hate and love that eclipse all else; reward is only when you go the extra mile

Kozbi bas Tzur was a Midianite princess.  Rashi writes that We see the degree of hatred Midian had for Bn"Y from the fact they were willing to sacrifice even their nobility to the goal of causing Bn"Y to be chotei.  R' Shtienman in his Ayeles haShachar points out that the people of Midian were maaminim. They accepted that Hashem would be angered at Bn"Y's actions and take care of them. If Midyan believed in Hashem and knew he would be angered by arayos, then doesn't it follow that Hashem would also be angry at them for hatching such a plan? 

We see that a person can be so bent on bringing someone else down that they lose sight of the fact that in doing so their own actions are a far cry from causing nachas ruach to Hashem.  Apply as you will to current events. 

 

We have almost the flipside of this attitude in the parsha.  Pinchas gets a huge reward for curbing Hashem's anger against Bn"Y and bringing a mageifa to a halt.  פִּֽינְחָ֨ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי:  The Agra d'Kallah is medayek that 2 times the pasuk mentions ּ בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, but in the middle it doesn't mention their name, it just says בְּתוֹכָ֑ם.  The pasuk could just as well have ended  וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אותם, or could just as well have said in the beginning הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מעליהם.  Why  does it repeat the name of Bn"Y unnecessarily 2x and then leave it out?  He answers that the pasuk uses the full name בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל when speaking about Bn"Y being saved in order to emphasize that in essence, Bn"Y is pure and does not deserve punishment.  That's their identity.  When it comes to the middle of the pasuk where it speaks about בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י for what they did wrong, the pasuk switches to a pronoun, to a kinuy, because when it comes to doing wrong, that's not us, that's not our identity or who we are.  Then he adds an additional point:

 

עוד תתבונן בפסוק אהבת הבורא ית' לישראל, הגם שפנחס קינא קנאת הש"י, לא עשה הש"י מזה עיקר, רק להיות שנמשך עבור קנאתו הצלת ישראל, זה הוחשב לו לעיקר הזכות, וזה יורה באומרו השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו וכו' ולא כליתי וכו' לכן אמור וכו' (במדבר כה יב), כי זה הוא העיקר אשר מצא חן בעיני, וחש הבורא ית' על כבוד בניו יותר מכבודו

 

The ַקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is not the reason for the reward of Pinchas.  The reason for the reward is הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל and וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.  The קַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is just the means to that end. 

Hashem kavyachol turns a blind eye to his own kavod and instead places the emphasis on Bn"Y being saved, because His love of Bn"Y kavyachol outweighs all else.   

Midian is all about hatred blinding a person to their lack of kavod shamayim.  Pinchas' reward speak about Hashem's love outweighing even kavod Shamayim.  Opposite attitudes.

 

2) Pinchas saved Klal Yisrael and got this great reward.  Tremendous!  But didn't Moshe do that for 40 years?  Didn't Aharon in parshas Korach bring a stop to a mageifa by offering ketores?  Where is the applause for them, where is the special reward of a bris? 

 

I saw a beautiful answer.  Moshe and Aharon were the leaders of Klal Yisrael.  As leaders, they are supposed to stand up for their constituents, for the people.  That's their job.  You don't get extra rewards for doing your job.  Pinchas wasn't even a kohen (according to some shitos) yet.  He had no responsibility to stand up for anyone.  For him to step forward and take the bull by the horns, risking his life along the way, is above and beyond the call of duty.  That's why he gets reward.

korban musaf on shabbos and lechem mishneh

Around 2-3 weeks ago someone asked me whether a double portion of mon fell before Yom Tov and I pointed them to Tos in Beitzah 2b the end of d"h v'haya:

תימה דכאן משמע שהמן לא היה יורד בי"ט כדפי' רש"י הששי הראוי להכנה וזהו בחול והא אמר ויברך ויקדש ברכו במן וקדשו במן שבשבת לא היה יורד מן אבל בי"ט היה יורד וי"ל דמדרשים חלוקין כדאיתא במדרש (מכילתא פ' בשלח) שבת לא יהיה (שמות טז) לרבות יום הכפורים לא יהיה בו לרבות י"ט שלא היה יורד בהן מן ועי"ל דאפי' היה יורד בי"ט מ"מ בי"ט שחל להיות בע"ש לא היה יורד מדכתיב קרא בו ביום הששי ולא כתיב ששי משמע הששי המיוחד שהוא ראוי להכנה ולא בששי שהוא יו"ט 

The problem is that there are 2 halachos that we learn from the mon: 1) the requirement to have lechem mishneh to commemorate the double portion of mon; 2) we eat seudah shlishis on shabbos because there were 2 portions of mon left to eat on that day.  If a double portion of mon fell for Y"T like shabbos, and therefore we require lechem mishneh on Y"T, then shouldn't we also have to eat seudah shlishis on Y"T?  

Be that as it may, the reason I bring this topic up is because of the Daas Zekeinim/Hadar Zekeinim's explanation based on Midrash of why there are 2 sheep offered for the korban musaf on Shabbos:

כל מעשים של שבת כפולים. שירו כפול מזמור שיר ליום השבת. תענוגו כפול וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה׳ מכובד. עונשו כפול מחלליה מות יומת. לחמו כפול לחם משנה. קרבנותיו כפולים שני כבשים. וזהו שאנחנו אומרים ותצונו ה׳ אלהינו להקריב בה קרבן מוסף שבת כראוי לו.

The Ohr haChaim similarly comments:

טעם שמוסף שבת הוא מועט מכל מוספי ראש חודש ומוספי יום טוב והמועדים, הוא סוד לחם משנה

If you know what he means by "sod lechem mishneh," I guess keep it a secret.

The Abarbanel is having none of this:

ואמנם למה היה מוסף השבת שני כבשים כתמידין כתבו מאחרוני המפרשים שמפני שבשבת דבורו כפול זכור ושמור לכן היה קרבנו שני כבשי׳ כנגד שני הדבורים שנאמרו עליו ואינו נכון. כי הנה זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו

His explanation is that the 2 sheep correspond to the 2 reasons for shabbos, 1) zecher l'maaseh braishis; 2) zecher l'yetzi'as Mitzrayim, or they correspond to 1) the act of creation; 2) Hashem's hashgacha in maintaining creation.

In the sefer V'Darashta v'Chakarta (telita'ah, question #5 on the parsha), R' Grossman asks: if bringing 2 sheep corresponds to the doubling of the portion of mon, to the "sod lechem mishneh" as the Ohr haChaim puts it, then since a double portion also fell for Y"T shouldn't Y"T have the same korban as Shabbos?  

B'mechilas k'vodo, I don't understand the question.  Putting aside that whether the double potion fell for Y"T is a machlokes I still don't get it.  Maybe ain hachi nami, if there was no other reason for the musafim on Y"T, they would be the same as those of Shabbos.  But there are other reasons!  Because a double portion of mon fell for Y"T doesn't preclude our offering more korbanos to celebrate and recognize other aspects of Y"T that do not apply on shabbos.  Why should the "sod lechem mishneh" be dominant and push off the very good reasons (whatever they are -- see the various meforshim) we might have for offering an increased number of korbanos on Y"T?

To answer his questioh he suggests that there is a difference between the way the mon fell before shabbos vs the way it fell before Y"T.  Before shabbos the people would gather one portion of mon which would then miraculously double in size and they would find that they had twice as much as they had gathered.  Before Y"T, they would gather a double portion, i.e. twice as much as on a normal day.

It's like l'mashal 2 people who beis din paskens have to pay $200.  One has to pay $200 because they stole $100 and now have to pay keifel = $200.  The other has to pay $200 because they took a loan and owe $200.  That $200 is all keren, not keifel.  Shabbos is keifel, is one portion turned into two.  Y"T is a double portion k'peshuto, meaning the people gathered twice as much as they did on an ordinary day.

Unfortunately he does not quote any proofs to this assertion in this piece, but references what he wrote elsewhere in a piece that I have been unable to location online.  

24x7 protection -- kri'as shema and parshas balak

Rav Shlomo Fisher (Derashos Beis Yishei) points out an interesting remez in the names Balak ben Tzipor and Bilam ben Be'or.  The name Tzipor hints to the morning, like the Aramaic word tzafra.  The name Be'or has the same letters as the word erev, evening.  Bilam's power was limited to the night.  לינו פּה הלילה he tells the messengers who come to ellicit his help.  Balak, on the other hand, took charge in the morning. וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיִּקַּ֤ח בָּלָק֙ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֖הוּ בָּמ֣וֹת בָּ֑עַל וַיַּ֥רְא מִשָּׁ֖ם קְצֵ֥ה הָעָֽם: (22:41).  The Ohr haChaim, whose yahrzeit is this upcoming week, asks why the pasuk specifies the time in which this event happened.  He quotes a Zohar that the sorcery of Balak involved birds, and this is why he was called Tzipor.  Therefore, he was up early in the morning when the birds start chirping (OC gives a few other explanations).  Whether the birds were the sibah of his power or just a siman for the start of the day, either way, we see this link between Balak and the morning.  This is why Bilam and Balak wanted to pair up.  Each one was the missing that half of the day that the other one needed. 

Klal Yisrael fortunately has the antidote to their power.  הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א לֹ֤א יִשְׁכַּב֙ עַד־יֹ֣אכַל טֶ֔רֶף וְדַם־חֲלָלִ֖ים יִשְׁתֶּֽה (24:24).  Rashi comments: הֶן־עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וגו'. כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָם שַׁחֲרִית, הֵן מִתְגַּבְּרִין כְּלָבִיא וְכַאֲרִי לַחֲטֹף אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת — לִלְבֹּשׁ טַלִּית, לִקְרֹא אֶת שְׁמַע וּלְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין:  We start the morning enveloping ourselves in mitzvos, but we don't stop there.  לֹא יִשְׁכַּב. בַּלַּיְלָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְחַבֵּל כָּל מַזִּיק הַבָּא לְטָרְפוֹ, כֵּיצַד? קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ וּמַפְקִיד רוּחוֹ בְּיַד הַמָּקוֹם  We end the day by connecting ourselves with Hashem as well.  Whether it is morning or night, there is not a time that we are separated from Hashem.

 

The gemara in Brachos (12) says that Chazal thought about requiring us to read parshas Balak every day like kri'as shema: אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בֶּן זוּטַרְתִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְבּוֹעַ פָּרָשַׁת בָּלָק בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קְבָעוּהָ — מִשּׁוּם טוֹרַח צִבּוּר.  Our parsha, which shows that special connection to Hashem day and night would be paired with shema read day and night.  The gemara explains:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ הַאי קְרָא: ״כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ״.  

Rashi writes:

כרע שכב – דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא:  

Maharasha, however, quotes a different girsa from the Tanchuma:

ושוב מצאתי בתנחומא דמייתי קרא דלעיל מיניה הן עם כלביא יקום וגו' לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף וגו' והוא נכון טפי בדרש זה לענין ק"ש של שחרית וערבית.  

As we see from Rashi in our parsha, that pasuk speaks about our alacrity in reading shema.  The pasuk our girsa quotes is speaking not about our actions, but rather about Hashem's watchfulness over us.  What does that have to do with our obligation to recite shema?

 

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Balak 3:3) quotes a question from the Besh"T: Why does our pasuk start by referring to a לָבִ֣יא, a female lion, הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם, and only afterwards וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א, but in the other pasuk the order is reversed, first we are called an אֲרִי, a male, stronger lion, ָּכָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, and only afterwards ּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ?

 

R' Tzadok explains that הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א is the normal order of things.  You start slowly and build to a crescendo.  The pasuk of כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ is talking about Klal Yisrael c"v on the decline.  When we fall, all is not lost.  כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, we will rise again like a lion. Even if we fall even further and are no longer like the mighty אֲרִי,  we are still כְלָבִיא, and can bounce back.  And even if we fall further still, all is never lost. מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  R' Tzadok quotes from the Zohar: דכל אורחין דתיובתא פתיחין מיני' והיינו דמי גימ' נ' שערי בינה והוא תשובה וכמו שנאמר ולבבו יבין ושב.  We can never lose our access to the gate of teshuvah.  We say in Tehillim אִם־עֲוֺנ֥וֹת תִּשְׁמׇר ק־הּ ה׳ מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד.  Even if Hashem counts all our sins against us, מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד, there is still the 50th gate of teshuvah which allows our return. 

 

Bilam wanted to use this against us.  Eat, drink, be merry, because no matter what you do, it won't count against you.  That's obviously not the take away lesson.  The takeaway lesson is that when it comes time to read shema, to do mitzvos, and a person thinks, "What's the point?  I'm a nothing; there is no way for me to fix all the wrong I have done; there is no way my avodah has any value," the answer is מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  Don't give up.  No matter how far you have fallen, ther door is always open for your return and there is value to your mitzvos. That, explains R' Tzadok, is why the gemara in Brachos quoted davka this pasuk:

 

ופן יפול לב האדם היודע נגעי לבבו כמה קלקל ובאיזו פנים יקבל עול תורה ועול מצות ע"ז רצו לקבוע פ' בלק בק"ש שיהיה להתחזקות שלא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח ויתברר לבסוף ועמך כולם צדיקים

The three weeks are almost upon us.  We remember the churban of the past, but we also think about 10/7 and all that followed.  History constantly tries to do away with us, but we rise again every time.  לא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח

 

Moshe's earth shattering request

1) How could Moshe could have asked for the earth to swallow up Korach and his followers?  Even were we not speaking about Moshe, who is always melamed zechus on Klal Yisrael, the gemara tells us (Shabbos 149b) "ר יעקב בריה דבת יעקב כל שחבירו נענש על ידו אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה   It could be that this is exactly why Bn"Y later complained and accused Moshe and Aharon of causing the death of those who rebelled, thinking that had Moshe been willing to be mochel on his kavod, had he willing to daven for them, they might have lived.  Why wouldn't Moshe just leave things up to Hashem?  

Secondly, why did Moshe asked for this specific punishment of the earth swallowing up Korach?  What's the midah k'neged midah? 

To start with a more basic question, what's the earth shattering news about what occurred here?  The words וְאִם־בְּרִיאָ֞ה יִבְרָ֣א imply that the punishment Moshe called for upon Korach was something new and unheard of.  Is that really true?  Were there no earthquakes before this point in time?

Ibn Ezra writes that we shouldn't read the word יִבְרָ֣א here as implying a yesh m'ayin creation that never before existed, but rather, read it like the pasuk in Yechezkel (23:47) וְרָֽגְמ֨וּ עֲלֵיהֶ֥ן אֶ֙בֶן֙ קָהָ֔ל וּבָרֵ֥א אֽוֹתְהֶ֖ן בְּחַרְבוֹתָ֑ם, as meaning cut down.  Ramban answers that of course there were earthquakes where the earth opened up and people sank in, but never before was there a situation of וּבָֽלְעָ֤ה אֹתָם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֔ם, where the earth closed up again on top of those who sank. R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul offers what he thinks is a better answer.  He suggests that the chiddush here is  וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה.  The gemara in Baba Basra writes that Hashem allowed the satan to afflict Iyov, but the satan had to make sure to keep him alive.  (Kind of like when people say Israel has a right to defend itself, just not to drop bombs and actually kill the bad guys)  The satan  viewed this as an almost impossible job.  The Divrei Shaul doesn't quote that gemara, but it's the same idea.  There have always been earthquakes, but in this case Hashem arranged for the earthquake to miraculosuly swallow up Korach and his followers in way that they remained alive.   

 

This perhaps helps explain why Moshe made this request.  The Belzer Rebbe (R' Yisachar Dov) is quoted as explaining that Moshe's tefilah was not to call punishment down on Korach, but rather aderaba, to give him the greatest chance possible to change his mind and escape.  So long as a person has even a moment of life left, change is possible; therefore,  וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה.

 

I think therein is the explanation of the midah k'neged midah as well. Moshe argued to Korach וַיַּקְרֵב֙ אֹֽתְךָ֔ וְאֶת־כָּל־אַחֶ֥יךָ בְנֵֽי־לֵוִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֖ם גַּם־כְּהֻנָּֽה   So what if you are not kohen gadol?  A glass half full is still something to appreciate.  You have riches, you have an honored position; celebrate what you have!  Korach didn't get it.  For him, it was all or nothing.  Therefore, when Korach was falling into the earth, וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה, he had a chance to appreciate that lesson.  When everything is slipping away and you are staring at the abyss, mere existence becomes the most precious thing in the world. Just being alive is a gift, even if you have nothing else.  

2) וַיִּחַר לְמשֶׁה מְאֹד. (16:15)  Rashi explains   נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד.  Why was Moshe upset now more than when he first heard Korach's complaints?  Earlier (16:4) we read וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע משֶׁ֔ה וַיִּפֹּ֖ל עַל־פָּנָֽיו:, but not more than that.

 

Hadar Zekeinim, Chizkuni, and others explain that when Moshe heard Korach's complaint he reacted to the challenge: וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־קֹ֜רַח וְאֶל־כָּל־עֲדָתוֹ֘... Moshe called for a test with the ketores; וַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה אֶל־קֹ֑רַח שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בְּנֵ֥י לֵוִֽי Moshe argued that Korach's followers have the honor of serving as Leviim, etc.  Moshe does all the talking, but we don't find any response on Korach's part.  The only response came from Dasan and Aviram, but they were just along for the ride whenever there was trouble.  

If two people disagree, even if they engage in a heated argument, so long as they are talking, even arguing, there is hope that things will work out.  If they are not talking, then things will never be resolved.  When Moshe got no response from Korach, when all his words amounted to talking to the wall, then נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד because it meant there was no hope.

why Yehoshua and Kaleiv's insight was greater even than that of Moshe

After hearing the report of the spies, Moshe and Aharon reacted with nefilas apayim  (14:5):

 וַיִּפֹּ֥ל משֶׁ֛ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן עַל־פְּנֵיהֶ֑ם לִפְנֵ֕י כָּל־קְהַ֥ל עֲדַ֖ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

 

which usually connoted tefilah.

 

Yehoshua and Kaleiv, on the other hand, reacted by rending their clothes:

 

וִֽיהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֗וּן וְכָלֵב֙ בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּ֔ה מִן־הַתָּרִ֖ים אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ קָֽרְע֖וּ בִּגְדֵיהֶֽם:

 

which is essentially an act of yei'ush, of abandoning hope.  You can't tear kri'ah in aveilus before the person is dead.  So long as their is any sign of life, there is no kri'ah.

 

In this case, Kaleiv and Yehoshua got it right.  When it came to the sin of the spies, there was no hope of forgiveness.  That entire generation was doomed to wander in the wilderness until every last person died. 

 

R' Shlomo Kluger in Imrei Shefer asks: How is it that Kaleiv and Yehoshua were able to intuit what Moshe and Aharon could not? 

 

He offers a number of answers to this question. 

 

The gemara (Kesubos 75) relates:

 

לציון יאמר איש ואיש יולד בה והוא יכוננה עליון' (תהלים פז, ה), אמר רבי מיישא בר בריה דר' יהושע בן לוי, אחד הנולד בה ואחד המצפה לראותה, אמר אביי וחד מינייהו עדיף כתרי מינן, אמר רבא וחד מינן כי סליק להתם עדיף כתרי מינייהו, דהא רבי ירמיה דכי הוה הכא לא הוה ידע מאי קאמרי רבנן, כי סליק להתם קרי לן בבלאי טפשאי

 

R' Yirmiyah was not an accomplished scholar, but when he went to learn in Eretz Yisrael and then came back to Bavel, he far surpassed his colleagues.  "Avira d'Eretz Yisrael machkim."

 

Those high school kids who left in September for a year of yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael are now returning home.  Some of them at least are not the same people that they were when they left.  There learning is a different learning, their interests are different, they suddenly are focused on more important things that the nonsense of high school.  Sure, they are a year older, a year more mature, they have had a full year away from their parents to grow up.  But that's not the full story.  The difference between who they were in Sept and who they are in June is because they had a year of "avira d'Eretz Yisrael."  The kedushas ha'aretz has made an imprint.

 

Says R' Shlomo Kluger: Yehoshua and Kaleiv had spent 40 days in Eretz Yisrael.  Moshe and Aharon never stepped foot there.  Therefore, Yehoshua and Kaleiv's insight surpassed even that of Moshe and Aharon.

Koresh's squandered potential

 

Megillah 12a

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא מאי דכתיב כה אמר ה' למשיחו לכורש אשר החזקתי בימינו וכי כורש משיח היה אלא א"ל הקב"ה למשיח קובל אני לך על כורש אני אמרתי הוא יבנה ביתי ויקבץ גליותי והוא אמר מי בכם מכל עמו ויעל

Hashem wanted to give us the opportunity for geulah in the time of Bayis Sheni, and He did it b'derech ha'teva in such a way that an aku"m, Koresh, might have a piece of the pie and get some credit.  So much potential!  But instead of carrying through, Koresh walked away from the opportunity.   אמר ה' למשיחו לכורש ends up as a testimony not to Koresh's greatness, but to his failure to live up to that potential.

So too in our times.  The end result will still be geulah -- I don't know Hashem's plan of how we will get there, but I do know that we will get there -- but the Koresh's of the modern world seem to have squandered their opportunity for greatness and will have no share in the outcome.

R' Yehudah bar Ila'i, Tzelafchad, and the connection between tzitzis and shabbos

 The gemara (Shabbos 25b) records the kabbalat shabbat practice of R' Yehuda bar Ila'i:

 דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כך היה מנהגו של ר' יהודה בר אלעאי ע"ש מביאים לו עריבה מלאה חמין ורוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ומתעטף ויושב בסדינין המצוייצין ודומה למלאך ה' צבאות והיו תלמידיו מחבין ממנו כנפי כסותן אמר להן בני לא כך שניתי לכם סדין בציצית בית שמאי פוטרין וב"ה מחייבין והלכה כדברי בית הלל ואינהו סברי גזירה משום כסות לילה

 

After he would bathe, RYb"I would wrap himself in a cloak that had tzitzis.  He resembled a holy angel as he sat, waiting for Shabos to arrive. 

 

It sounds like how we start Yom Kippur -- everyone comes to shul just before nightfall and puts on their talis -- but this was not Yom Kippur; this was a regular Shabbos.  Why was donning tzitzis such an integral part of RYb"I's preparations for Shabbos?

 

The appearance of the parsha of tzitzis at the end of our sedra can be read as a response to the meraglim.  The prohibition of "lo tasuru" comes to warn us against making the missteps made in the meraglim's mission "'la'tur ha'aretz." However, Chazal draw another connection as well.  Immediately before the parsha of tzitzis we have the story of the mekoshesh who violated Shabbos.  The Yalkut Shimoni (see Ohr haChaim as well) writes:

 

 תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ, (לעיל פסוק לב) וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּכָל יוֹם תְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאֹשׁוֹ, תְּפִלִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ, וְרוֹאֶה אוֹתָן וְחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּפִילִין חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, צֵא וּבְרֹר לָהֶם דָּבָר שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת לְדֹרֹתָם״ אֵין לְדֹרֹתָם אֶלָּא לְדוֹר תָּם וְאֵין תָּם אֶלָּא יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ה:כ״ז) ״וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם״, תָּם מִגֶּזֶל, תָּם מִגִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, תָּם מִשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.

  

Since we lack the protection afforded by tefillin, tzitzis is our protection against chilul Shabbos. 

 

Based on this, the gemara in Sotah 17a takes on a new meaning:

 

דרש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לב' מצות חוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפלין בשלמא רצועה של תפלין דכתיב וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ותניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש אלא חוט של תכלת מאי היא דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל מיני צבעונין מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד שנאמר ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר וכתיב כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא

 

Techeiles is davka paired with tefillin because these two go hand in hand.  When one is missing, the other takes its place.

The failure of the mekoshesh to keep Shabbos is not the end of that story.  The gemara Shabbos 150b relates:

 

תנו רבנן מעשה בחסיד אחד שנפרצה לו פרץ בתוך שדהו ונמלך עליה לגודרה ונזכר ששבת הוא ונמנע אותו חסיד ולא גדרה ונעשה לו נס ועלתה בו צלף וממנה היתה פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו

 

The Shaar haGilgulim quotes a tradition that the person this story is speaking about was a gilgul of the mekoshesh brought back to the world to fix that sin of chilul Shabbos.  

According to one opinion in Chazal, the identity of the mekoshesh was צלפחד.  In the gemara's story, it was עלתה בו צלף that protected the field.   צלפחד  = צלף חד  , a sharp, thorny צלף plant.  This is a known characteristic of the caper bush, which is native to Israel.

Who was this "chassid" who was the gilgul of Tzelafchad who came back to the world to fix the mitzvah of Shabbos?  Ben Yehoyada writes that it is none other than ר' יהודה בר אלעאי.

 

Now we can understand why ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was so careful to greet Shabbos by putting on his tzitzis.  ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was a gilgul of the mekoshesh, a gilgul of צלפחד.  The first time around through history he lacked the protection afforded by the parsha of tzitzis, which was given only after his death, and so he was mechalel Shabbos.  The second time around he took full advantage of the mitzvah of tzitzis's special protection and avoided the same transgression.