshe tells the Bnei Reuvain and Gad, "Bnu lachem arim l'tapchem... v'hayotzei m'pichem ta'asu." (32:24) The building of cities in Eiver haYarden was not a point under debate -- the only issue was whether Bnei Reuvain and Gad would keep their and assist the rest of Bnei Yisrael to fight. Why did Moshe even bother to mention cities and homes for the children who would remain behind?

Recall that when Reuvain and Gad spoke to Moshe they first emphasized their desire for pasture land and only secondarily mentioned their children and families. In speaking to them Moshe reversed the order. Rashi explains that Moshe wanted to set their priorities straight: First comes children, and everything else is secondary.

The promises of a person with misplaced priorities -- someone who puts his $ even before his own children -- are not worth much. If one's own children take a backseat to money, surely a promise would take a backseat as well. Therefore, Moshe tells Bnei Reuvain and Gad to build cities and homes for their children. First get straight what is important in life. Once you have that down, "Hayotzei m'pichem ta'asu," you can be trusted to fulfill your promise, because you will then realize that ethics and responsibility, like children, are far more important than dollars and cents.

So in this post we've spoken a lot about speech -- how Moshe spoke to the Bnos Tzelafchad, how Moshe spoke to the Bnei Reuvain and Gad.  I think this is the theme of the closing of BaMidbar.  I haven't had a chance to fully formulate my thoughts on this yet, so I'm just going to throw our my jumbled stream of consciousness since I'm out of time.  Hope something here makes sense.  Sefer Devarim is Misheh Torah, it's the review session, so in a certain sense Matos-Masei is the conclusion of the Torah as a whole.  We started this four book journey with the creation of man, a "ruach m'malela," a speaking creature, as the Targum translates, and we end by coming back to the theme of speech, particularly as highlighted in the subject of nedarim.  The chassidishe seforim explain:  "Lo yachel devaro," do not make one's speech chulin, mundane and profane; "K'chol ha'yotzei m'piv ya'aseh," and if so, G-d will carry out what you ask and speak of before Him. 

"Vayavei Yosef es dibasam ra'ah el avihem," Yosef's evil speech about his brothers brought us through Braishis into the galus of Sefer Shmos.  The Bnos Tzelofchad describe their father as "meis bamidbar," which the midrash explains as a reference to dibur, speech -- he may have been one of the misonenim or mislonenim (see Ksav v'Kabbalah).  And to some degree it was speech, the words of the Mergalim, that did in the entire dor hamidbar, the generation of (corrupt) speech.  Now we have his descendents, the generation who was redeemed and now stands to inherit Eretz Yisrael, being described as, "Kein Bnos Tzelofchad dovros...," Kein mateh Bnei Yosef dovrim..." (36:5 - see Tiferes Shlomo).  The speech of Yosef that led Klal Yisrael into galus is now validated by Moshe and G-d.

two nice meshech chochma's on parshas masei

Two nice Meshech Chochma's on last week's parsha:

1. Why is it that the arei miklat were not koleit until after kibush v'chiluk, until after the conquest and apportionment of Eretz Yisrael? The only way a murderer was allowed out of an ir miklat was if the kohen gadol died. A person who killed b'shogeg lived every day with the hope that today might be the day of the K"G's passing. The Mishna tells us that the mother's of the kohanim used to bring treats to distribute in the cities so that those in galus would not daven for their son's demise. Since Hashem had said that the division of Eretz Yisrael would be done by Yehoshua and Elazar, it meant that Elazar would live at least another fourteen years -- anyone sent to an ir miklat before that had no chance of getting out. A person can't live without hope! It's not enough to know that a few years or months down the road things may be better -- a person needs to feel there is some chance of things getting better today.

2. The pasuk refers to the shogeg not leaving ir miklat until the passing of the kohen gadol "asher mashach oso," who was annointed by the murderer. It sounds like the murderer b'shogeg was the one who annointed the Kohen, which makes no sense. The gemara therefore interprets the pasuk to mean, "asher nimshach," the kohen who was annointed (passive voice instead of active). So why, asks the Meshech Chochma, does the Torah phrase things in such a misleading way? He explains that Hashem dictates b'hashgacha pratis precisely how long each shogeg must stay in the ir miklat. One person may deserve to stay there 10 years; another person might only deserve to be there 10 days. Who would be appointed kohen gadol and how long that kohen gadol would live was directly dependent (hence the active voice) on the sentence deserved by the murderer. This is a powerful lesson in hashgacha pratis is. We are talking about the kohen gadol who served all of Klal Yisrael in an enormously important capacity, yet who gets that job might depend on the needs of a single person in ir miklat.

tefilos on behalf of someone else

Last week we touched briefly on the power of one’s tefilos to affect another person’s ruchniyus. The Maor Va’Shemesh writes that even those who did join in the physical battle against Midyan shared responsibility for the soldiers’ hirhurei avirah during battle. Why are those who remained behind responsible for the aveiros of the soldiers? Because had they been davening better for the soldiers' success, there would not have been aveiros!

We find the same idea in this week’s parsha. One who murders b’shogeg must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the kohen gadol. The Mishna says that the mothers of the kohanim used to deliver food to these refugees so they wouldn’t daven for the death of their children. What did the kohanim do wrong to deserve this? The gemara explains that they should have davened that there be no killings on their watch (see Maharal, Gur Aryeh, on Rashi 35:25!)

(Parenthetically, the Targum Yonasan says the K.G. should have davened for this on Yom Kippur, opening the door to the question of why a K.G. appointed after Y.K. who dies before the next Y.K. responsible. I'm not so bothered if the details of derush don't match the halacha 100%, but see the notes in the Gan Ravah which discusses this.)

Another example: The gemara (Brachos 10) tells us that Brurya told her husband, R’ Meir, that rather than pray for the demise of the sinners in the neighborhood, he should daven that they do teshuvah.

Question: Hakol b’yedei shamayim chutz m’yiras shamayim – commitment and belief must be arrived at through free will, bechira chofshis. How then can one person’s tefilos influence whether another person will do teshuvah, will do aveiros or mitzvos?

There are two basic approaches to the issue:

1) Tefilah has an indirect effect. Most of the meforshim I have seen take this approach. Bechira does not take place in a vacuum. There are always obstacles which prevent us from being truly free to make any choices we like. Temptation, a lack of ability to focus on what is important, jobs and stress which sap energy and concentration all tilt the scale. Another person’s tefilah cannot cause me to choose to do the right thing, but it can cause Hashem to remove some of the obstacles that might be preventing me from framing the issue properly and being truly free to choose.

2) Tefilah has a direct effect. This approach is developed by R’ Dessler in Michtav m’Eliyahu. Every cheit in effect is a chilul Hashem, as it minimizes Hashem’s glory in the world. Onesh is not punitive or vindictive, but rather is meant to restore that glory to its proper place by showing that those who act improperly suffer consequences. But what if Hashem’s glory could be restored in some other way? That’s exactly what happens when someone else is inspired to daven for a chotei. Instead of sin desecrating G-d’s name, sin becomes a vehicle for people to draw close to Hashem.

There seems to be differences in the way this idea is presented in different essays in Michtav. In my simplified version the chotei escapes punishment because the chilul Hashem he/she caused is rectified in some other way, namely by arousing tefilos of others. In other places R’Dessler seems to stress that tefilah must also impact the chotei. By becoming aware that he/she has served as an inspiration to tefilah, the chotei him/herself is inspired to do better. In yet other places Michtav relates this idea to his concept of nekudas habechira. We do not actively engage in choosing every action we do. Most of what we do is by rote and habit – e.g. I did not really have to exercise my bechira chofshis in deciding not to eat treif for lunch today. On the other hand, someone who is used to eating a Big Mac for lunch and then becomes a ba’al teshuvah may really have to exercise bechira and choose to not go down that road again. Which situations require active bechira varies by person. Somehow tefilah can change someone's nekudas habechira so they are not forces to choose how to act in scenarios that might trip them up. I’m not clear on how this works or how it fits together with the other points R' Dessler makes.

Along similar lines as this topic, Chassidishe seforim in many places mention that a tzadik has the power to elevate tefilos of others even where those tefilos are inadequate or would otherwise be rejected (one example: see Tiferes Shlomo, Parshas Pinchas, on “Vayakreiv Moshe es mishpatan…:) I don’t fully understand how this works. How can someone else help my tefilos do their job if the words are undeserving? Maybe somebody can explain it.