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.

I can't see what you are saying

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

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platner's appeal

How can a misogynistic communist like Graham Platner be the Dem frontrunner for Senate in Maine? I agree with the sentiments of Powerlineblog.com:

To be sure, Platner checks the left-wing box with his professed Communist leanings. You can’t get more left-wing than that. But I think the key to Platner’s success is his overt anti-Semitism. At the time he was pulling away from Mills, by far the best-known fact about Platner was his Nazi tattoo. Far from disqualifying him in the eyes of Democratic voters, the tattoo seems to have endeared him to them.

...I think it is fair to say that, during the months when his Senate campaign took off, Graham Platner’s best-known characteristic was his hostility to the Jews.

I think that anti-Semitism is no longer the obsession of an oddball fringe. Rather, it is close to the beating heart of the Democratic Party. At this point it may, in fact, be the defining ideology of the Democratic Party. Far from being a millstone around the neck of a nonentity like Graham Platner, it was the secret to his meteoric rise.

This is the sad state of affairs in America today.  To support the Dem party is to support antisemitism.  It's as simple as that.  The worst members of the party are guilty of overt antisemitism, like Platner.  The others are guilty of standing by idly and adopting a stance of implied shtika k'hodaah in an attempt to not be cancelled by the mob.  They have no moral backbone or courage.  The one exception is Fetterman, and he is the exception that proves the rule. 

the reward of the innocent sota

 Brachos 31b (see also Sota 26)

 נקתה ונזרעה זרע מלמד שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר' ישמעאל א"ל רבי עקיבא אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו וזו שלא קלקלה נפקדת אלא מלמד שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים אחד יולדת שנים

 

The Tur takes R' Yishmael's view a step further.  The pasuk that follows וְאִם־לֹ֤א נִטְמְאָה֙ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּטְהֹרָ֖ה הִ֑וא וְנִקְּתָ֖ה וְנִזְרְעָ֥ה זָֽרַע׃ is זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת...  Commenting on the smichus, he writes: לומר שאם טהורה היא יהיו לה בנים צדיקים בעלי תורה.  Not only will the sota have children, but they will be big talmidei chachamim.

 

What does R' Yishmael do with the argument that אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו?  R' Nosson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash suggests that the machlokes here in l'shitasam.  

 

Rashi comments on לֹֽא־תַעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לַה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם (Devarim 12:4):

 

דבר אחר: ונתצתם את מזבחותם ואבדתם את שמם, לא תעשון כן – אזהרה למוחק את השם, ולנותץ אבן מן המזבח או מן העזרה.

אמר ר׳ ישמעאל: וכי תעלה על דעתך שישראל נותצין למזבחות? אלא: שלא תעשו כמעשיהם ויגרמו עוונותיכם למקדש אבותיכם שיחרב

 

Achronim (e.g. Chasam Sofer) point out that the difference between Tana Kamma and R' Yishmael is whether there is an issur of geram mechikas HaShem.  According to the Tana Kamma, it is only actively erasing the shem Hashem which is prohibited, but according to R"Y, even causing the shem Hashem or the makom mikdash to be obliterated is assur. 

 

R' Yishmael was perhaps not persuaded by R' Akiva's argument because l'shitaso, an innocent woman  would not pretend to be a sotah because in doing so she would be causing shem Hashem to be erased, violating the issur mechikas Hashem through gerama. 

 

Why is it that the sota who is innocent deserves any reward?  Isn't this a case of chotei nischar, one who gains from wrongdoing?  After all, it's not like the sota is completely innocent.  There was kinuy, there was stirah; it is as close to a red line as you can get.  Ibn Ezra, interestingly, addresses this question. Most of the meforshei pshat learn that ונזרעה זרע just means she now has a heter to resume living with her husband.  Ibn Ezra, who so often rejects derash in favor of pshat, here chooses to defend the derash that it is a reward:  ונזרעה זרע – שיתן לה הבורא זרע בשכר הקלון שאירע לה.  The public embarrassment of the sota process is so devastating that despite the fact that she is not completely innocent, Hashem promises s reward to make up for what she underwent. 

 

R' Shimon Sofer has a different hesber that helps answer the question of אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו.  The sota was warned, but could not resist trouble and violated the issur yichud.  However, despite the temptation to do more than that, the sota caught herself and pulled back from that red line.  When push came to shove, she resisted!  Chazal tell us that someone who overcomes the temptation for aveira is worthy of having a miracle performed.  That's why the sota deserves a reward.  

The same logic does not hold true for a woman who is wholly innocent and just wants to have children.  She really has no temptation to do wrong, and therefore, will earn no credit for overcoming a desire that does not exist.

 

The juxtaposition of sota and nazir takes on even more interesting color given this interpretation.  The nazir climbs to the greatest heights and is called kadosh.  The sota has sunken to dangerous depths of misbehavior.  Nonetheless, Hashem does not reserve reward only for the nazir.  L'fum tzaara agra.  For someone in the shoes of the sota, pulling back in the face of the temptation after one has already gone so far is a mighty achievement and garners tremendous reward as well.