why mourning for a parent extends beyond shloshim

1)Hard to believe that Elul is upon us already!  The Targum on the pasuk שְׁלַח־לְךָ֣ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְיָתֻ֙רוּ֙ אֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ explains the word וְיָתֻ֙רוּ֙ as וִיאַלְּלוּן -- the same letters as Elul.  The spies were sent to investigate the land and see what's what.  R' Schwadron in Techeiles Mordechai quotes from the Belzer Rebbe that this is our mission in Elul -- to investigate ourselves and see where we are holding.   The L Rebbe in HaYom Yom for 27 Av calls Elul   חדש החשבון. Just like a businessman needs to take stock and asses the the direction of the business, what is working and what is not working, so too in avodah and person has to do the same  דעל ידי הכנה טובה זו.. זוכים לשנה טובה ומתוקה בגשמיות ורוחניות.

2)  בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לה׳ אלקיכם לֹ֣א תִתְגֹּֽדְד֗וּ וְלֹֽא־תָשִׂ֧ימוּ קׇרְחָ֛ה בֵּ֥ין עֵינֵיכֶ֖ם לָמֵֽת׃

כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה  לה׳ אלקיך

Is the reason for the issur of lo tisgodidu because בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לה׳ אלקיכם or because כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה?

Simple pshat in the pasuk is that lo tisgodidu is an issur of cutting oneself out of grief while in mourning, but Chazal derive a secondary meaning and explain that it prohibits having different minhagim in the same community.  Maharal, as we once discussed, shows how these two issurim are related.  

Most of the meforshim explain that בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לה׳ אלקיכם is the reason the  issur of cutting oneself, either as Rashi explains לפי שאתם בניו של מקום, ואתם ראויים להיות נאים ולא גדודים ומקורחים, or like Seforno explains  שאין ראוי להראות תכלית הדאגה והצער על הקרוב המת, כשנשאר קרוב נכבד ממנו במעלה ובתקות טוב. לפיכך ״אתם״ ״בנים לה׳⁠ ⁠״, שהוא אביכם קיים, but that begs the question what's כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה doing here.  See Ramban, Ibn Ezra.

Netziv suggests that the two reasons parallel the two issurim.   בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לה׳ אלקיכם is why we should avoid having different minhagim in one community.  Because we are all "banim" and children of Hashem, we should behave harmoniously and each person not follow a different path (see Ksav Sofer as well).   כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה  לה׳ אלקיך is the reason to not harm onself in an outburst of grief like the anccient pagans used to do.  

In the sefer Meged Yesharim, R' Sorotzkin relates that he heard that when RYBS was sitting shiva for his wife, R' Hutner and R' Pinchas Teitz came to be menachem avel and the three began to discuss why it is that when a father or mother r"l passes a way, there is a full year of aveilus, but for other relatives the aveilus is limited to 30 days.  Shouldn't you expect the opposite?  Usually a parent is elderly, and so it's not such a shock when their time comes, but for other relatives, the same is not true.  Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to allow for a more extended period of grief/mourning for the younger relative and less time for the elderly parent?

R' Hutner answered when one loses a parent, one has lost a generation that was closer to Sinai, and that is cause for greater aveilus. Rav Teitz answered that other relatives are replaceable -- one can have another child, find another spouse, one's parents can have more children.  A parent, however, can never be replaced.  R' Soloveitchik himself answered that davka because the death of a parent is the more natural occurrence, Chazal allow mourning for a year.  When death strikes a younger person, there is greater likelihood of the relatives being overcome by grief -- exactly what our pasuk warns against -- and so Chazal curtailed the aveilus to avoid that danger.  By a parent, where the death is expected, there is no such danger.  R' Sorotzkin suggests his own sevara as well, ayen sham.   

better to face off against a baal bechira than a wild animal?

We've discussed many times before (e.g. see here, here, here, and here) the following famous Ohr haChaim, based on Zohar: Chazal tell us that the pit that Yosef was thrown into was filled with snakes and scorpions.  Why then does the Torah credit Reuvain for saving Yosef?  All he did was take him out of the frypan, out of the brothers’ hands, and toss him into the fire, into the scorpion pit?  O.C. answers that Hashem has complete control over animals and everything else in the natural world, and therefore if Yosef didn’t deserve to die, the snakes and scorpions would not be able to harm him.  However, a human being is different because he/she is a “ba’al bechira,” and Hashem does not interfere with free choice.  Had Yosef been turned over to the brothers or other people, even if he didn’t deserve to die, they would still have been able to harm him had they chosen to do so. 

If the O.C. is correct, what's pshat in 7:22 that Hashem will not allow us to conquer the goyim in Eretz Yisrael too quickly  לֹ֤א תוּכַל֙ כַּלֹּתָ֣ם מַהֵ֔ר פֶּן־תִּרְבֶּ֥ה עָלֶ֖יךָ חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃ , lest the empty land be overrun with wild animals?  Sounds like it is better to have to deal with the goyim who are baalei bechira, than with the wild animals, who are not, exactly the opposite of the O.C.!?  (See Taz in Divrei David, Targum Yonasan)

another interrupted narrative

I want to return to my post at the end of last week and add two points before moving on to something new.  Last week we discussed why perek 9 jumps around -- it opens with Moshe telling us that he davened for the cheit ha'eigel to be forgiven, but then the chapter moves on to other rebellions in the desert before coming back to Moshe's tefilah and telling us what he said.  Shouldn't the words of Moshe's tefilah come earlier in the perek, when the fact that he prayed is first mentioned?

The truth is that this type of structure is not so uncommon (R' Reuvain Klein's comment to the post brought out this idea).  For example, we have in chapter 1 of Braishis זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃ (1:27), but the details of how Chavah was created, the fact that Hashem put Adam to sleep and took out his side, is elaborated on only later in chapter 2, as Rashi there notes.  Even though all those details could have been spelled out earlier, the Torah holds off and recapitulates later after first giving us the broad strokes and outline.  

In a shiur I once heard from R' Menachem Leibtag he made a parenthetical observation that we sometimes see endnotes to a perek or parsha.  For example (this was the example he gave), Beshalach 16:16 speaks about gathering an omer of mon, but what's an omer?  We have to wait until the last pasuk of the perek for the definition -- an endnote, if you will --  וְהָעֹ֕מֶר עֲשִׂרִ֥ית הָאֵיפָ֖ה הֽוּא.  Or, to come back to Braishis (my example), it's only after we get through the whole story of the creation of woman, her (and man's) sin of eating the eitz ha'daas, and the banishment from Eden that the Torah tacks on at the end of perek 3 וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי.  Here too, in our perek, maybe the words of Moshe's tefilah are like an endnote to the perek.

Turning to perek 10, here we again have an interruption that breaks up the narrative.  The perek starts with Moshe being given second luchos as a result of his prayers on behalf of Bnei Yisrael.  Then the perek shifts to the death of Aharon, which took place in the 40th year of the travels through the desert:

וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נָ֥סְע֛וּ מִבְּאֵרֹ֥ת בְּנֵי־יַעֲקָ֖ן מוֹסֵרָ֑ה שָׁ֣ם מֵ֤ת אַהֲרֹן֙ וַיִּקָּבֵ֣ר שָׁ֔ם וַיְכַהֵ֛ן אֶלְעָזָ֥ר בְּנ֖וֹ תַּחְתָּֽיו׃

 מִשָּׁ֥ם נָסְע֖וּ הַגֻּדְגֹּ֑דָה וּמִן־הַגֻּדְגֹּ֣דָה יׇטְבָ֔תָה אֶ֖רֶץ נַ֥חֲלֵי מָֽיִם

and then once again returns to the topic of Sinai to discuss the election of the Leviim in place of bechorm and the additional 40 days Moshe spent on the mountain (10:11):

בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֗וא הִבְדִּ֤יל ה׳ אֶת־שֵׁ֣בֶט הַלֵּוִ֔י   Rashi comments  בעת ההיא הבדיל וגומ׳ – מוסב לעיניין ראשון.

Why break up the narrative?

Rashi and Ramban offer their own answers, but I want to focus on Ibn Ezra and Seforno.  The previous chapter ended with Moshe's tefilah not only for Bnei Yisrael, but specifically for Aharon as well. Ibn Ezra explains that our chapter spells out Hashem's answer to those prayers.  The response to Moshe's breaking the luchos was the giving of the second luchos, mentioned at the start of our chapter; the response to his prayer for Aharon was Aharon being given a reprieve and living for another 40 years until his death. 

Seforno also sees the description of what happened to Aharon as a follow up to Moshe's tefilah, but with an entirely different message.  Bnei Yisrael saw just how powerful the tefilah of a tzadik is, as through his prayers Moshe was able to avert Hashem's punishment of the people, and yet when Aharon passed, rather than accord him the honor that was due a tzadik, they were more interested in looking for pasture land for their sheep, מִשָּׁ֥ם נָסְע֖וּ הַגֻּדְגֹּ֑דָה וּמִן־הַגֻּדְגֹּ֣דָה יׇטְבָ֔תָה אֶ֖רֶץ נַ֥חֲלֵי מָֽיִם.  Seforno writes:

 אף על פי שראו שתפלת הצדיק מגינה על דורו, ושראוי להתאונן על מיתתו, הנה קצתם או רובם שהיו רועים במדבר נסעו למוסרה, למצוא מים ומרעה לצאן. ובעודם שם, מת אהרן ויקבר... ויכהן אלעזר – ולא באו להתאונן על המיתה ולא להתאבל על הקבורה, ולא חששו לכבד אלעזר שכהן תחתיו  

Seforno fits nicely with the idea that Sefer Devarim is a mussar talk.  Moshe is holding the people accountable here for taking Aharon's death too lightly.

I would like to suggest the flip side of the Seforno/Ibn Ezra as an explanation to the perek's structure.  Moshe is not touting the effectiveness of his tefilah on behalf of Aharon (or the tefilah of a tzadik in general), but to the contrary, he is emphasizing its limits (which fits with the message Rashbam read into the previous perek).  Moshe places Aharon's death in year 40 in the context of what happened at Sinai to convey the message that Aharon's death in year 40 was a result of the cheit ha'eigel in year 1.  Although Moshe davened directly on his behalf, and Aharom had his own many other acts of tzidkus to his credit, he still was held accountable and paid a price for his wrongdoing.    

no encore performance

At the middle of chapter 9 in our parsha the Torah recounts the cheit ha'eigel, Hashem's anger, and Moshe's tefilah to avert terrible punishment threatened by G-d (9:18):

 וָֽאֶתְנַפַּל֩ לִפְנֵ֨י ה׳  כָּרִאשֹׁנָ֗ה אַרְבָּעִ֥ים יוֹם֙ וְאַרְבָּעִ֣ים לַ֔יְלָה לֶ֚חֶם לֹ֣א אָכַ֔לְתִּי וּמַ֖יִם לֹ֣א שָׁתִ֑יתִי עַ֤ל כׇּל־חַטַּאתְכֶם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חֲטָאתֶ֔ם לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת הָרַ֛ע בְּעֵינֵ֥י ה׳ לְהַכְעִיסֽוֹ׃

The perek then continues with the various stops in the desert where Bnei Yisrael were rebellious:

 וּבְתַבְעֵרָה֙ וּבְמַסָּ֔ה וּבְקִבְרֹ֖ת הַֽתַּאֲוָ֑ה מַקְצִפִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם אֶת ה׳

וּבִשְׁלֹ֨חַ ה׳ אֶתְכֶ֗ם מִקָּדֵ֤שׁ בַּרְנֵ֙עַ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר עֲלוּ֙ וּרְשׁ֣וּ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָתַ֖תִּי לָכֶ֑ם וַתַּמְר֗וּ אֶת־פִּ֤י ה׳ אלקיכם  וְלֹ֤א הֶֽאֱמַנְתֶּם֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֖ם בְּקֹלֽוֹ׃

But then, strangely, the Torah comes back yet again to Moshe's tefilah at Sinai in response to the eigel:

 וָֽאֶתְנַפַּ֞ל לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֗ה אֵ֣ת אַרְבָּעִ֥ים הַיּ֛וֹם וְאֶת־אַרְבָּעִ֥ים הַלַּ֖יְלָה אֲשֶׁ֣ר הִתְנַפָּ֑לְתִּי כִּֽי־אָמַ֥ר ה׳ לְהַשְׁמִ֥יד אֶתְכֶֽם

 וָאֶתְפַּלֵּ֣ל אֶל ה׳ וָאֹמַר֒ ה׳ אלקים אַל־תַּשְׁחֵ֤ת עַמְּךָ֙ וְנַחֲלָ֣תְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֥ר פָּדִ֖יתָ בְּגׇדְלֶ֑ךָ אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵ֥אתָ מִמִּצְרַ֖יִם בְּיָ֥ד חֲזָקָֽה

 זְכֹר֙ לַעֲבָדֶ֔יךָ לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹ֑ב אַל־תֵּ֗פֶן אֶל־קְשִׁי֙ הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְאֶל־רִשְׁע֖וֹ וְאֶל־חַטָּאתֽוֹ

פֶּן־יֹאמְר֗וּ הָאָ֘רֶץ֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוֹצֵאתָ֣נוּ מִשָּׁם֒ מִבְּלִי֙ יְכֹ֣לֶת ה׳ לַהֲבִיאָ֕ם אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֣ר לָהֶ֑ם וּמִשִּׂנְאָת֣וֹ אוֹתָ֔ם הוֹצִיאָ֖ם לַהֲמִתָ֥ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר

Rashi comments on the spot that ואתנפל וגומ׳ – אילו הן עצמן האמורים למעלה (דברים ט׳:י״ח). וכפלן כאן לפי שכתוב כאן סדר תפלתו this is the same episode and same prayers referred to earlier, now repeated to fill in the words of Moshe's tefilah.  

Two obvious questions that beg asking: Firstly, why did the Torah separate these two sections?  Why not just tell us the words of Moshe's tefilah earlier when it was first mentioned?   Secondly, why do we need to know the details of what Moshe said?  Why wouldn't it be enough to say he davened and we were saved and leave it at that? 

Don't miss seeing Rashbam who says חכמה גדולה יש כאן.  This is a generation removed from those who actually experienced mattan Torah and did the sin of cheit ha'eigel.  The first part of the perek is the story of what happened, a recounting of past events.  The second half of the perek, after Moshe leapfrogs through telling them about the rebellions in the desert and gets to the point in history where they are about to enter the Land, is the take away message that he wants this generation to absorb.  Sefer Devarim is a mussar talk to those about to enter Eretz Yisrael.  What is the take away mussar here?  

By filling in the words of his tefilah and the argument he used, Moshe was telling this generation that the lesson for them is NOT that when Klal Yisrael is in trouble, Moshe, or in future generations some other Navi/Chacham/Rebbe, will intercede on their behalf and get them out of the jam.  Exactly the opposite.  Moshe is telling then that when they were still in the desert, he could argue to G-d that to punish the people and not bring them into Eretz Yisrael is a chilul Hashem because the goyim will say that G-d just couldn't do it, מִבְּלִי֙ יְכֹ֣לֶת ה׳ לַהֲבִיאָ֕ם אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֣ר לָהֶ֑ם.  Once they in the Land, however, that argument doesn't hold water.  Once in the Land, no one can have the misimpression that מִבְּלִי֙ יְכֹ֣לֶת ה׳ לַהֲבִיאָ֕ם אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ.  So don't expect an encore performance in Eretz Yisrael of those same prayers that got you out of trouble in the past.  Don't expect a Navi/Chacham/Rebbe to pull the fat out of the fire when you get yourselves in hot water.  It's up to you to do good on your own.

mask up?

For those in the ""the Torah is more machmir than the health authorities"" camp, now that the new CDC guidelines are out recommending masks even for those who have been vaccinated, when will your shul be re-imposing the mask requirement? (That is, assuming they lifted it, and assuming your shul reopened.) 

In fact, one could argue that pikuach nefesh demands that we get ahead of the curve and start locking things down before the Delta variant really starts making inroads in the community.  Why expose anyone to even a remote safeik sakana?

As one of the YU Roshei Yeshiva has previously written, "And yet the signs of the unfolding, dangerous wave are - at any rate, should be - unmistakable. The positivity rate continues to increase, the situation in neighboring states is even worse, the behaviors and businesses fueling the increase are not being (adequately) checked, etc. We must be רואה את הנולד, recognize the unfolding process. Both personally and communally we must adopt aggressive preventative measures."

If this is the shita you hold by, I don't know what you are waiting for.

simcha in tzarah?

1) I do not understand this comment in the Agra d'Kallah:

 כי קע"ב שנה קודם האלף החמישי חרב הבית, הוא סוד ואתה תשופנו עק"ב (בראשית ג טו), ובאותן הקע"ב היו ישראל מעונים מאוד וגזירות שמד, וכמה קדושים עמודי עולם נהרגו על קדושת שמו ית'. והנה הגם שאין הש"י שמח כביכול בצרת ישראל, עם כל זה היא לשמחה לפניו כי על ידי זה שמסרו נפשם על קדושת שמו יתברך נתקיים העולם, וגם נחקקו על פורפירא דיליה אלו הקדושים וינקום נקמתן מהרה

Just substitute the word Holocaust for churban ha'bayis in the quote to bring it up to date historically and think about what he is saying: since the suffering of Klal Yisrael will bring a positive to'eles therefore there is simcha???  You can see that he tries to hedge by saying הנה הגם שאין הש"י שמח כביכול בצרת ישראל, but then he continues along to say what sounds like the exact opposite.  Very hard to digest, at least for me.  

 2) כִּ֤י תֹאמַר֙ בִּלְבָ֣בְךָ֔ רַבִּ֛ים הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה מִמֶּ֑נִּי אֵיכָ֥ה אוּכַ֖ל לְהוֹרִישָֽׁם  Who cares?  Go out there and fight!  

But that's not the Torah's response.  The Torah does not want a soldier who just does his job like a robot and tunes out his inner voice that has doubts, questions, objections.  Those doubts are not a bug, they're a feature.  

 לֹ֥א תִירָ֖א מֵהֶ֑ם זָכֹ֣ר תִּזְכֹּ֗ר אֵ֤ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה֙ ה׳ אלקיך  לְפַרְעֹ֖ה וּלְכׇל־מִצְרָֽיִם  That inner voice is what causes a person to reflect, and when he does so, he will rememeber the lessons of Jewish history and have the courage to push on despite the difficulties.  כֵּֽן־יַעֲשֶׂ֞ה ה׳ אלקיך לְכׇל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה יָרֵ֖א מִפְּנֵיהֶֽם׃, davka because you had that fear and pushed yourself to overcome it, Hashem will reward you with victory.  

what do we get for our education $?

I'm not sure if this story is amusing or sad or both.  A couple came to a din torah by R' Shternbruch because this supposed outstanding bachur from Chevron has to ask his wife shaylos because he doesn't know hil shabbos and now his shverr wants to back out of paying for the apartment he promised and divorce is on the horizon.  R' Shternbruch uses this as a springboard to warn guys to learn halacha properly, not just lomdus.  Me, being the cynic that I am, am worried that this will lead to different outcome, namely, that girls' schools will stop teaching halacha lest the girls end up knowing more than their supposed talmid chacham husbands and end up in a situation like this.  

I think that in order to graduate any yeshiva high school, whether chareidi/yeshivish or MO, you should have to pass a test on simple pshat in all of chumash and rashi and pass a test on the halachos of orach chaim on the level of what the Chayei Adam covers.  After tens of thousands of education dollars spent and 12+ years worth of classroom instruction, you would think that would be an embarrassingly low expectation, yet all of my kids think that were this an actual requirement, most students would never graduate.

Can you imagine handing a high school diploma to someone who cannot do addition, much less algebra and trig?  Or someone who claims they learned how to analyze history and can rattle off different interpretations of the Constitution based on close readings of the Federalist papers, but who doesn't know when the Civil War took place?  These examples strike us as absurd, but we graduate students who can rattle off some chakira with tzvei dinim to answer a kashe of R' Akiva Eiger but who don't know hilchos brachos.  

nachamu - when leaders fail to speak up

1) Everybody knows the famous words of the haftarah (Yeshayahu 40), "Nachamu nachamu ami...," but what I think most people don't know is the context.  In the previous chapter the navi tells Chizkiyahu הִנֵּה֮ יָמִ֣ים בָּאִים֒ וְנִשָּׂ֣א׀ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּבֵיתֶ֗ךָ וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר אָצְר֧וּ אֲבֹתֶ֛יךָ עַד־הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה בָּבֶ֑ל that all of his children and his treasure will be carried off into galus to Bavel.  Chizkiyahu responds to this prophecy by saying ט֥וֹב דְּבַר ה׳ אֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבַּ֑רְתָּ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י יִהְיֶ֛ה שָׁל֥וֹם וֶאֱמֶ֖ת בְּיָמָֽי׃,  all good by me so long as it does not happen in my lifetime -- what happens afterwards is their problem.  Malbim tries to put a positive spin on it and say that what Chizkiyahu meant is that things can always change.  A nevuah of bad tidings can always be averted if people do teshuvah, so there is no need to yet worry and panic.  Still, Chizkiyahu has just heard unbelievably bad news and that's the best response he can muster?!  That's all he has to say?!   

R"Y Kara comments: והיה לו לבקש רחמים על ישראל שנגזר עליהםב גלות בבל בשבילו ולא ביקש. אמר הקב״ה: חזקיה שהיה לו לנחם אתכם ואינו מנחם את ירושלם ואינו מבקש רחמים על ישראל, אלא אמר טוב ולבד שיהיה שלום ואמת בימי, הריני מנחם את ירושלם. הדא הוא דכתיב: נחמו נחמו עמי  Hashem said, "Chizkiyahu should have consoled the nation, should have consoled Yerushalayim, should have begged for mercy on the people, and he didn't.  Therefore, I will console them myself -- nachamu nachamu ami..."   

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, what we see from the navi is that sometimes our leaders miss the boat.  They hear the dvar Hashem all right, maybe even better than you or I can hear it, but their reaction is all wrong.  But what we also see from the navi is that even in those circumstances, Klal Yisrael will still find direction because Hashem himself will step in to guide us if our leaders fail.

2) I noticed a Seforno in our parsha that reads pesukim in Beshalach in way I had not thought about before and in a way which Seforno himself in Beshalach does not clue you in to.  Rashi comments on the dibra of Shabbos,  שָׁמ֛֣וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם֩ הַשַּׁבָּ֖֨ת לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך , that the כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ refers to the fact that the commandment to keep Shabbos had already been given at Marah.  Rashi is referring to Shmos 15:25 שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃, where he explains (based on Sanhedrin 56) that the chok and mishpat are במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהן: שבת, פרה אדומה, וכיבוד אב ואם,א ודינין.  

Seforno helps answer the question that begs asking: What is the purpose of the Torah here alluding to the fact that the command of Shabbos was already given in Marah?  He explains that the dibra is not coming to tell us the historical fact of when the mitzvah of shabbos was given, but rather is coming to tell us how to keep shabbos properly.  The parsha there in Beshalach continues וַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ אִם־שָׁמ֨וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַ֜ע לְק֣וֹל ה׳ אלקיך  וְהַיָּשָׁ֤ר בְּעֵינָיו֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו כׇּֽל־הַמַּחֲלָ֞ה אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֤מְתִּי בְמִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לֹא־אָשִׂ֣ים עָלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה׳ רֹפְאֶֽךָ.  I had always read this as a separate command, but Seforno explains that it's a continuation of the previous pasuk, a continuation of the שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃.  Shabbos is not just a day to relax in your hammock all day, sipping kiddush scotch and eating cholent.  Shabbos has to be a day of,  וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו , a day spent learning Torah, thinking about avodah. The dibra tells us that your shemiras shabbos has to be  לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ , to make it a holy day, and we were given the template of how to do that כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך in Marah.

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, explained the Rashi in parshas Emor (Vayikra 23:3) מה עניין שבת אצל מועדות? ללמדך שכל המחלל את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילו חילל את השבתות, וכל המקיים את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילוא קיים את השבתות as making a similar point.  The test of whether a person's shmiras Shabbos is l'shem shamayim or not is how the person keeps the moadim.  No one relaxes preparing for Pesach.  Building a sukkah takes work. If you keeps Shabbos but slack off on the moadim, it's like chilul Shabbos because it shows the shmiras Shabbos was only for the sake of having a day to relax and sleep but not really l'shem mitzvah.

3) Rashi comments on לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (4:2) as follows: לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות, וכן: לא תגרעו  I saw a diyuk in Rashi: why does Rashi add the words  וכן: לא תגרעו at the end?  The pasuk itself says וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ!  Something to think about.  

4) What would nachamu be without this?  (Do you prefer the original?)

rodef chessed

יְרוּשָׁלַ֥͏ִם הַבְּנוּיָ֑ה כְּ֝עִ֗יר שֶׁחֻבְּרָה־לָּ֥הּ יַחְדָּֽו׃   (Teh 122:3)   Forget Minneapolis and St Paul, it's Yerushalayim which is the original twin city.  Chazal tell us that there is a Yerushalayim upstairs in heaven that is connected with our Yerushalayim down here - chubrah lah yachdav.   

אֵיכָ֣ה יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד  the navi cries out.  Yerushalayim is all alone and that link has been severed.  This is the churban that we still are trying to repair.  9 Av is all about restoring the connection between Yerushalayim shel matah and Yerushalayim shel maalah, between us and Hashem, between each other.  As Chazal also darshen on chubrah lah yachdav, Yerushalaim brought us together as chaveirim.  

Short of time again this week, but one thought on the parsha:

Moshe sent messengers to Sichon asking permission to pass through his land, adding that there will an economic benefit for Sichon, as Bnei Yisrael will purchase food and drink along the way (2:27-29):

 אֶעְבְּרָ֣ה בְאַרְצֶ֔ךָ בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ אֵלֵ֑ךְ לֹ֥א אָס֖וּר יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאול׃

אֹ֣כֶל בַּכֶּ֤סֶף תַּשְׁבִּרֵ֙נִי֙ וְאָכַ֔לְתִּי וּמַ֛יִם בַּכֶּ֥סֶף תִּתֶּן־לִ֖י וְשָׁתִ֑יתִי רַ֖ק אֶעְבְּרָ֥ה בְרַגְלָֽי

 כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר עָֽשׂוּ־לִ֜י בְּנֵ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּשֵׂעִ֔יר וְהַמּ֣וֹאָבִ֔ים הַיֹּשְׁבִ֖ים בְּעָ֑ר

Rashi comments: כאשר עשו לי בניא עשו – לא לעניין לעבור בארצם, אלא לעניין מכר אוכל ומים  Meaning, when the pasuk says, "...like the Bnei Eisav and Moav did," it's not talking about allowing BN"Y to cross their land, as we know from Bamidbar 20:21 that Edom did not grant permission for Bnei Yisrael to cross their territory, וַיְמָאֵ֣ן׀ אֱד֗וֹם נְתֹן֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל עֲבֹ֖ר בִּגְבֻל֑וֹ  Rather, the phrase is referring to the purchase of supplies, which Eisav did offer to sell to the Jewish people.  Moshe was pointing out to Sichon that he can avail himself of that same opportunity to make $.

Maharal asks: our pasuk is speaking about Moav as well as Eisav.  How then can Rashi explain that it is referring to selling Bnei Yisrael food and drink when we read later in 23:5 that  לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמּוֹנִ֛י וּמוֹאָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל ה׳, that a convert from Amon and Moav may not intermarry into Bnei Yisrael because עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וַאֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר מִפְּת֛וֹר אֲרַ֥ם נַהֲרַ֖יִם לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃ they did not offer us food when we can to their land?!

Maharal answers ain hachi nami, Moav did sell food to BN"Y just like the Bnei Eisav did.  However, לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם.  They did not come out and **offer** the food and drink.  If you happened to wander into a Moabite store and found what you want on the shelves -- there for sure was no Walmart greeter at the door waiting to welcome Jews -- they would sell you what you needed.  If not, your loss.  They would not go out of their way to solicit business or offer to help.  (See Ramban on that pasuk who rejects this pshat, Chasam Sofer on our parsha, and the post here).

We see an amazing thing.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity not because they had signs saying "No Jews or dogs allowed" in the windows of their stores, or because they refused to serve Jews in their restaurants or sell them supplies.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity because even though they sold us supplies, fed us in their restaurants, etc., they did it begrudgingly.  

When you have an opportunity to do something for someone else -- and certainly in this case, when Amon and Moav stood to benefit financially -- and you drag your feet and show that you are not really interested, that's a crime.  

This reminds me of the gemara (Taanis 21) that tells us that Nachum Ish Gam Zu was blind, had his arms amputated, and his legs cut off because of the following incident: 

אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו רַבִּי וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁצַּדִּיק גָּמוּר אַתָּה לָמָה עָלְתָה לְךָ כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם בָּנַיי אֲנִי גָּרַמְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְבֵית חָמִי וְהָיָה עִמִּי מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים בָּא עָנִי אֶחָד וְעָמַד לִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאָמַר לִי רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאֶפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר לֹא הִסְפַּקְתִּי לִפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ הָלַכְתִּי וְנָפַלְתִּי עַל פָּנָיו וְאָמַרְתִּי עֵינַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל עֵינֶיךָ יִסּוֹמוּ יָדַיי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל יָדֶיךָ יִתְגַּדְּמוּ רַגְלַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל רַגְלֶיךָ יִתְקַטְּעוּ וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי כׇּל גּוּפִי יְהֵא מָלֵא שְׁחִין אָמְרוּ לוֹ אוֹי לָנוּ שֶׁרְאִינוּךָ בְּכָךְ אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹי לִי אִם לֹא רְאִיתוּנִי בְּכָךְ

Of course there is no comparison between Amon and Moav's sin and Nachum Ish Gam Zu, but on the level Nachum was on, unloading the donkey first was on some infinitesimally small level a chisaron of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ , of foot dragging and not seizing the opportunity to do good the first moment it presented itself.

We are supposed to be "rodef tzedaka va'chessed." We have to run to do chassadim, not wait for them to come to us, and then only willy-nilly attend to them.  

Rashi says that Leah named her daugher Dinah because (Braishis 30:21) דנה בעצמה, אם זה זכר, לא תהא רחל אחותי כאחת השפחות, ונתפללה ונהפך לנקבה.  Dina is from the word din, which alludes to what was going through Leah's head when she thought about her pregnancy and what would happen if the child was a boy and her sister Rachel would be short changed in the number of shevatim that she would produce.  But who cares what was going through Leah's head?  At the end of the day, what matters is what Leah did.  It's like if a shul has an appeal, and a guy goes home and figures out that if he moves funds from this account to that account and can write off some stock loss and do some other accounting trick, he can donate 2x as much as he had planned.  The shul doesn't give him a big y'yasher koach for his accounting skill, they give him a big y'yasher koach for the check!  Dinah is the cheshbon, it's the accounting.  Why does that matter to be recorded for posterity?

R' Betzalel Rudinsky quoted b'shem R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld that there are many women who if they were in Leah's shoes and already had a bunch of boys, would gladly agree if you asked them if they would take a girl instead for the sake of their sister's kavod.  This is not what makes Leah Imeinu special.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that no one had to ask her.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that she already thought of doing the right thing for her sister before Rachel or anyone approached her to ask for it.

That's the opposite of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ, of waiting to be approached.  That's what it means to be rodef chessed.

reciting a bracha in advance of a chiyuv

I was thinking about the custom of making havdalah on beer during the 9 days to avoid drinking wine and was wondering if there might be another solution to avoid that problem (assuming you think it is a problem and don't just drink wine, which is permitted l'tzorech mitzvah).  I don't have a copy of the Michtivei Torah of the Gerrer at home, but I saw in Yabi'a Omer (vol 6 33:6) that R' Ovadya quotes that the Imrei Emes writes that when his uncle, the Sifsei Tzadik, the Rebbe of Peltz, was an onein on Shabbos, he davened the motzei Shabbos maariv early and recited havdalah on a kos while it was still day outside.  Since an onein is patur from mitzvos except on Shabbos, had the Rebbe waited until motzei shabbos, he would have not been allowed to daven or drink wine.  By pushing up his maariv, he gained being able to daven and say havdalah. 

This is a chiddush gadol because I would have thought (and there are Achronim who indeed argue this point) you can't have your cake and eat it too -- you can't simultaneously ignore aninus because it's shabbos, but at the time daven a weekday maariv and say havdalah as if it's not shabbos.  

The Imrei Emes has another argument against this chiddush, and this is the point that R' Ovadya devotes his discussion to.  The Imrei Emes draws the following analogy: According to R"T (see Tos in Brachos 11), once you say bichas haTorah in the morning, you no longer have to recite a new bracha for 24 hours until the next morning of the next day.  If you said birchas haTorah Monday morning, for example, you don't need to recite a new bracha until daybreak on Tues.  What happens if you woke up before daybreak on Tues?  Even though according to R"T your learning at that point is still covered by yesterday's bichas haTorah, R"T will still allow you (so argues the I.E.) to recite a new birchas haTorah that will cover Tues going forward.  Says the Imrei Emes, when you recite that bracha, it's not because you have a new chiyuv at that moment, but rather it's because you can fulfill the new chiyuv of Tues in advance and in anticipation of at arriving.  So too, when Chazal allow a person to daven maariv early on Shabbos day and recite havdalah, it's not because those chiyuvim apply before nightfall, but rather it's because a person can fulfill those chiyvim in advance and anticipation of their being chal.  That's well and good if a person will indeed have those chiyuvim later on, but in the case of an onein who will be exempt, the trick doesn't work.

Ad kan that issue b'kitzur.

Nafka minah between these views should be whether you can say havdalah on wine before shabbos ends during the 9 days.  On the one hand, you could say that since it is shabbos you are still permitted to have wine, but on the other hand, you are using wine in anticipation of chol when it would not be allowed and so maybe it should not work.  

What about saying havdalah next shabbos before nightfall in advance of Tisha b'Av?  Would that work?  The Rishonim in fact debate this very point; BaHaG argues that this cannot be done (my son told me he plans to do a post on this BH"G, so see his blog later this week).  Is that machlokes parallel to the issue raised by the Sifsei Tzadik?  Or perhaps there is no comparison between a case where a person has a chiyuv havdalah, just cannot drink the wine, and an onein who has no chiyuv?  

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.

where even treif is kosher

1) I've been swamped with work, but wanted to get in something on the parsha and share a beautiful thought of Rav Kook.  Ramban on our parsha explains why the Torah speaks about kashering and toiveling the klei Midyan but did not speak about doing the same for the kelim taken during the war with Sichon and Og:

והזהיר אותם עתה בהגעלת כלי מדין מאיסורי הגוים, ולא אמר להם זה מתחלה בכלי סיחון ועוג שלקחו גם הם שללם, כמו שאמר: רק הבהמה בזזנו לנו ושלל הערים אשר לכדנו (דברים ב׳:ל״ה). והטעם: כי סיחון ועוג מלכי האמורי הם וארצם מנחלת ישראל היא, והותר להם כל שללם אפילו האיסורין, דכתיב: ובתים מלאים כל טוב אשר לא מלאת (דברים ו׳:י״א), ואמרו רבותינו (בבלי חולין י״ז.): קתליג דחזירי אישתרי להו. אבל מדין לא היה משלהם, ולא לקחו את ארצם, רק לנקום נקמתם הרגו אותם ולקחו שללם, ולכך נהג האיסור בכליהם. וכן בדין הטומאה שהזהירם עתה: ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים וגו׳ (במדבר ל״א:י״ט), כי במלחמת סיחון ועוג היו כל ישראל, וטומאה הותרה בצבור. ועל דרך הפשט הזהירם: ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים ותתחטאו (במדבר ל״א:י״ט) – כדי שלא יטמאו את העם, אבל שם כולם היו שוים בדבר.

Ramban holds that during battle for the territory of Sichon v'Og, which was part of Eretz Yisrael, the rules of kashrus were suspended. This is a special din learned out from Devarim 6:11 that promises וּבָ֨תִּ֜ים מְלֵאִ֣ים כׇּל־טוּב֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־מִלֵּ֒אתָ֒ וּבֹרֹ֤ת חֲצוּבִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־חָצַ֔בְתָּ כְּרָמִ֥ים וְזֵיתִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־נָטָ֑עְתָּ וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָֽעְתָּ that one is allowed to enjoy the spoils of a war of conquest in Eretz Yisrael, whether kosher or trief.  The battle against Midyan was not a battle of conquest for territory in Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the Torah needs to speak about how to treat the treif kelim. 

I saw Rav Kook quoted as saying the following hesber: We translate "assur" as meaning "prohibited," but that's not exactly right.  Assur means tied up, locked up.  A beis ha'assurim is a prison.  The Baal haTanya explains that when we eat and have strength to learn and daven, there is a release of spiritual as well as physical energy from the food we consume.  In food which is assur, that energy is locked up; it cannot be liberated and released for good, and so the food is off limits.  However, says Rav Kook, when a Jewish soldier puts his life on the line fighting for Eretz Yisrael, then even though under usual circumstances he cannot elevate that bacon or that cheeseburger for avodas Hashem, when he is engaged in kibush ha'aretz he is on such a high level that he is able to do so.  The drive to take Eretz Yisrael gives us strength to accomplish things in ruchniyus that otherwise we would be unable to achieve.

(The Rambam, parenthetically, has a completely different understanding of this din.  He puts it in the same chapter (Melachim 8:1) as his discussion of the laws of yefat toar (see Avi Ezri) and learns that the heter to eat treif is a special dispensation 1) only for soldiers, and it  2) applies both to milchemes reshus and milchemes mitzvah, whether fighting to conquer the 7 nations in Eretz Yisrael or fighting some other war.  

Why then does the Torah mention kashering kelim here?  About 10 years ago we discussed the Rogatchover's chiddush that the fight against Midyan did not have a din milchama, but was an act of nekama.  "Nikom mikmas Bnei Yisrael..."  )

2) The Netziv takes note of an interesting repitition in Moshe's recounting to the tribes of Reuvain,Gad, and Menashe the sin of the mergalim and the previous generation:

Pesukim 10-11:

 וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף ה׳ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא וַיִּשָּׁבַ֖ע לֵאמֹֽר

 אִם־יִרְא֨וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֜ים הָעֹלִ֣ים מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם מִבֶּ֨ן עֶשְׂרִ֤ים שָׁנָה֙ וָמַ֔עְלָה אֵ֚ת הָאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛עְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹ֑ב כִּ֥י לֹא־מִלְא֖וּ אַחֲרָֽי

Pasuk 13:

וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֤ף ה׳ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיְנִעֵם֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר אַרְבָּעִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה עַד־תֹּם֙ כׇּל־הַדּ֔וֹר הָעֹשֶׂ֥ה הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֥י ה׳

Why "va'yichar af Hashem..." two times in speaking about the same event?  

The sin of the meraglim was in fact a double-sin.  Eretz Yisrael is not just some random piece of real estate that Hashem designated to be our homeland.  Eretz Yisrael is the makom hashra'as ha'Shechina.  To live in Eretz Yisrael is to live under direct hashgacha, which is a tremendous privilege, but also a tremendous responsibility.  כִּ֥י לֹא־מִלְא֖וּ אַחֲרָֽי means the sin of the meraglim was not just in rejecting Eretz Yisrael -- it was rejecting the Shechina.  "The meraglim didn't want to be there because I am there," said Hashem.  "It's me they can't live with, not just the country that they don't like."

Nachamu nachamu ami...  A double-nechama.  We don't just want to return to the land; we want to be there and live in Hashem's presence, with a hashra'as haShechina. 

Midyan =dimyon; don't lose sight of reality

Three observations/questions and then a thought from the Ne'os Desheh of Ishbitz to try to tie things together:

1) Ramban, who usually take a very conservative approach to using the principle of ain mukdam u'm'uchar baTorah (e.g. see the machlokes Ramban and Ibn Ezra at the beginning of P' Korach) and usually assumes events in the Torah are presented in chronological order, here argues that the count of Bnei Yisrael and the command of tzror es haMidyanim are NOT presented in order.  First came the count, and later came the command of tzror es haMidyanim, the opposite of the order of the text.  In fact, we know that Bnei Yisrael did not wage war with Midyan until later, as recorded in next week's parsha.  Ramban writes (25:12): 

 ואחרי שנתן שכרו הטוב לצדיק, צוהו להפרע מן הרשעים, ואמר לו: צרור את המדינים (במדבר כ״ה:י״ז).

וצוהו שימנה העם תחלה, וזה טעם: ויהי אחרי המגפה (במדבר כ״ו:א׳), כי המנין יהיה תחלה.

He explains why: the Torah wanted to put together the onesh of Midyan with the schar of Pinchas and present it as one unit, even at the cost of inverting chronological order.  (Torah is not a history book of what happened in the midbar.  In a history book, the timeline of events is critical.  What happened and when did it happen.  In Torah, it is the moral message which is critical and everything else takes a back seat. )

The textual proof for Ramban's position is the words יהי אחרי המגפה that precede the count.  Why do we need a statement telling us when this happened if events are in chronological order?  It must be that things are not in fact in order, and so we need to be clued in to the timeline.  (See Ibn Ezra, Netziv, who explain the phrase differently.)

2) כִּ֣י צֹרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶ֛ם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּל֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּע֑וֹר.  Ibn Ezra translated בנכליהם – במחשבותם הרעה.  Sounds strange -- Midyan committed a terrible crime, but that's not what the pasuk focusses on.  Instead, the focus is on machshava, thinking.  

3)  כִּ֣י צֹרְרִ֥ים הֵם֙ לָכֶ֔ם - why tzoririm in the present tense when the episode already ended?  See Netziv.

The Neos Desheh of Ishbitz has a fascinating explanation as to why sheivet Shimon in particular fell prey to the Bnos Midyan.  When eishes Potifar tried to tempt Yosef, Yosef did not fall victim to sin because, as Chazal tell us, he saw dmus dyukno shel Aviv, a vision of his father.  He felt that connection to his past, to his lineage, to his family, and they stopped him at the precipice to wrongdoing.  In contrast, in Yaakov's blessing to Shimon, he said b'sodam al tavo nafshi; he distanced himself from Shimon. Shimon did not have that same emergency break of dmus d'yukno shel Aviv, that strong bond to his father, his lineage, that would prevent his fall.

The place in which the sin of znus occurred - Shittim - alludes to the fact that sin is rooted in shtus.  It's nonsense.  Midyon = dimyon, it's all appearances, smoke and mirrors that lead the imagination to run wild, but in reality there is nothing true and meaningful and lasting there.  Yaakov was kulo emes, rooted in truth, the antithesis of Midyan.

Noam Elimelech writes: וגם בנידון דידן כל זמן שהיו אותם הרשעים המדינים בעולם, אז היו עדיין הרהורי עבירה דפעור שולטים בישראל לבלבל להם המחשבה, ולכך נצטוה משה רבינו ע"ה לנקום בהם נקמת ה'. וזהו "כי צוררים.. לכם" בהוה, פירוש עדיין הם צוררים לכם, ומפרש הכתוב במה "בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם על דבר פעור", פירוש באותן המחשבות הרעות המתהוים לכם בדברכם במעשה דפעור "ועל דבר כזבי כו'", ולכך תבערו אותם מן הארץ

In light of the Ne'os Desheh, I would suggest along similar lines as the N.E. that it was not the sin itself, but it was the thought that if we can fall prey to such sin and such temptation, then we must not be connected to our forefathers, which lingered long after the sin and which the Torah here is addressing.  It is the self-doubt and self-recrimination after the fact, the feeling of loss of hope and unworthiness, which was tzoririm, present tense --  it continued to eat away at the people and do more harm even than the sin itself. 

The way to antagonize Midyan, tzror es haMidyanim, is to repair the gap of b'sodam al tavo nafshi.  The physical war would come later, but first, one must undo the psychological damage to morale.  The count of Bnei Yisrael reinforced the yichus of families and shevatim, reinforced the connection to our lineage, our connection to Yaakov.  It showed that everyone counts, everyone is worthy, everyone has a connection.  That's the reality; everything else is a dimyon.  The hey and yud at the beginning/end of each family name, Hashem's stamp of approval, showed it to be true.    

If this is correct, then the order of the pesukim fits perfectly.  The count of Bnei Yisrael comes after tzror es haMidyanim because the count is the way in which we fulfill that command.  

Right after the words וַיְהִ֖י אַחֲרֵ֣י הַמַּגֵּפָ֑ה, which appear after tzror es haMidyanim and at the start of the count, the Torah does a very unusual thing and puts in a parsha break right in the middle of the pasuk.  Ohr haChaim comments:

עוד נראה לתת טעם שהתחיל הפרשה מאמצע הכתוב על פי דבריהם ז״ל (ילקוט) שאמרו וזה לשונם ויהי אחרי המגפה שאו את ראש וגו׳ זה הוא שאמר הכתוב אם אמרתי מטה רגלי וגו׳ בשעה שקבלו ישראל התורה נתקנאו אומות העולם וכו׳ אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא הביאו לי ספר יוחסין שלכם וכו׳ כשבאו לשטים קלקלו וכו׳ אמרו האומות העטרה שהיתה בידם בטלה שוים הם לנו זקפן ה׳ שנגף כל מי שנתקלקל והעמידן על טהרתם עד כאן, לפי זה יש טעם בהפסקה באמצע הפסוק להעיר שהמאמר קשור גם עם מה שלמעלה בענין רעות אשר גרמו מדין על דבר פעור ועל דבר כזבי וגו׳ וגם ויהי אחרי המגפה פירוש לשון צער, והוא מה שרמז בפסוק מטה רגלי שהיו אומות העולם מזלזלים בהם שניטלה העטרה שהיתה בידם, וזלזול זה לא נחלט מישראל כשנסתלקה המגפה מהם עד שמנאם ונמצאו כל אחד מכיר אבותיו עד השבט אז נשאו ראש, והוא אומרו ויהי לשון צער גם אחרי המגפה, ולזה ויאמר ה׳ וגו׳ שאו, ולא החליט להפסיק לעשותו פסוק בפני עצמו וערבו עם מה שלמטה ממנו לומר כי בשביל מה שרמוז בתיבת ויהי שהוא זלזול האומות הוא שאמר ה׳ שאו וגו׳.

The umos want to plant the thought in our brain that  אמרו האומות העטרה שהיתה בידם בטלה שוים הם לנו, we are just like them and have no connection to a special history or a special destiny.  The count proves them wrong.

Perhaps undoing this thought is necessary as well, as Ibn Ezra and Neziv understand וַיְהִ֖י אַחֲרֵ֣י הַמַּגֵּפָ֑ה , as a lead up to אחרי המגפה – בעבור שאמר השם: לאלה תחלק הארץ, yerushas ha'aretz.  Our claim to Eretz Yisrael is based on the promise Hashem made to the Avos.  If, as the umos claim, שוים הם לנו, then all bets are off.  But we are different; our connection to the past proves them wrong.

b'derech she'adam rotzeh leilech

 Makos 10b:

אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב הונא ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא א"ר אלעזר מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו מן התורה דכתיב לא תלך עמהם וכתיב קום לך אתם

The gemara learns b'derech she'adam rotzeh leilech molichin oso from the fact that Hashem first told Bilam not to go with Balak's messengers, but then in the end he did allow him to go.

Yet that's not where Rashi on our parsha quotes the limud from.  It's only later in the parsha, after Bilam's donkey is stopped by the malach and Bilam offers to turn back and is told that he doesn't have to that Rashi comments  (22:35) לך עם האנשים – בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך מוליכין אותו

Why does Rashi change the context of the limud from that of the gemara?

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi in his mussar shiurim writes that the gemara and Rashi are addressing two different points.  The gemara is speaking k'lapei shemaya and telling us that a person's ratzon can somehow change things upstairs.

Rashi is speaking about what's in a person's heart.  You might have thought that once Bilam had been told by Hashem that he would not be able to say what he wanted, that he might have reconsidered what he was doing.  Kah mashma lan Rashi, or I should say kah mashma lan the malach, that Bilam was still a rotzeh as much as before!  So long as there is still a "rotzeh,"  there is still "...molichin oso" and therefore no need to turn back.

Bilam's response to the malacha, "חָטָ֔אתִי כִּ֚י לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֥י אַתָּ֛ה נִצָּ֥ב לִקְרָאתִ֖י בַּדָּ֑רֶךְ," is strange -- if indeed he was unaware of the malach, לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי, then why is it חָטָ֔אתִי, that he is guilty of any wrongdoing?  

Sometimes being unaware is itself a crime.  Ha'levai that Hashem should send us a malach to stop us when we are going to do something wrong.   Here Bilam is zoche to something special, yet he is so caught up in what he wants to do that he is oblivious misses all the signs and marches onward. (See Meshech Chochma on why there was this miracle of the donkey speaking.) 

a kahal, not an am

Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov, mishkinosecha Yisrael.  Bilam's words contain a lesson that too many of us have forgotten.  Ohel is tent, a temporary dwelling; mishkan/mishkinoshecha is a permanent home.  Things were great in the midbar, in the tents we lived in during our stay there.  But that existence is only on the level of Yaakov.  It is when we are in mishkinosecha, when we are in our permanent home in Eretz Yisrael, and only in Eretz Yisrael, that we reach the higher level of Yisrael (see Malbim).  

Preventing Klal Yisrael from achieving that goal was the real aim of Balak.  וְעַתָּה֩ לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה כִּֽי־עָצ֥וּם הוּא֙ מִמֶּ֔נִּי אוּלַ֤י אוּכַל֙ נַכֶּה־בּ֔וֹ וַאֲגָרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ.  Simple pshat in the pasuk is that Balak wanted to drive Bnei Yisrael out of his territory, but the Midrash reads the it differently: וַאֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ – לֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ אֶלָּא לְגָרְשָׁם שֶׁלֹא יִכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ.  (see post here)

I know that when Trump said, "Jewish people who live in the United States don’t love Israel enough," he qualified it and said except for Orthodox Jews.  But we should look good and hard at ourselves and make sure that noted exception is deserved.  

Rashi comments on "Mah tovu ohalecha Yaakov" that Bilam saw  על שראה פתחיהם שאין מכוונין זה מול זה, the pesach, the doorway of each tent, did not face the doorway of another tent in the camp.  Everyone minded their own business; no one was looking into another person's home, into their neighbor's goings-on.  Midah k'neged midah of our keeping our eye's to ourselves, Hashem prevented Bilam from casting an ayin ha'ra.  

Derech remez, there is more to it than that.  “Pischu li pesach kchudo shel machat v’ani eftach lachem pesach k’pischo shel ulam.”  Hashem asks us to make an opening, a pesach, for him, even if only the size of the eye of a needle, and he will help with the rest. 

על שראה פתחיהם שאין מכוונין זה מול זה means that every individual's "pesach" is different, explains the Maor va'Shemesh.  What turns one person on may be a brilliant R' Chaim; what turns another person on may be the singing at a Carlebach minyan.  When everyone marches in lockstep and does the same thing, the yetzer hara has an easy job because he has a single, easy target to strike.  But when there are so many different "pesachim" going in so many different directions, Bilam has no chance at success.  

I would add another point.  שאין מכוונין זה מול זה means that each pesach is not opposite another pesach.  Some people operate with a win-lose mentality.  It's not enough that I have my pesach -- I have to also be opposite and opposed to your pesach.  Bilam saw that it didn't work that way in the midbar.  There were no opposites -- there were only complementary pesachim.  

At the beginning of the parsha we have the word "am" again and again: וַיָּ֨גׇר מוֹאָ֜ב מִפְּנֵ֥י הָעָ֛ם , לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה,  הִ֠נֵּ֠ה עַ֣ם יָצָ֤א מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙  But when the messengers of Balak spell out the danger they think they face, that's not the term they use.  What they say is עַתָּ֞ה יְלַחֲכ֤וּ הַקָּהָל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־סְבִ֣יבֹתֵ֔ינוּ.  An am is when people hang out together for convenience; a kahal is when something deeper than utilitarian need unites them.  An am is where opposites join forces for a purpose -- just like Midyan and Moav did to fight their shared enemy, Klal Yisrael.  A kahal is where opposites don't exist.  

"we are machmir on pikuach nefesh" does not mean there are no rules

The slogan that "we are machmir on pikuach nefesh" that I've heard again and again to justify any and all covid related measure is, like all slogans, a simplistic reduction.  It's catchy rhetoric with little substance.  I would submit that someone who has a slight sore throat on shabbos but says, "99.999999% likely it's just a cold, but hey, we're machmir on pikuach nefesh, so let me drive to the hospital and get checked out," is a mechalel shabbos.  There are gedarim to what a choleh is, what sakana is, what we allow and don't allow.  

The argument that we should adopt the harshest restrictions in order to make everyone comfortable, just like if we make a dinner (to take an analogy that one Rabbi used) we should cater to the strictest kashrus standards so everyone may eat, is also a simplistic reduction that does not reflect reality.  One of my daughters is a vegetarian.  She is free to cook what she likes and eat what she likes, but it does not mean that the entire rest of the family has to give up meat to accommodate her.  If meeting the standards of a minority imposes an undue burden on the majority, or if those standards are unreasonable, then, to put it bluntly, tough on them.  The question is what constitutes an "undue" burden, what makes for a "reasonable" request,  and at what point does accommodation become an imposition.  There is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree about these issues, which is why simple rules do not work.

looking at the nachash ha'nechoshes and seeing yad Hashem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's not the lesson here.

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

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

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

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

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

jewish identity

In Deborah Tannen's book Finding My Father: His Century-Long Journey From World War I Warsaw and My Quest to Follow she writes that she asked her father, a man born into a hassidic family in Polish Warsaw before WWI, but who gave up religion after coming to the US as a teenager (Tannen writes that she recalls only one time being brought to a synagogue by her father and they did not stay long), whether he feels more American or more Polish.  Her father responded, "I feel like a Jew."  (p.97) 

From the latest Pew survey: "At the same time, 41% of young Jewish adults do not identify with any particular branch of American Judaism. Most of the people in this category are “Jews of no religion” – they describe their religion as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, though they all have a Jewish parent or were raised Jewish and still identify as Jewish culturally, ethnically or because of their family background."  

In other words, most young Jews do not feel Jewish at all.

Deborah Tannen knows she is Jewish and does not hide that fact.  Yet she struggles to define what being Jewish actually means to her.  "If I don't think Jewish is a race... what is it?  A religion?  Yes, but I'm not religious.  A culture?  I hear people talk about 'cultural Jews," but that term feels inadequate to me; "culture" does not go deep enough.  I'm more comfortable with the term "secular Jew"; that feels like a reasonable way to describe Jews who aren't "observant," but it still doesn't say what Judaism is.  Is it a nationality...?  Though this is a worthy goal, I feel that my nationality is American.  Is Judaism an ethnic heritage?  For me, that comes closest.  I'm Jewish because my parents and grandmothers -- I never knew my grandfathers -- and my parents' sisters and brothers, were formed by the Yiddish speaking orthodox Jewish communities of Europe they were all raised in, and they formed the community that raised me.  Especially my parents.  Especially my father."  (p. 98 Italics/emphasis mine)

If this is the definition of what makes one Jewish, it is no wonder that we are in the situation that we are in.  Neither the young people of today nor their parents were formed by "Yiddish speaking orthodox Jewish communities"; they were formed by secular, liberal American communities, where humanism, egalitarianism, and apple pie are what's important.  The Jewish culture of Eastern Europe is long gone and American Jewry, outside of Orthodoxy, has nothing to replace it with, no set of values or shared cultural experience that can be called uniquely Jewish in character.  How and why can/should one identify as a Jew when that identity has no meaning whatsoever?

oy la'rasha oy l'shecheino

1) I saw a vort in the Ohev Yisrael this week that I was about to post and then I found I had posted it already back in 2012.  I hate recycling, but it's worth repeating.  The Ohev Yisrael comments on the pasuk: וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח מֹשֶׁ֔ה לִקְרֹ֛א לְדָתָ֥ן וְלַאֲבִירָ֖ם בְּנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָ֑ב וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ לֹ֥א נַעֲלֶֽה׃  Everybody knew Dasan and Aviram were troublemakers.  They had a history.  There are certain kids that the teacher has heard about even before he/she walks into the classroom and the second trouble starts, he/she knows where to look for the root cause.  Moshe tried to undo that.  Moshe said, "From now on Dasan and Aviram should be called by everyone 'Bnei Eliav.'"  How we refer to people shapes their identity.  Call a kid troublemaker, a no-good-nik, and k'shmo kein hu, that's exactly what he will be.  Call them 'Dasan and Aviram the troublemakers' and that's who they will be and remain.  Call them Bnei Ploni the Tzadik and you've given them a different identity to live up to. 

This may also explain  רַב־לָכֶ֖ם בְּנֵ֥י לֵוִֽי.  Moshe was saying, "You are bnei Levi - you are the descendants of great people; this rebellion is not who you are." 

Unfortunately, Dasan and Aviram chose to respond, "lo naaleh," and reject Moshe's advances.  

In light of the Ohev Yisrael's vort, perhaps the way to read their response is, "Lo," we don't want to just be 'Bnei Eliav' and follow in our father footsteps. Rather, "Naaleh," we will be even greater than our father.  We know better and can do better.  Lots of children think that if they just do the opposite of their parents they will accomplish so much more than their parents did, they will be more successful, they will not fall into the same pitfalls.  Eventually they figure out that the path they choose has its own pitfalls.

Even though we know Dasan and Aviram were troublemakers, it seems that they might have sat this one out.  Rashi comments  ודתן ואבירםג – בשביל שהיה שבט ראובן שרוי בחנייתן תימנה, שכן לקהת ובניו החנים תימנה, נשתתפו עם קרח במחלוקתו, אוי לרשע אוי לשכנו.  If not for oy la'rasha v'oy l'shecheinu, if not for Dasan and Aviram living in close proximity to Korach and thereby falling under his influence, they might not have participated in this rebellion  As bad as Dasan and Aviram were, Korach was a step too far even for them.

The Sifsei Chachamim quotes that the Maharashal had a kabbalah from his father that this statement of Rashi is a continuation of Rashi's previous comment: בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי – ביעקב בקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכיר שמו על מחלוקתן, שנאמר: בקהלם אל תחד כבודי Rashi explains that Korach's yichus goes back to Levi but not to Yaakov because Yaakov, in his final message to Levi, davened that his name should not be mentioned in the context of Korach's machlokes (we've discussed this in the past we well, see Maharal).  This is well and good in so far as why the pasuk gives Korach's yichus only back to Levi and not back to Yaakov, but why does the pasuk give the yichus of Dasan and Aviram only back to Reuvain and omit Yaakov's name there?  בקהלם אל תחד כבודי was not said about Reuvain?  Answers Rashi (according to the Maharashal's reading), אוי לרשע אוי  לשכנו .  

R' Chaim Elazari points out the chiddush implicit in this Maharashal.   אוי לרשע אוי  לשכנו is not just a warning to avoid negative influences as they MIGHT have a detrimental effect.  Were that the case, then Yaakov's tefilah would have applied to Levi alone and Dasan and Aviram and the bnei Reuvain getting involved was their own bad choice.  Yaakov's tefilos applied to sheivet Reuvain as well as Levi because negtive influences INEVITABLY lead to harm.  It's like a psik reisha, not a davar she'aino miskavein.  When Yaakov davened not to have his name mentioned in connection with Levi/Korach's machlokes, Reuvain was implicitely included because there was no chance of Reuvain not being involved given his proximity to what was going on. 

2) The Kozhiglover quotes from Mishnas Chassidim that ketores is a segulah for teshuvah.  He explains that this is why the greatest offering of ketores done during the year was the offering of ketores in the kodesh kodashim on Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur is the day designated for teshuvah.  All the offerings the entire rest of the year are just a preparation to be able to offer ketores properly on that day.  This is why, says the Kozhiglover, Moshe suggested to Korach to bring ketores as a test.  Moshe was hoping that the segulah of ketores would influence Korach and he would do teshuvah and regret the whole machlokes.

I would add that when Moshe said to Korach that tomorrow they will offer ketores, meaning tomorrow will be like Yom Kippur, it implies that right now, the day before the big test, is like erev Yom Kippur.  There is a din before Yom Kippur of piyus, of asking people for mechila, of mending wrongs.  Maybe Moshe was alluding to this as well, offering Korach a final chance at reconciliation.  

Today erev Shabbos is Rosh Chodesh Tamuz, roshei teivos זמני תשׂובה ממשׁמשׁין ובּאין. Yom Kippur is right around the corner! 

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.  

issur terumah and kedushas terumah

Rashi in Yevamos (86a) writes that the issur of tevel occurs because terumah is mixed into the food and terumah is not allowed to be eaten מה תרומה טובלת. שכל זמן שלא הופרשה חייבין מיתה על אכילתו של טבל דהא מיתה כתיב ביה: 

Tos asks: if Rashi is correct, then a kohen should be allowed to eat tevel, since a kohen can eat terumah.  Since that is not the case, we see that tevel is an independent issur, not just a result of not having terumah yet removed.   ופי' ריב"ן משו' דדרשי' בפ' הנשרפין (סנהדרין פג. ושם) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל אשר ירימו בעתידים לתרום הכתוב מדבר ויליף חילול (א) מתרומה:

R' Wahrman z"l suggests (inyanaim ketzarim siman 4 in the back of She'eiris Yosef vol 3, see also vol 2 siman 47) that there are two dinim in terumah: there is 1) the issur termunah, i.e. terumah cannot be eaten by just anybody; 2) and there is kedushas terumah -- terumah requires shemira, it has specific dinim with regards to tumah and taharah, someone who eats it b'shogeg pays an additional 1/5 penalty, etc.  

Perhaps tevel is prohibited because the the issur terumah is inherent in the mixture, as Rashi writes, but the kedushas terumah does not kick in until after hafrashas terumah, and therefore, since there is not yet kedushas terumah, tevel cannot be eaten by a kohen.

mishna berura and kitzur

Had you asked me to name the most popular work of Jewish law, right on top of my list would be the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  True, these days the Mishne Berura has been popularized in the yeshiva world to the point that it eclipses everything else, but the Kitzur still has a place, and the Kitzur covers far more than just the O.C. topics of the M.B. or Chayei Adam.  What Jewish home does not have a Kitzur?

When I came across the M.B. in 117:15 quoting the Kitzur, I scratched my head and wondered why this seemed like an anomaly; I could not remember offhand more times that the M.B. quotes the Kitzur.  I don't pretend to know MB backwards and forwards, so I asked my son, who has an Otzar haChochma, to run a search using their database to try to find how many other references to the Kitzur there are in M.B.  He came back to me with a disclaimer that the search is not so good, and I'm not sure which roshei teivos or combination of roshei teivos he used (e.g. קיצור שׁ״ע, קצשׁ״ע, etc), but even so, he only came up with 2 other references: a Shaar haTziyun in 27:49 and a Biur Halacha in 401:11.  Pretty sparse pickings.  

Isn't it amazing that here you have one of the most popular works of halacha (the Kitzur was reprinted multiple times in the author's lifetime, so its popularity was established), yet the M.B. hardly refers to it? 

we have a yerusha

 וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מֵהַ֣ר ה׳ דֶּ֖רֶךְ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים  Rashi comments in last week's parsha (10:33) מהלך שלשת ימים הילכו ביום אחד, שהיה הקב״ה חפץ להכניסן לארץ מיד that Bnei Yisrael were on the express train and covered three days distance in one because Hashem was trying to get them into Eretz Yisrael as quickly as possible.  Next chapter the wheels fall off the bus and everything starts to go wrong.    וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים  Seforno comments: על טורח הדרך  And then we go from one complaint to the next, until we get to our parsha of the meraglim and then it's 40 years in the desert.  

Sefas Emes asks (last piece in 5648): Ha'yad Hashem tiktzar?  Here Hashem was rushing them along, He was kavyachol so anxious to have Bnei Yisrael finally achieve the dream of coming to Eretz Yisrael, so couldn't He make the trip a little more pleasant so there would be no complaints?  My wife and I once flew Aeroflot to go to Eretz Yisrael because the tickets were relatively inexpensive and it made the budget easier, but trust me, when you fly Aeroflot, וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים you will have what to complain about.  Hashem doesn't have a budget! -- he can bring us first class all the way and even allow an extra bag too with no surcharge.  Ramban comments on וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים that והנכון בעיני: כי כאשר נתרחקו מהר סיני שהיה קרוב ליישוב, ובאו בתוך המדבר הגדול והנורא במסע הראשון, היו מצטערים בעצמם לאמר: מה נעשה, ואיך נחיה במדבר הזה, ומה נאכל, ומה נשתה, ואיך נסבול העמל והענוי, ומתי נצא ממנו.  When you are flying first class there is no question of ומה נאכל, ומה נשתה, ואיך נסבול העמל והענוי.  True, Bnei Yisrael's complaining was unjustified, but Hashem could have pampered them so that there would not even have been a hava amina of an unjustified complaint.  Why didn't He do that?

This episode reinforces a basic yesod: "Ain Eretz Yisrael nikneis elah b'yissurim."  Chazal tell us that Eretz Yisrael is one of three things that can only be aquired with tribulations, the other things being Torah and olam ha'ba.  Hashem could speed up Bnei Yisrael's journey, but Hashem could not take away the yissurim completely, as without them, it is impossible to be koneh the Land.  

Some people like to hold a mortgage for 30 years and pay off a lot of interest slowly, and other people bite the bullet and take a 10 year payment plan, putting in a little more each month, but getting to the finish line quicker.  Hashem offered us a quick payment plan, all the yissurim wrapped up in one package for just a few days, and then Eretz Yisrael.  We turned it down, and as a result, we ended up on the 40 year payment plan.  

So we get to our parsha and the spies bring back their terrible report.  Kaleiv gets up and responds:   וַיֹּ֗אמֶר עָלֹ֤ה נַעֲלֶה֙ וְיָרַ֣שְׁנוּ אֹתָ֔הּ!  How does that address the concerns of the people or the details of the report?  He says that they can conquer the land, but 11 of his colleagues say that they can't, as they immediately respond וְהָ֨אֲנָשִׁ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־עָל֤וּ עִמּוֹ֙ אָֽמְר֔וּ לֹ֥א נוּכַ֖ל לַעֲל֣וֹת אֶל־הָעָ֑ם כִּֽי־חָזָ֥ק ה֖וּא מִמֶּֽנּוּ.  if it's a screaming match of one against eleven, then the eleven are going to win, so how was Kaleiv hoping to persuade anyone?

Two people finish business school and want to run a giant department store.  One is nervous, wondering how he is going to get the business off the ground, how he is going to compete with established competitors.  The other is cool and calm, his attitude is "We can do it!"  What's the difference between the two?  The difference is that the last name of the latter happens to be Macy, the great-great grandchild of R.H. Macy.  He doesn't need to start building from scratch -- his alter-alter zeyde already got things going.  He is just the latest in the line to take over.  Yes, there will be challenges, but those are the challenges of maintaining a legacy, not the challenges of a startup.

עָלֹ֤ה נַעֲלֶה֙ וְיָרַ֣שְׁנוּ אֹתָ֔הּ -- Eretz Yisrael is a YERUSHA, said Kaleiv.  We may be the start up nation when it comes to business, but as for the country itself, that is an inheritance.  It belongs to us because it belonged to our forefathers.  We are just the ones coming to collect what is due.    

I could not agree with this statement more:

I don’t know if I believe that another Holocaust is possible in America in 2021. But after what I’ve seen in the past few weeks, I do believe that at some point the Jews of the United States will no longer be welcome here. Even if our (very) fragile democracy manages to uphold its basic tenets of freedom for all citizens, it’s almost irrelevant; Americans no longer look to their government for what is true and right. They look to Facebook, to Instagram, to Bella Hadid and Jimmy Fallon. We are governed by public opinion, and the American opinion of Israel – and by turn, Jews – is darkening by the day.  

Fortunately, we have a yerusha.