kana'im pogim bo and the need for hasra'ah

Why does the Torah mention the yichus of Pinchas at the opening of our parsha?  Rashi explains:

לפי שהיו שבטים מבזין אותו: הראיתם בן פוטי זה, בן שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה יהרוג נשיא שבט מישראל, לפיכך בא הכתוב ויחסו אחר אהרן.

What does the fact that his grandfather Yisro fattened calves for avodah zarah have to do with the price of tea in China?  

Some explain that the shevatim could not believe that Pinchas' zealotry was completely l'shem shamayim.  They thought maybe he was just a hothead.  There are people who are makpid on details and if even one little thing is slightly off, they blow up.  They can't delegate, because they have tolerance for anyone making the smallest error.  This is what the shevatim meant פיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה.  Why was Yisro, the highest priest, fattening the calves himself?  It must be that he was one of these people who needed to personally handle everything, one of these people who blew up at the drop of a hat if the slightest thing is off.  Is it any wonder that his grandson would be a zealot?  It's in his genes, not l'shem shamayim!  Therefore, the Torah stresses that Pinchas was the grandson of Aharon, the ohev shalom and rodef shalom.

I often daven in a Moroccan yeshiva and have the opportunity to see seforim and sources there that I never heard of before, which is how I chanced upon the Maggid of Marrakesh.  The Maggid explains Rashi by quoting the din in Yevamos 102:

 גר דן את חבירו דבר תורה שנאמר שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר ה' אלהיך בו מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך עליך הוא דבעינן מקרב אחיך אבל גר דן את חבירו גר ואם היתה אמו מישראל דן אפי' ישראל 

This is what bothered the shevatim -- how could Pinchas, who was descended from a ger, judge a member of Klal Yisrael?  Therefore the Torah responds by telling us the yichus of Pinchas, tracing his lineage to a Jewish father, which solves the problem.  

Granting that this approach is derush, I still think it's noteworthy that the Maggid treats קנאים פּוגעים בּו as requiring the same criteria as a din torah.  It's not an extra-judicial concept, but rather is a form of misas beis din carried out by the individual, who serves as judge and jury wrapped in one.

Perhaps that assumption is the nekudas ha'machlokes between Rambam and Raavad.  Rambam writes in Issurei Biah 1:4

כל הבועל כותית בין דרך חתנות בין דרך זנות אם בעלה בפרהסיא והוא שיבעול לעיני עשרה מישראל או יתר אם פגעו בו קנאין והרגוהו הרי אלו משובחין וזריזין . ודבר זה הל"מ הוא ראיה לדבר זה מעשה פנחס בזמרי:

Raavad adds:

תב הראב"ד ז"ל בד"א שהתרו בו ולא פירש אבל לא התרו בו לא אמרינן הרי אלו משובחין עכ"ל:

There is a very difficult Migdal Oz here:

ואני אומר התראה זו לא מצאתיה לא פרק אין מעמידין ולא פרק הנשרפין בבבלי אך בירושלמי יש לו מקצת טעם דאמרינן במעשה זמרי פנחס שלא ברצון חכמים עשה אלא שאין לנו לסמוך עליו הואיל ולא הוזכר בבבלי ושכרו שנתן לו השם מוכיח וגם ר"י אלפס ז"ל לא הביאו בהלכות לומר לך שאינה הלכה ועוד שהרי זמרי בפרהסיא עשה והביאה לפני משה והתריס ומה התראה גדולה מזו והלא אין התראה באה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד וודאי דברי ר"מ ז"ל נכונים:

He writes that the best proof against the Raavad is that we don't see Pinchas giving any hasra'ah to Zimri, but then backtracks and says perhaps that gufa is the reason that the Yerushalmi says שלא ברצון חכמים עשה.  It sounds like he is suggesting that Pinchas may, according to the Yerushalmi, have been in the wrong!  I don't know how you an say that when the whole parsha is about the tremendous reward Hashem granted to Pinchas for his actions.

Be that as it may, perhaps the machlokes Rambam and Raavad here revolves around the Maggid's assumption.  If קנאים פּוגעים בּו is some kind of extra-judicial penalty, then all rules of judicial process go out the window.  However, if it is some quasi maaseh beis din, then maybe hasra'ah is required similar to other cases of dinei nefashos carried out by B"D.

Rav Yaakov David Ilan, in his sefer Masa Yad vol 1, learns the machlokes differently.  Yesh lachkor, he writes, whether hasraah is a din in B"D or a din in the chomer ha'aveira, i.e. is it is the same aveira with or without hasra'ah, but the court needs hasra'ah as a license for them to act, or whether an aveira without hasra'ah is a lesser aveira, and therefore exempt from punishment.

If hasra'ah is a din in B"D, then קנאים פּוגעים בּו, which is not a maaseh B"D, should need no hasraah.  But if hasraah establishes the chomer ha'aveira, then it is necessary even for the punishment of קנאים פּוגעים בּו. 

See also R' Shaul Yisraeli's analysis of the sugya in his Amud ha'Yemini.

the demoralization of America

There is an essay entitled "Decline and Blumenthal" in the collection With My Trousers Rolled: Familiar Essays, by Joseph Epstein (who is one of the most brilliant essay writers of modern times), in which he accurately sums up the mood of modern America:

The pervasive feeling of decline and fall I have been attempting to describe is at bottom about demoralization.  In good part, I believe, this demoralization is owing to the loss of belief in progress.  The United States has always been a country whose underlying assumption has been that or progress - progress unstinting and unrelieved.  I did better than my father, and my children will do better than I -- this was the operating assumption.  It no longer operates very successfully.  For the first time, one hears talk of the downward mobility of children...

Walking the streets of any large American city today one meets with the demented and with the hostile young, lending everything a heavy tone of sadness and menace.  When I was last in Baltimore, a city I have always greatly liked, my overriding impression was that the whole place could use a paint job.  I have begun a quiet campaign to change the sobriquet of New York from the Big Apple to the more fitting the Big Crazy, after the Big Easy, which New Orleans is called.  On the Chicago El one bright Saturday morning I rode from the Loop with a carload of young, my guess is unmarried, mothers, youth-gang members, two men selling newspapers to help the homeless, and a thin, middle-aged transvestite who, I do believe, winked at me as he departed the train at Clark and Division.  One the Howard-Jackson line, it was a A Train, but in such company the strains of Duke Ellington were not to be heard.

The collection was published close to 30 years ago and I don't have the original date of publication of this particular essay in front of me, but it seems to me that what was true then is not only still true now, but is many times worse.  

jump out of bed to face the day

The very first din in Shulchan Aruch, יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו, is based, according to GR"A on our parsha.  The Midrash writes on (23:24)  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא that  אֵין אֻמָּה בָּעוֹלָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם, הֲרֵי הֵן יְשֵׁנִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַמִּצְווֹת וְעוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָן כַּאֲרָיוֹת וְחוֹטְפִין קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמַמְלִיכִין לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְנַעֲשִׂין כַּאֲרָיוֹת וּמַפְלִיגִין לְדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, לְמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, אִם נִתְקַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בְּכֻלָּם אוֹ אִם מְחַבְּלִין בָּאִין לִגַּע בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, מַמְלִיךְ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.  R' Berel Povarski in Bad Kodesh asks why it is that jumping out of bed in the morning is such a big deal.  If you do the same mitzvah without jumping out of bed, is it any worse? 

Before getting to his answer, I want to offer my wife's grandfather's (R' Dov Yehudah Shochet) explanation of what exactly Bilam did wrong.  After all, Hashem in the end did grant Bilam permission to go to meet Balak.  How then can the very next pasuk (22:22) tell us וַיִּחַר⁠ אַף אֱלֹקים כִּי⁠ הוֹלֵךְ הוּא?  Rishonim and Achronim alike have struggled with this issue.

The gemara Brachos (5a) provides us with advice on how to deal with the yetzer ha'ra:

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רִגְזוּ וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ״ אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ  מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדֹמּוּ סֶלָה״.

The question everyone asks is if we have an ace in the whole, namely יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה, what's the point of going step by step through this whole exercise?

My grandfather-in-law asked a more basic question. If the point is וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ, not to sin, then what do we need רִגְזוּ for?  Just tell me not to sin, period, full stop!  Why add לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע?  

He explained (see this post that relates to the end of our parsha as well) that not sinning is not enough.  What Chazal are telling us is that our goal should be not to desire to sin. לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע means you have to work so as to not have a ratzon for sin  If you fail and you have the desire to do wrong, then וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ, but ideally a person should try to not get to that point.

That's why Chazal did not advise a person יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה from the get-go.  True, that will stop a person cold in their tracks and prevent them from succumbing to temptation, but וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ is not the real goal -- the real goal is to avoid having the temptation to begin with.  That you accomplish by learning Torah and growing your desire for spiritual things, or by reading shema and increasing your love of Hashem so it supplants the love of physical things.  It's only when those prior steps fail, when the רִגְזוּ hasn't accomplished what it should, then you have no choice but to think about yom ha'misa to prevent wrong from being done.

What Bilam is blamed for is not the fact that he went with the messengers of Balak.  He did indeed have permission for that.  He succeeded in passing the test of וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ.  What he failed at was the test of לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע, of avoiding the desire to do wrong.  Chazal tell us that the permission to go with Balak's messengers came about because Bilam, so to speak, twisted Hashem's arm until he got it.  Chazal tell us that chutzpah works even when it comes to getting things from Heaven, and "b'derech she'adam rotzeh lei'lech molichin oso."  Bilam knew that what he desired was contrary to the ratzon Hashem, but that did not stop him from wanting it.  His ratzon, he felt, trumped G-d's ratzon.  That desire to do wrong is itself a sin.  

Now to flip from the negative to the positive.  R' Berel Povarski writes that a person has a capacity for ratzon, for desire, which can either be turned to good and used for torah and mitzvos, or it will lead a person stray to desiring things that should not be desired.  Ain hachi nami, if you roll out of bed late and put on tefillin you have fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin just as well as the person who got up early to do so.  What you failed to do, however, is to demonstrate the ratzon to do good.  To achieve that, you have to jump out of bed like a lion, like going to davening or learning torah is your greatest desire from the moment you open your eyes,

And now for the icing on the cake.  The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu comments on  הֶן⁠ עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם:

על ד׳ מלחמו׳ שהיו במדבר כי זאת הפרש׳ הראשונה על מצרים. והשני׳ על המדב׳ כמ״ש כלביא יקום נגד מלחמ׳ עמלק כמ״ש מחר אנכי נצב על ראש הגבע׳ והוא תחיל׳ יציאתן וזהו יקום. וכארי יתנשא במלחמ׳ כנען שהיה בסוף מ׳ לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף. במלחמת סיחון ועוג. ודם חללים ישתה. הוא מלחמת מדין שהרגו על חלליהם שמלחמת סיחון ועוג היה העיקר על הארץ ועל השלל וכאן היה העיקר לנקום בדמם כמ״ש לתת נקמת ה׳ במדין ואמר כי צררים הם לכם וגו׳

Each phrase in the pasuk corresponds to a battle that Bn"Y fought, and  עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם corresponds to the war against Amalek.  Amalek is "asher karcha ba'derech" -- they wanted to afflict us with k'rirus, with coldness, apathy, with lack of desire when it comes to mitzvos.   וַיַּרְא אֶת⁠ עֲמָלֵק וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר רֵאשִׁית גּוֹיִם עֲמָלֵק Amalek was the first to jump in and attack us when no other nation would.  They exemplify using ratzon, desire, to provide motivation toward nefarious ends, while cooling off any positivity and desire for good.  We, on the other hand, are  הֶן⁠ עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם, not only doing mitzvos, but doing them with zeal and alacrity and desire.

katan reciting aneinu on a fast day

I saw in the Divrei Siach parsha sheet (from the torah of R' Chaim Kanievsky) that even if a katan fasts on 17 Tamuz, he should not recite aneinu since a katan has no chiyuv taanis.  The counterargument I assume would be that the purpose of chinuch is to train the katan to do mitzvos as he would when he grows up.  Since when he grows up this katan would have to fast and would say aneinu, he should daven accordingly now to get into the right habit.  

This issue sounds like it hinges on the same point as a chakira I once posted from my son regarding a katan who comes late to shul.  Does the katan skip pesukei d'zimra to catch up, like anyone else should do, or should he daven the full davening?  If chinuch means we treat the katan as if he has a chiyuv just like a gadol, then just like a gadol should skip, the katan should skip ahead as well.  However, if chinuch means training the katan to do the mitzvah as he would when he reaches maturity, then the proper way to daven is to say everything and not skip, so maybe that's what he should do.  

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.

voting Democrat = suicide (3)

Biden's debate performance speaks for itself, so let's turn to other things. 

1) Kamala Harris proved that she can really cut through the haze and focus laser-like on what's most important.  In an interview in The Nation she had this to say:  

“Similarly, I was asking early on, what are women in Gaza doing about sanitary hygiene. Do they have pads? And these are the issues that made people feel uncomfortable, especially sanitary pads.”

As for the flag burning rioters shouting "Death of America, Death to Israel," she's got that covered as well, commenting that, “They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza."   

Not surprising from the woman who helped raise bail for BLM rioters.

2) That same "human emotion" reared its head at an elementary school graduation in NYC, where Jewish parents were attacked.  Hope they win a bundle in their $100 million lawsuit against the city.

3) The D's are trying to formulate their party platform in advance of the convention.  Elianne Farhat, executive director of TakeAction Minnesota, one of three speakers who addressed their committee, advocated for an embargo on arms sales to Israel, and spoke about what happens when our country, "...Misuses that power to spread pain, suffering and genocide.”  The other two speakers disagreed with her, so I guess we should be happy with rov.  

4) 19 people killed and 100 shot this past weekend in Chicago. Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson, like Kamala Harris, cut right to the heart of the matter and saw what others failed to see, namely, that it is former President Richard Nixon who is responsible for the city's troubles. 

korach and the lesson of rosh chodesh

The gemara (B"B 74a) among the aggadic stories of Rabbah bar bar Channa recounts the following episode that relates to events in our parsha: 

אָמַר לִי: תָּא אַחְוֵי לָךְ בְּלוּעֵי דְקֹרַח. חֲזַאי תְּרֵי בִּיזְעֵי, וַהֲווֹ קָא מַפְּקִי קוּטְרָא. שְׁקַל גְּבָבָא דְעַמְרָא וְאַמְשִׁינֵּהּ בְּמַיָּא, וְדַעֲצִיתֵהּ בְּרֵאשֵׁהּ דְּרוּמְחָא וְעַיְּילֵיהּ הָתָם, וְכִי אַפֵּיק, הֲוָה אִיחֲרַךְ אִיחֲרוֹכֵי. אָמַר לִי: אַצֵּית מַאי שָׁמְעַתְּ, וּשְׁמַעִית דַּהֲווֹ אָמְרִין: ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין״. אֲמַר לִי: כֹּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמֵי מַהְדַּר לְהוּ גֵּיהִנָּם לְהָכָא כְּבָשָׂר בְּקַלַּחַת, וְאָמְרִי הָכִי: ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין״. 

Sefaria's translation (from Steinsaltz):

Rabba bar bar Ḥana continues his account. The Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you those who were swallowed by the earth due to the sin of Korah. I saw two rifts in the ground that were issuing smoke. The Arab took a shearing of wool, and dipped it in water, and inserted it on the head of a spear, and placed it in there. And when he removed the wool, it was scorched. He said to me: Listen to what you hear; and I heard that they were saying: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars. The Arab further said to me: Every thirty days Gehenna returns them to here, like meat in a pot that is moved around by the boiling water as it cooks. And every time they say this: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars.

Rashbam comments: כל תלתין יומין - כל ראש חדש

It seems from Rashbam that this is not some random 30 day cycle, but it is rosh chodesh in particular that brings those who were swallowed by the earth in Korach's rebellion back to the place where they sinned, where they again recant and admit that Moshe is true and that they are liars.  R' Nachman has a hesber why this should be true (Likutei Moharan 10:9), but since understanding R' Nachman is beyond me, let me offer two other suggestions.

Rav Soloveitchik in one of the yahrzeit derashos develops the idea that beis din serves two functions: sometimes B"D acts on their own authority and power, and sometimes B"D acts as representatives of Klal Yisrael, as reflecting the will of the people as a whole.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos sees kiddush hachodesh as reflecting the power of B"D in this second role.  The Rambam writes that there must always be a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael because the will of the tzibur of Klal Yisrael means the tzibur in Eretz Yisrael.  B"D that enacts the calendar are just the representatives of this community.

The tragic mistake of Korach is in thinking that the power of the community to create law based on their decisions has no bounds.  The din by kiddush hachodesh is אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין.  Even if B"D, as representative of the community, errs, their decision is binding.  Their will, which is the will of the people, is absolute.  

Every Rosh Chodesh the followers of Korach revisit their error. אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין works for mistakes made within the framework of halacha, but not to uprooting the system completely.

I saw a different hesber that is based on a yesod of the Maharal.  The korban chatas in the musaf of rosh chodesh in unique in that the Torah describes it as   וּשְׂעִ֨יר עִזִּ֥ים אֶחָ֛ד לְחַטָּ֖את לַה׳.  Why the extra word  לַה׳?  Rashi quotes from Chazal ומדרשו באגדה: אמר הקב״ה: הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח.  Rashi here is alluding to the Midrash he quotes in Braishis (1:16).  The Torah describes the creation of the sun and the moon as שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים, equal in size.  However, the moon complained that you can't have two kings sharing one crown, and as a result, Hashem knocked it down in size, as Rashi there comments, שוים נבראו, ונתמעטה הלבנה על ידי שקיטרגה ואמרה: אי איפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד.  The Midrash Rabbah there comments:

אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיב שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד חַטָּאת, וּבְרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ כְּתִיב (במדבר כ״ח:ט״ו): שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד חַטָּאת לַה׳, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁאֲנִי הוּא שֶׁגָּרַמְתִּי לוֹ לְהִכָּנֵס בִּתְחוּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וּמָה אִם זֶה שֶׁנִּכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת כָּךְ פְּגָמוֹ הַכָּתוּב, הַנִּכְנָס שֶׁלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אִלְּעָאי אָמַר, דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא הַגָּדוֹל מוֹנֶה לַגָּדוֹל, וְהַקָּטָן מוֹנֶה לַקָּטָן. עֵשָׂו מוֹנֶה לַחַמָּה, שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה, וְיַעֲקֹב מוֹנֶה לַלְּבָנָה, שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן וְהוּא סִימָן טַב, עֵשָׂו מוֹנֶה לַחַמָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה, מַה חַמָּה הַזֹּאת שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּיּוֹם וְאֵינָה שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּךְ עֵשָׂו יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. יַעֲקֹב מוֹנֶה לַלְּבָנָה שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָה, מַה הַלְּבָנָה הַזּוֹ שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וּבַיּוֹם, כָּךְ יַעֲקֹב יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאוֹרוֹ שֶׁל גָּדוֹל קַיָּם אֵין אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל קָטָן מִתְפַּרְסֵם, שָׁקַע אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל גָּדוֹל, מִתְפַּרְסֵם אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל קָטָן. כָּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאוֹרוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו קַיָּם אֵין אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב מִתְפַּרְסֵם, שָׁקַע אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו מִתְפַּרְסֵם אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (ישעיהו ס׳:א׳-ב׳): קוּמִי אוֹרִי כִּי בָא אוֹרֵךְ. כִּי הִנֵּה הַחשֶׁךְ יְכַסֶּה אֶרֶץ וגו׳.

Many years ago there was a certain Rosh Yeshiva that visited the community we were living in and on Friday night they had an oneg Q/A session where you could ask anything you wanted to the R"Y.  Someone chose this topic to ask about.  What does it mean that Hashem needs a korban as a kaparah for himself?  Does Hashem sin?  Does Hashem need to offer korbanos?  Who is He offering them to?  This R"Y was a big Brisker style lamdan, but this was not his cup of tea, and he told the guy that he has no idea what it means.  The guy then pressed and asked what he is supposed to tell his little kid who asked about this Rashi and thinks that his Tatte should have all the answers, to which the R"Y responded that the kid will now learn his Tatte doesn't know everything.  That too is an important lesson even if it doesn't explain the Rashi.  Brisker lomdus may not help you here, but the Maharal will (Be'er haGolah ch 4 among other places, and see the Ishbitzer in Mei HaShiloach as well in parshas Pinchas).  

Maharal explains that the idea behind a korban, from the root קרב, is to draw closer.  The moon was made smaller in physical size by Hashem, and was left wanting.  Hashem therefore said that in order to make it up to the moon, he will offer a korban, i.e. he will draw the moon closer to Him.  Hashem dwells among the humble and the small.  

We find the same idea by mattan Torah.  Of all the great mountains available, Hashem chose to give the Torah davka on Sinai, the smallest of the lot.  

That's what Chazal mean when they say that Hashem asked for a kapparah.  The korban, the drawing closer of the moon, is the kapparah, is the answer to the complaint of the moon, because what it lost in physical size was more than made up for by its gain in spiritual greatness.  

What Chazal are telling us is that Korach did not absorb the lesson of Rosh Chodesh.  The sun appears to be much bigger than the moon, which is why Eisav reckons the calendar according to the sun -- the biggest and brightest.  Korach too, was attracted to the trappings of the office of kohen gadol.  With such a position comes wealth and authority and respect, all the greatness olam ha'zeh has to offer.  All the talk about kedusha was just posturing, just a sales pitch.

We follow the moon, because we know that external appearances aren't everything; we know that the meausure of "bigness" in olam ha'zeh's yardstick is not accurate -- there is "bigness" in spiritual greatness too.  Every Rosh Chodesh the followers of Korach come back and proclaim this truth, and acknowledge that ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין