tzeila d'heimnusah

כְּתַפּ֨וּחַ֙ בַּֽעֲצֵ֣י הַיַּ֔עַר כֵּ֥ן דּוֹדִ֖י בֵּ֣ין הַבָּנִ֑ים בְּצִלּוֹ֙ חִמַּ֣דְתִּי וְיָשַׁ֔בְתִּי וּפִרְי֖וֹ מָת֥וֹק לְחִכִּֽי

Shir haShirim (3:3) compares the beloved one, dodi, an allusion to G-d, to an apple tree in the forest.  It's beautiful shade is desirous to sit under; it's fruit is so sweet.

Rashi quotes the Midrash: All flee from the apple tree because it has no shade. So did all the nations flee from G-d at the giving of the Torah, but I sat and delighted in his shade(see here).

Meaning, the apple tree signifies the unique and special bond between Klal Yisrael and Hashem.

The mashal used by the Midrash begs the question m'mah nafshach: if the apple tree has shade, then why did everyone flee from it and not want to sit there?  And if the apple tree has no shade, then what does the pasuk mean by "b'tzilo chamaditi?"

The simple pshat in the pasuk "Hashem tzilcha" (Tehillim 121) is that Hashem is like a protective shade over us.  The Besh"T, however, famously interpreted the pasuk to mean that Hashem's relationship to us is like a shadow.  When you stand in the sun and move, your shadow moves with you.  So too, what happens to us in our lives, what happens to our families, even what happens to the cosmos, is effected and is changed by Hashem in response to our behavior.  You want there to be more chessed in the universe?  Act with chessed.   You want there to be more justice in the world?  Act with justice.  Hashem will in turn react and respond by revealing more of these midos in the world.

Sefas Emes explains that all the nations of the world see the apple tree, but they don't see any shade, so they walk away.  They see a world without chessed, and so they think it's a cruel place; they see a world where there is suffering, and they think there is no justice.  What they don't get is that whatever they see is just a reflection of themselves and what they are willing to bring to the table --  Hashem tzilcha.  Klal Yisrael believes the shade is there even if we don't see it at first, and so we come with our emunah, we come with the tremendous desire to connect to Hashem.  When you bring that to the table, then Hashem responds and you will find the shade you were looking for.  

Sukkah is the "tzeila d'heimnusah," the shadow of emunah.  Hashem comes to Avaraham at the Bris bein haBesarim, "Va'yotzei oso ha'chutzah," (Braishis 15:5) he tells him to go outside and count the stars, and promises that his children will be that numerous and great.  "V'he'emin ba'Hashem," Avraham was filled with emunah when he heard the message.  On Sukkos we imitate Avraham Avinu.  Hashem tells us to go outside, leave your house and go sit under the stars that you see through the schach of your sukkah and count them.  Do you believe in the destiny and greatness of Klal Yisrael, or do you believe what you read in the NY Times?  Do you see the shade under the apple tree?  Because if you believe in it, you will find it there. 

why Klal Yisrael's tefilah could not save Moshe from dying

Please have in mind that this limud should be a zechus for a refuah sheleimah for Shulamis bas Sarah Sascha.

At the end of the parsha (32:48) Hashem told Moshe to go "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh," this very day, up to Har Nevo, to look out over the Land, and then and to die.

Rashi points out that there are three places where the Torah uses this expression of "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh."  The common denominator between them is that in all three places there was a hava amina by human beings to try to stop G-d, and G-d responded by carrying out his plans in the middle of the day to demonstrate that no force can stop him.  When G-d was about to bring the flood, the dor ha'mabul threatened to destroy the ark; G-d in turn ordered Noach to enter in the middle of the day to prove that they could not stop him.  The Egyptians thought they would prevent Klal Yisrael from leaving; G-d took them out right in the middle of the day to prove the Egyptians wrong.   Finally, here, Klal Yisrael thought that they would cling to Moshe and not let him die; G-d arranged his death in the middle of the day.

We understand the hava amina of taking axes and breaking the ark; we understand the hava amina of taking up arms to stop Klal Yisrael from leaving Egypt.  But how could Klal Yisrael have even had a hava amina of stopping Moshe's death?  What power do human beings have to stop someone from dying?

R' Chaim Shmuelevitz answers that the power we have is the koach ha'tefilah. 

The gemara (Kesubos 104) tells us that when Rebbi was about to die, the tefilos of his generation kept him on earth until, seeing his suffering, his maid caused an interruption to the prayers so that Rebbi could depart this world in peace.   

We just said over the Yamim Noraim that teshuvah, tefilah, and tzedaka can avert an evil gezeirah. 

Now that we know the power our tefilah has, I have a simple kashe: so why didn't it work?  Why did the tefilos of Klal Yisrael keep Rebbi in this world, clinging to life, but G-d forced Moshe "b'etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" to pass away irrespective of what Klal Yisrael wanted and davened for?   

I think the answer to the question is rooted in the nature of Moshe's sin at mei meriva.  Netziv on our pasuk briefly reminds us of his interpretation of that episode, which he elaborates on more fully in Chukas.  Hashem wanted mei meriva to be a "teachable moment," as they call these things in the world of education.  It would be another step in the transition from life in the desert surrounded by miracles to the life of teva in Eretz Yisrael.  What do you do when you life in the world of teva and you face a drought?  Hashem wanted Moshe to show the people that the answer to their needs would come through tefilah and Torah study.  That's how we who live in the mundane world approach G-d with our needs.  But that's not what Moshe did.  Instead, he hit the rock, and through a miracle -- much like the other miracles that happened in the desert -- the rock produced water.  In response, Hashem told Moshe that since he was stuck in the miracle mode of desert life and could not transition to the teva life of Eretz Yisrael, he would not be the one to lead the people there.

Moshe now in our parsha  must pay the ultimate price for his sin and die before entering the land.  Al asher m'altem bi... b'mei merivas Kadesh..." I think is not merely a reminder of what Moshe did wrong, but is an explanation of why tefilah here did not work.   Because he did not capitalize on the koach ha'tefilah to meet the people's needs at Mei Merivah, midah k'neged midah, the koach ha'tefilah could not work on Moshe's behalf here to spare him from his fate.

At this special time of year may all our tefilos for all our needs be speedily answered.

Rav Kook's heirarchy of types of teshuvah

The gemara (R"H 16b) writes that there are 4 things which can cause a gzar din to be ripped up and nullified: 1) tzedaka; 2) tzea'ka (i.e. tefilah); 3) shinuy ha'shem (i.e. changing one's identity, personality); 4) shinuy ma'aseh, which Rashi explains to mean "shav mei'ra'aso," repenting from one's evil ways.

Rashi is difficult.  M'mah nafshach: if a person truly repents from his evil ways, then that alone should suffice for teshuvah.  But if a person does not repent from his evil ways, then all the tzedaka, tzea'ka, and shinuy shem will not help.  So all 4 items really boil down into one (see Ritv"a).

I would like to suggest the following hesber:

Rav Kook opens Orot Teshuvah by teaching us that there is a hierarchy of three different types of teshuvah:

1) Teshuvah that comes through teva, human nature.  This can be broken into two subcategories:
A) Physical teva -- a smoker who gives up his cigarettes because he realizes that smoking is bad for his health is doing this type of teshuvah.
B) Moral teva -- guilt can eat away at a person's kishkes. and keep a person up at night.   The desire to restore one's moral and psychological health is part of teva.  Think of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and I think you have an idea of what Rav Kook means here. 

2) Teshuvah of emunah -- it doesn't come from within a person, but rather the external force of religion, social norms, etc. cause person to want to fall into line.  A person does not want to live in discord with what the outside world tells him is right and good.

3) Tehuvah of the seichel -- this is the highest form of teshuvah.  This is repentance that comes not from physical or psychological discomfort, not from the pressure to conform to outside norms, but rather the intellectual realization that one's values and life goals are discordant with what is true and ethical, and therefore, one must change.  

(BTW, it seems that these three avenues roughly correspond with the Maharalian triad of guf, nefesh and seichel.  Maybe you can figure out a way to fit the avodah of the three Avos into these boxes as well.)

When Rashi writes "shav mei'ra'aso," he is not explaining WHAT the person is doing -- he is explaining WHY the person is doing teshuvah.  Rashi is explaining that we are talking about a person doing teshuvah because he cannot live with his own evil, a teshuvah of teva, because things are eating away at his kishkes.  We are speaking about a person who is running away from the evil within and looking for an escape.  You might have though that only a higher form of teshuvah would be sufficient to remove a gzar din.  Kah mashma lan our sugya that even the lowest form of teshuvah suffices to do the job.

Lo yoveh Hashem s'loach lo -- hope for change

1) We read in the shir ha'ma'alos m'ma'amakim, "Ki imcha ha'selicha l'ma'an tivarei" -- Hashem, forgiveness comes from you, so that we may come to fear you.  It's a very strange line.  You would think that if there was no forgiveness, we would have more to fear.  But we say exactly the opposite -- precisely because G-d forgives, we will fear him more.  How does that make sense?   

There is a pasuk in our parsha that may shed some light on things.  Our parsha describes the person who disregards the bris between the Jewish people and Hashem, and instead, "v'hisbareich bi'lvavo leimor," he says in his heart, "b'sherirus libi ei'leich," I'm going to do what I want (29:18).  The parsha continues, "lo yoveh Hashem slo'ach lo," Hashem will not want to forgive such a person, "u'macha Hashem es shemo," his name will be obliterated.

All we hear about this time of year is teshuva.  Tanach is filled with admonitions asking us to do teshuva.  Yet here, in the parsha we read right before Rosh haShana, the Torah tells us that G-d will not forgive this wrongdoer.  What kind of message is that?

The Beis HaLevi answers that we put the quotation marks in the wrong place.  "Lo yoveh Hashem s'loach lo" is not the Torah's response to the wrongdoer -- it's a continuation of the wrongdoer's statement.  It also belongs in the quotation marks.  The sinner is not just rejecting the bris with Hashem, but more than that and perhaps worse than that, he  rejects the possibility of undoing his disavowal of the bris.  When there is no hope for change, there is no check on evil. When there is no hope, there is no reason to not do whatever you want because it's not going to make a difference anyway.

Last week Rabbi Y Y Jacobson spoke in Far Rockaway and he quoted the Ba'al haTanya as saying a similar explanation of the pasuk in shir ha'ma'alos.  Imagine a person who has lost millions and is being pressured by the bank to repay everything.  He knows he has no chance of repaying anything close to what they are asking for, so he figures why bother -- might as well spend the money on something enjoyable.  Once you are in debt way over your head with no chance of paying it back, what's a little more or a little less?  "B'sherirus libi ei'leich!"  But if the bank tries to work out a payment plan, forgives the interest, and tries to help the person recover, then things are different.  "Ki imcha ha'selicha" -- Hashem is willing to work with us on a payment plan, bit by bit, one step at a time.  He gives us the hope that we need, the belief that we can in fact make amends and correct things.  There is no reason to throw everything away -- there is a life preserver that gives us a reason to hold onto our yiras shamayim.

2) Others suggest a different pshat in that pasuk in Nitzavim "lo yoveh Hashem s'loach lo."  It doesn't say "lo yislach lo," that Hashem will not forgive -- it says "lo yoveh," Hashem does not want to do it.  Hashem does not kavyachol want to give a free pass to a person who has done such wrong.  However, Hashem does it anyway.  Such is the greatness of teshuvah.   

3) And for the sake of completeness, let me give you a different pshat in the pasuk in the shir ha'ma'alos.  There are a lot of people who are looking for quick fixes.  They want a segulah, an easy solution.  Tell someone who has sinned that they have to fast x days, give $x to charity, wear X, say X, etc. and it's a done deal.  Wave the magic wand, and poof, it's all good.  No one is really afraid of sin if that's all it takes to make things better.  But that's not what it's really all about.  "Ki imcha ha'slicha" -- forgiveness only comes from G-D, with a capital G.  Nothing else works.  It's hard to stand naked (spiritually, emotionally, psychologically) before the King of Kings and face up to what we do with our lives.  "L'ma'an tivarei" -- that's something that should make you tremble. 

4) Tos. writes that we blow 100 shofar blasts because of the 100 cries of Sisra's mother as she waited for him to return from battle, eventually realizing that he would in fact never be coming home.  The connection between shofar and the cries of Sisra's mother is baffling.  My wife suggested the following: The Midrash writes that because Ya'akov caused Eisav to cry when he took the brachos, therefore Mordechai ha'tzadik had to suffer and cry at Haman's hands (see post here).  Causing pain, even to one's enemy, is a dangerous thing.  

The tears of Sisra's mother had the potential to arouse a kitrug against Klal Yisrael.  Therefore, we need the kol shofar to temper that judgment.  The cry of the shofar, genuichei ganach, y'lukei yalil, drowns out the cries of our enemies. 


5) Lastly, in case I don't write before Rosh haShana, I wish everyone a kesiva v'chasima tovah for the upcoming year.

kedushas ha'aretz as an extension of the mikdash

1) The Mishna in Kelim (1:6) writes that Eretz Yisrael has greater kedusha than all other lands because bikurim, shtei ha'lechem, and the omer can only be brought from Eretz Yisrael.  Why should the Mishna have seized on only these examples to illustrate kedushas ha'aretz?  Why not refer to any of the mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz that only apply in Eretz Yisrael?

R' Soloveitchik explains that there are 2 dinim in kedushas ha'aretz: 1) sanctity of the land itself, which creates the chiyuvim of mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz; 2) sanctity of the land that is a function of it being the makom ha'mikdash.

The Mishna is speaking about kedushas ha'aretz which is a function of the land being an extension of the mikdash.  Therefore, it refers only to those items which grow in the land and are brought to the mikdash as an offering. 

This explains why that although the Rambam paskens that eiver ha'yarden is chayav m'd'oraysa in terumos u'maasros (Terumos 1:6, Mishne l'Melech ch 4), he paskens (Bikurim 2:1) that the chiyuv to bring bikurim from eiver ha'yarden is only derabbanan.  Eiver ha'yarden has kedushas ha'aretz with respect to mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz, but lacks the kedusha of being an extension of the mikdash.


Rav Wahrman in his She'eiris Yosef (vol 2 siman 26) uses this yesod to answer Tos question as to why the gemara (Baba Basra 81) needs a special derasha of "b'artzecha" to teach us that bikurim applies only in Eretz Yisrael.  Why is that not implicit in its being a mitzvah ha'teluya ba'aretz?  He suggests that since bikurim is connected not to the kedusha of the land in and of itself, but rather to the mikdash, therefore it does not fall under the same umbrella of the other mitzvos ha'teluyos ba'aretz and we need a new limud.

(One wrinkle in all this is that the Rambam Shemita 4:28 paskens that shemita does not apply m'doraysa in eiver ha'yarden.  Rav Wahrman works out a connection between shemita and mikdash -- ayen sham.)

"V'haya ki savo el ha'aretz..." -- "ain v'haya elah lashom simcha."  Coming to Eretz Yisrael, coming to bask in the kedushas ha'aretz, is the greatest simcha, a taste of the simcha of geulah, "az yimalei sechok pinu."   (Ohr haChaim).  Ashrei doreinu that we have such an opportunity.

2) "...Nisativ la'ger la'yason v'la'almanah... lo avarti m'mitzvosecha v'lo shachachti."  Klal Yisrael knows how to open their pocketbooks and give.  There was recently a tragedy in the community where a women passed away and left a family with young children and there was immediately an effort to raise a substantial sum to help them.  We all do a tremendous job of jumping in to help when people need it.

But what happens in a month?  How many people will remember that family and those children?  How many people will think of them in a year?  In 5 years?

When the needs of the ger, yasom, or almanah are staring us in the face on yeshivaworld or some other place, it tugs at the heart strings.  But that's not all the Torah wants.  "V'lo shachachti!"   I didn't forget about them!  The empathy didn't fade away a week, a month, a year, later.   It wasn't out of sight, out of mind.  (based on the Mishnas Sachir)

millstones and marriage

It's  not clear to me which is the lesser of the two evils: to abandon any hope of trying to explain the smichus ha'parshiyos between all the mitzvos listed in our parsha and just accept that it is a jumble of different ideas, or to risk trying to make connections at the cost of the explanation being forced and unconvincing.  Ibn Ezra 24:6 for one attempts to link together an extended series of mitzvos and parshiyos in the sidra.  Even if the attempt to link everything together with a common theme fails, that does not mean there is no value in thinking about connections between isolated links in the chain.  Not much time to write this week (and I skipped last week too, so my son told me I have to write something), so I want to just look at one example:

כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִישׁ֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה חֲדָשָׁ֔ה לֹ֤א יֵצֵא֙ בַּצָּבָ֔א וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹ֥ר עָלָ֖יו לְכׇל־דָּבָ֑ר נָקִ֞י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵיתוֹ֙ שָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֔ת וְשִׂמַּ֖ח אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָֽח׃

לֹא־יַחֲבֹ֥ל רֵחַ֖יִם וָרָ֑כֶב כִּי־נֶ֖פֶשׁ ה֥וּא חֹבֵֽל׃

What's the connection between the newly married husband being freed from army service and the prohibition of taking a millstone as collateral for a loan?

Netziv explains that people are often faced with competing obligations.  A man has a duty to server his country, but he also has a duty to his wife.  The Torah here tells us that during shanah rishona, the duty to society, as important as it is, is set aside because it would infringe too greatly on the home.  So too, while the Torah allows a lender to take security for a loan and guarantee his shibud on a debtor, if that infringes on the debtor to the point of robbing him of his living things have gone too far.

This Netziv speaks to modern life.  You are sitting and trying to learn, or trying to talk to your wife --suddenly you hear that annoying "ping ping" of your phone telling you another message has arrived.  Remember the good ol days when all we had to worry about was talking in shul an not a cacophony of electronic noise?  Society -- our jobs, etc. -- has a right to make demands on our life, but there has to be a balance.  Sometimes the intrusion is too much and has gone too far. 

Meshech Chochma offers another explanation for the smichus haparshiyos based on shitas haRambam that just like there is an issur of the lender taking the millstone even if the debtor voluntarily surrenders it, so too the husband may not go out to war even if his wife voluntarily allows him to do so. Why not?  If she doesn't care, why can't he go?  I think the answer is that the tachlis of the mitzvah is not to be home because your wife needs you around, but rather to home because you need to be around your wife.  Even if she allows it, the new husband should feel that he can't go and can't leave his bride.

2) On a completely different note, I wanted to share a tremendous vort on this pasuk from the Mishnas Sachir.  The pasuk starts "ki yikach isha..."  Why does it need to echo the same idea in the closing, "...ishto asher lakach?"

Every Friday night we sing eishes chayil.  It's nice to think of your wife when you sing it, but Chazal tell us that the chapter is really speaking about Torah.  "Yom chasunaso," the Mishna is Ta'anis tells us, is mattan Torah.  Each of us had a bride before we every got married -- we are married to Torah. 

When a couple gets married there are all kinds of details that need to be taken care of.  They need an apartment, they need furniture, they need pots and pans, and everything else to set up a house.  It's hard.  But there is something even harder than putting all that together -- what's even harder is filling your new home with ruchniyus. 

The Torah tells us, therefore, that when a person takes a new wife -- in addition to his "old" wife of Torah that he has been married to at Har Sinai -- he needs to set aside a whole year.   The truth is that the job takes a lifetime, but at least for one year a person needs to concentrate and dedicate himself to building his new home with ruchniyus.  "...V'simach es ishto" -- because if he does that with his new wife, than "ishto," his wife of Torah, his wife from Har Sinai, will share in his rejoicing as well.  And that's the most important simcha of all.

be careful with your shabbos candles

After telling us to destroy the altars and asheirot of idolaters and obliterate any trace of avodah zarah, "v'ibadtem es shemam min ha'makom ha'hu," the Torah tells us not to do the same to Hashem, "lo ta'asun kein l'Hashem Elokeichem." (12:4)

It sounds strange -- we need to be told not to go into the mikdash and start smashing things?!

Rashi explains in his first pshat that "lo ta'asun kein" is not speaking about the act of destroying things, but is a continuation of the earlier pasuk which describes the many places in which idolatry was worshipped and needs to be rooted out from -- on the mountains, in the valleys, across the fruited plains (whatever).  Don't worship G-d like that, the Torah tells us.  There is one central place of worship -- a beis ha'mikdash. 

Sefas Emes suggests that "lo ta'asun kein" is a continuation of the end of the pasuk, "v'ibadtem is shemam."  When avodah zarah is destroyed, it is gone and forgotten.  Does anyone worship Zeus on Mt Olympus any more?  There are a lot of crazy people in NY, but I have never heard of anyone who carves little statutes out of wood or stone and then starts bowing down to them.  The avodah zarah is gone and no one even cares.  Klal Yisrael is not like that.  "Lo ta'asun kein" is followed by "...l'shichno tidrishu u'basa shama."  Sefas Emes writes that the pasuk is not talking about when we have a mikdash, when we are living in peace in our land.  It is talking about after the churban, after we have experienced destruction.  We don't forget.  There is no "ibud shemam" by us.  "Im eshkacheich Yerushalayim tishkach y'mini."  We long for the mikdash, we long for avodah.

Rashi has a second pshat in which he explains that the Torah is warning not to do aveiros that will cause the mikdash to be destroyed.

R' Sorotzkin in his Oznayim laTorah asks: the Torah in so many places warns not to do avodah zarah, not to do aveiros chamuros.  These crimes have severe punishments and penalties.  If that's not enough to stop people from violating those issurim, how is telling them that it will cause churban ha'bayis going to make a difference?

Just posted on hebrewbooks.org is a sefer called L'Ma'alah l'Maskil by R' Avraham Yitzchak Kook (the contemporary Rosh Yeshiva in Rechovot).  He relates (p.491-492) that there was a certain R' Mordechai Weinstein who was zocheh to be meshamesh the Chofetz Chaim and who later came to live in Bnei Brak.  R' Mordechai's "thing" was kedushas Shabbos.  One day he hung up fliers in the Lederman shul reminding people to tell their wives to light neiros Shabbos early because otherwise they do not get credit for lighting Shabbos candles and they violate Shabbos.  Apparently in Bnei Brak people are medayek even in the shul announcements.  People came over and asked a kasea: obviously chilul Shabbos is far more severe than missing lighting Shabbos candles.  Why on the sign did R' Mordechai first warn that the women who lit late would not get credit for lighting, and only after that mention chilul Shabbos?

R' Mordechai answered that he had a kabbalah for that specific "nusach" for his sign from the Chofetz Chaim himself years ago.  And he had asked the Chofetz Chaim the same kashe everyone was asking him.  The Chofetz Chaim answered that to the simple, pious women, it was unthinkable to have Shabbos without Shabbos candles.  They did not know from 39 melachos, from zmanin -- they knew from Shabbos lights.  So you have to speak their language.  First, you have to explain that lighting after the zman was not lighting -- it was as good as no Shabbos candles.  After that, after you have their attention, you can mention by-the-way, it's also chilul Shabbos.

To a Jew living b'zman ha'bays, the mikdash was his Shabbos candles.  A Jew might do aveiros galore, but it would have been inconceivable to him for there not be avodah in the mikdash.  You have b'zman ha'zeh, to use R' Sorotzkin's example, Jews who are mechelel everything under the sun, but then they have a baby boy and suddenly want a traditional bris milah (unfortunately even this is growing less common).  This attachment to the mitzvah does not come from logic; it comes from some deep vestigial connection within the Jewish heart and soul. 

The Torah therefore warns that issurim would inevitably take away the mikdash.

I hate to end on a negative note, so let me just throw in a Chasam Sofer: "l'shichno tidrishu v'basa shama," he writes, is a guarantee.  If we are doresh the makom haShechina, then the result will be "u'basa shama," we will be zocheh to get there. 

So we have our work cut out for us. 

 

the bridge between rugalach and the mikdash

Chazon Ish (28:8) rejects the view of the Maadanei Y"T that the mitzvah of birchas ha'mazon was only given in year 40 when Klal Yisrael was in Eiver haYarden, which is the setting of our parsha where the mitzvah appears.  All mitzvos, writes the C.I., were given at Sinai (see Chagigah 6).  The details may be recorded in a different context, but that has nothing to do with when the mitzvah was given.

I am surprised that the C.I. does not cite Ramban's introduction to sefer Devarim where Ramban writes explicitly that there are no new mitzvos in our sefer. 

Ramban asks on himself: but there are 70+ mitzvos that in fact are first recorded in sefer Devarim? 

Ramban offers two answers: 1) these new mitzvos only apply in Eretz Yisrael, so Moshe had no need to teach them earlier; 2) these were uncommon mitzvos that might not have come up earlier.

Neither of these two reasons seem relevant to birchas ha'mazon which 1) must be done in all locations 2) and comes up as frequently as we eat.  The question that therefore begs itself is why Moshe waited to command or teach the mitzvah until now.

(One might have thought that eating the mon was not a satisfying meal -- va'yincha va'yarivecha"-- and therefore there was never an opportunity of "v'achalta v'savata" that required benching in the midbar.  The gemara (Brachos 48), however, writes that Moshe instituted the text of the first bracha of birchas ha'mazon on the mon [see R' Shteinman's Ayeles haShachar].)

I would suggest that contrary to what we learned in elementary school, birchas ha'mazon is not a thank you to G-d for our food.  It is a thank you for Eretz Yisrael.  The pasuk does not say, "v'achalta v'savata u'beirachta... al ha'ochel hatovah."  It says "...u'beirachta al ha'aretz ha'tovah."  (See Ramban!)  In the bracha of bareich aleinu, according to nusach haGR"A (see post here) we say "v'sabeinu m'tuvah" because even though you might live in America, all of our sustenance and food and parnasa comes into the world only via the brachos Hashem bestows upon Eretz Yisrael.

The Netziv in Bamidbar (20:13) has a yesod that may help us as well.  The mitzvah of tefilah, which according to the Rambam is a mitzvah d'oraysa, also only first appears in our parsha as well.  Why did Moshe not teach this mitzvah earlier -- did not one daven in the midbar?

The Netziv (while not asking the question in that way) writes that in the midbar, Klal Yisrael was sustained by miracles -- the mon, the be'eir, etc.  Tefilah, says Netziv, does not apply when everything is running l'ma'alah min ha'tevah.  Tefilah is needed only when things are running b'derech ha'teva.  What makes a tree grow?  Sunlight, rain, Co2, and prayer.  Rashi writes (Braishis 2:5) that G-d withheld rain from creation until man was created and could pray.  Prayer is part of nature -- not the supernatural.

(Parenthetically, the Netziv there quotes a Midrash that says that Hashem values the lowest member of Klal Yisrael as much as Eliyahu haNavi.  It's a pli'ah -- you mean a guy who barely keeps mitzvos gets as much great as the greatest of nevi'im?!  Five years ago I posted R' Bloch's hesber, but now we have a Netziv: tefilah is the great equalizer.  My mitzvos are not Eliyahu's mitzvos; my learning is not his learning.  But when I cry to G-d in need, my tears are as valuable as Eliyahu's tears.  Human suffering is democratic -- the lowest of us cries out in pain to Hashem with as much feeling as the greatest among us.)

True, according to the Chazon Ish, birchas ha'mazon was said over the mon, but I think like tefilah, the mitzvah essentially relates to our derech ha'teva life -- what can be more natural than eating -- and challenges us to connect that to a higher value that merely stuffing our mouth.  The mitzvah may have been given earlier, but it is put in the context of our parsha because on the doorstep of Eretz Yisrael, when Klal Yisrael was about to truly become engaged in building a country, with all that entailed, all through derech ha'teva, the mitzvah took on its true meaning. 

R' Yehoshua Shapira, R"Y of Yeshivat Ramat Gan, writes on our parsha that if a person eats rugalach and recites al hamichyah but has no idea how and why suddenly because of rugalach he is speaking in the bracha about Yerushalayim, about the mikdash, "mechonach v'heichalach," then he has missed the essential meaning of what the bracha is all about. 

Our brachos and tefilos are there to help us bridge the gap between the world of rugalach and the world of spirituality.  In the midbar, when you live surrounded by miracles, you don't need that bridge.  When you the life that we must live, b'derech ha'teva, you do.

the nechana in Moshe's tefilah

What's the connection between the end of the previous parsha -- where Moshe charges Yehoshua not to fear war against Canaan because G-d will help with that conquest just like he helped with the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og -- and the tefilah of Moshe which opens our parsha? 

Ramban (see also Ibn Ezra) explains that there is a gap in the narrative that Moshe is filling in. Moshe told us at the end of last week's parsha that Yehoshua would be in charge, but he never explained why he would not be filling that role himself.   Our parsha fills in the rest of the story.

I am not sure how Ramban would explain why the Torah needs to record the entire tefilah of Moshe in all its detail.  The only point that we need in order to close the narrative gap is the fact that G-d rejected Moshe's tefilah for whatever reason.  In fact, all we really need to know is that Moshe sinned and would therefore not be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael.   
Alshich suggests that the Torah here is delivering a powerful psychological boost to the people.  Moshe records his tefilah as a nechama (Shabbos Nachamu!) to Klal Yisrael.  Imagine the people's reaction to hearing that Yehoshua would be the one in charge: You took us this far and are now abandoning us?  You took us this far and now are giving up the fight?  So Moshe tells them that's not the case.  To the contrary, he davened because he wanted to join them and continue the journey.  He was even willing to give up his role as leader and enter Eretz Yisrael as just a simple Jew, a regular member of the klal, if only to be with them at that moment when they were zocheh to come into the land.  Moshe was in effect telling the people look at the great effort I made through tefilah so as not to forsake you.
 
Hashem turned Moshe down, "Va'yisaber Hashem l'ma'anchem," for the sake of the people.  Moshe spent his life working miracles; the dor de'ah of the midbar needed that type of leadership.  The generation which entered Eretz Yisrael had to find G-d in the mundane world -- no miracles.  Their leader is Yehoshua.  Moshe here told the people that G-d had to turn his prayers down because his neshoma was needed in chutz la'aretz, in the midbar, because he was the eternal leader of the dor de'ah; at the time of ultimate redemption he would need to be there to lead them into Eretz Yisrael. 
 
Alshich writes that we see from here that no Jewish soul is forsaken.  The dor de'ah were stuck in the midbar because they rejected Eretz Yisrael and trusted in the report of the meraglim.  They took the word of the spies over that of Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua, and Kaleiv.  Nonetheless, G-d did not let Moshe enter Eretz Yisrael so as to allow for the future redemption of even these souls.
 
We've discussed What of the souls of the dor ha'midbar, the generation Moshe served as the leader of for some many years?  Who would lead them to Eretz Yisrael in the future if there was no Moshe Rabeinu?  Therefore, Moshe had to remain outside the land.  Amazing: to bring the generation who had sinned with the meraglim and rejected the land eventually into the land, Moshe is denied the privilege he so wanted.  To prevent Jewish souls from being lost, Hashem denied the dying request of the great Moshe.

incompatible headlines

Just before 9 Av I was looking at Arutz 7 and noticed one tragic headline story after another.  In Paris a Jew was beaten, in Vienna Jews were attached, there was the usual fire kites in southern Israel.  All over the world it seems Jews are under attack and in peril.  The I chanced upon another site and I discovered that for the first time a kosher restaurant will open and be shooting for a Michelin rating.  For the first time you can take a kosher cruise to Antartica (I guess we are running out of places to go.)  

How can these two worlds exist side by side?

Those who learned the sugya of the churban in the Gitin will recall the story of the great city of Tur Malka, where while the enemy was slaughtering its inhabitants on one side of the city people were dancing and partying on the other end.

I don't think Chazal are just trying to convey to us the great size of Tur Malka.  I think Chazal are trying to show us how oblivious people can be to the plight of their neighbors, blind to what is happening until tragedy finally strikes them.

Even if we are not altruistic enough to think about what is happening to others for its own sake, we might well do so if only for selfish reasons.  

Midrash Eicha writes that had we been zocheh we would read the pasuk of "Ra'oh ra'isi es ani ami asher b'Mitzrayim," but now we have to deal with the pasuk of "R'ei Hashem ki tzar li mei'ay chamarmaru."

R' Yisachar Teichtel in his derashos explains that if we look at what is befalling others, "asher b'Mitzrayim," who are in difficult straits, that should motivate/ inspire/ shock us to correct our own sins if only to avoid the same plight.  But if we are blind to what is happening elsewhere, then, "mei'ay chamarmaru," we will be eating our own kishkes up with grief down the road because the same fate will eventually catch up with us.   

Shabbos Chazon - 9 Av

First a little lomdus, then a little machshava:

1) When 9 Av is a nidche, the halacha is that a ba'al bris does not have to finish the fast because it is his Y"T.  

You still have to fast even though it is a nidche.  Why should a ba'al bris have a different halacha than on a regular 9 Av?  

Rav Wahrman (Sheiris Yosef vol 5) quotes from R' Leizer Silver and the Rogatchover that a ta'anis tzibur is not just a chiyuv on the gavra not to eat, but there is a chalos in the day.

It could be that a fast which is nidche does not have that chalos in the day.  It is not 9 Av on Sunday -- it's 10 Av.  There is still an obligation to fast, but that is a chovas ha'gavra, not a result of the status of the day itself.  Therefore the Y"T of the individual can override it.

He has a number of proofs, but on to other things...

2) Vi'varech eschem ka'asher dibeir lachem…(1:11)  Chazal tell us as a general rule that dibur = kashos, harsh words, as opposed to amira = pleasant talk.  Why then does the Torah use the expression "dibeir" when it is speaking about brachos given to Klal Yisrael?

It's Shabbos Chazon; it's 9 Av.  We are at the climax of the season of kashos, or difficulties and harshness.  What the Torah is telling us, explains the Tiferes Banim (the son of the Bnei Yisaschar), is that even when we are faced with dibur=kashos, there is always a "vi'vareich eschem" behind the scenes.  Even when we are getting smacked, it is a bracha in disguise.

The gemara always uses the expression ta shema, come and hear; the Zohar uses the expression ta chazi, come and see.  When you are learning pnimiyus haTorah, you have to look more deeply inside (inside the ideas, but inside yourself as well).  Shabbos reveals the pnimiyus which is hidden the rest of the week.  Shabbos Chazon, ta chazi, is about seeing the pnimiyus of the tzaros of churban; it's about looking forward to the day when we can understand how there can be an element of bracha even there.

The Shulchan Aruch gives us a siman to remember that 9 Av always falls out the same day as the first day of Pesach: aleph-taf.  Aleph, the first day of Pesach, always corresponds to taf, Tisha b'Av.  

R' Leibele Eiger (Toras Emes last piece in Devarim) writes that this is not simply a mnemonic, but it tells us that there is a relationship between these two days.  At the moment of geulah from Mitzrayim, the seed of churban was already planted -- the aleph, the beginning, contained within in the end, taf.  But by the same token, the end, Tisha b'Av, contains within it the seed of future geulah, a new beginning.

The gemara (Ta'anis 29) writes that when 9 Av falls on Shabbos one can eat even a meal like that of Shlomo ha'Melech. Why does the gemara use that expression -- why not just as "a big meal?"  R' Leibele Eiger explains that the gemara is telling us that Shabbos reveals to us a little of the pnimiyus of 9 Av.  Shlomo built the Beis haMikdash, fulfilling the dream of "zeh K-li v'anveihu" (see Targum Onkelus there) that we had at Yam Suf.  When 9 Av is on Shabbos we experience a little taste of that fulfillment of geulah that ordinarily lies hidden within the day.  We can celebrate as if we lived in Shlomo's times, with a Beis haMikdash, with hashra'as haShechina.

Hopefully we will see it b'poel in our time.

feelings trump facts in tefilah

Two ideas on Masei, one a great yesod in tefilah, one a great Meshech Chochma:

1. Someone who killed b'shogeg must stay in an ir miklat until the kohen gadol dies.   The Mishna writes that mothers of kohanim gedolim used to deliver food to the ir miklat so that the killers would not pray for their children to die so they could get out. Why is the sentence of the murderer tied to the kohen gadol?  The gemara explains that the kohen should have davened for the killer to not suffer such a fate.

The gemara says that even if the kohen gadol is appointed just before the verdict on the case is announced, the murderer must still stay put until the death of the new kohen gadol. 

Why is this new kohen gadol held responsible for not davening when the facts of the case are in already before he is appointed?  What good will his prayers do at this point?  If the murdered committed a crime, he will be sentenced; if he is innocent he will go free.  Prayers can't change what happened in the past!

R' Baruch Sorotzkin (in HaBinah v'HaBracha) answers that when it comes to davening, the facts don't matter.  Imagine r"l if a parent or a child is in the hospital -- does anyone say, "Well, the doctor says this is the likely outcome, so there is no point of davening?"  Of course not.  Tefilah is an emotional response; we don't weigh odds or facts or logic before crying out to Hashem.  Here too, if the kohen gadol truly empathized with the plight of this fellow Jew, regardless of whether the facts were in, regardless of whether it was obvious how beis din would rule, he would still cry out on his behalf.  To not do so is a pgam in the kohen's ahavas Yisrael and midas hachessed.

2. The halacha is that one must tear kriya on seeing the ruins of the cities of Yehudah.   Sha'arei Teshuvah O.C. 561 quotes a sevara to explain why people don't tear kriya on seeing the city of Chevron: since it is an ir miklat and a city for the Leviim to live in, it no longer has the status of being part of Yehudah's portion.

This sevara makes two major assumptions.  The first assumption is that cities designated for the Levi'im to live in actually become their nachala.  In other words, it is no longer a city of Yehudah (or whatever sheivet) that Levi'im happen to live in, but it is a city that *belongs* to sheiveit Levi as their portion in Eretz Yisrael.  The Rambam paskens (Ma'aser Sheni 11:17) that Leviim and Kohanim can recite viduy ma'aser because even though they did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael they received cities to live in.  This is their nachala.

The second assumption: The gemara at the end of Sota tells us that after churban haBayis there were no longer cities designated for the Levi'im -- even when Ezra returned and resettled Eretz Yisrael.  Why not?  The Meshech Chochma on our parsha (Masei) admits that he is baffled by the question, but suggests that perhaps it is because unlike in the days of Yehoshua where there was a division of land through the urim v'tunim and each tribe was allocated a portion, Ezra never divided the land between the tribes.  (R' Chaim Brisker says a similar sevara to explain why there was no chiyuv terumos u'ma'asros in the days of Ezra even though m'doraysa the kedushas ha'aretz was re-established.) 

If this is correct, then the status of Chevron as one of the cities in the nachala of the Levi'im is null and void.

But, you will ask, then why do we have to tear kriya at all -- the status of the cities as "arei Yehudah" is null and void as well?  The answer to that is that it is not the ownership of the tribe of Yehudah which demands kriya (why Yehudah more than any other tribe?), but rather it is the cities of Yehudah's proximity to the mikdash which is why we tear kriya for them.  It's a geographical reality, not a din in nachala.  

See R' Zolti's Mishnas Yaavetz #48 who takes issue with this Meshech Chochma and has a full discussion of the topic.

leftover fleishigs on the 9 days

M'ikar ha'din there is no issur of eating meat during the 9 days.  The minhag is not to, but technically the issur applies only during seudah ha'mafsekes.  R' Yisrael Ya'akov Fischer (quoted in the MB printed with his notes) asks how such a minhag could have gotten started, as it poses a problem of ba'al tashchis.  What are you supposed to do with all your fleishig leftovers?  Throw them out and waste them?  He suggests that perhaps since a child is allowed to eat fleishig during the 9 days it removes the problem. 

The gemara (Chulin 17) raises the question of whether leftover meat, which was allowed to be eaten in the midbar without shechita, could be eaten once Klal Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael and shechita was required.  The Rosh comments that this is not just a historical question, but has a nafkah minah l'halacha: if a person took a neder not to eat a certain food from day X, can they eat leftovers of that food that remain from beforehand?  Since the gemara concludes l'kula, the Rosh paskens l'kula as well.

(Noda b'Yehudah Mh"T Y"D 64 discusses whether a nazir can drink wine that was prepared before he accepted his vow of nezirus, or be mitamei to a meis that died before he accepted his vow of nezirus.  Same idea... maybe.)

At first glance the Rosh is difficult.  In the desert, killing an animal was matir its meat. The question of the gemara boils down to whether that status-quo of heter remains in place despite the change in circumstance, or whether it falls off.  In the Rosh's case, there was never a matir for anything.  The question is not whether the status quo of a matir remains, but rather whether the neder can create a new issur on leftovers.  Why should it not?  

R' Noson Gestetner (in his shiurim to Nedarim daf 3) suggests a solution based on a yesod of the Avnei Nezer (O.C. 483): shechita is not a one time matir, but rather is a peulah na'nimshechet (to use the Rogatchover's jargon).  It's like the act of shechita continuously recurs on the animal and continuously recreates the heter.

Based on this, the gemara in Chulin takes on a completely different meaning.  An animal was killed in the midbar.  That act is a peulah ha'nimshechet, so the heter continuously renews itself.  However, once Klal Yisrael enters Eretz Yisrael, meat has a different matir -- it now needs shechita to be eaten.  What good is it if the act of killing the animal is nimshechet if that act no longer serves as a matir?  The gemara is not sure -- on the other hand, maybe since this meat is leftover meat, the new requirement does not effect it.

This is exactly the Rosh's argument.  Just like we see from the gemara that the meat is not effected by the new oser created by the need for shechita, so too, leftover food cannot be effected by the new oser of a neder.

nedarim define the real you

Chazal tell us that as a result of the sin of not keeping nedarim a person's children can die.  Ayom v'nora, a tragic punishment!  What is the connection, the midah k'neged midah, between the crime and the outcome?

Sometimes a person feels inspired by a great shiur or a great davening or some other positive experience.  At that moment the person feels the urge to make all kinds of changes.  "Konam my smartphone alay k'cheirem" -- they take a neder not to use a smartphone any more, for example  "Ashkim v'ashaneh perek zeh" (Nedarim 7) -- they take a neder to add a seder of learning., for example.  How long does the commitment last?  Let's be real.  Does it last a day or two, or a week or two?  By that point the inspiration is gone and life returns to normal until the next upswing, at which point the process repeats itself.

So who is the real you?  Is it the person who is inspired and wants to do better, if only the mundane morass of day-to-day life did not suck you down?  Or is the real you the person who lives in the hum-drum of daily existence and those moments of inspiration are the exception to the rule?

The nafkah minah is what you give over to your children.  Do you give over inspiration and idealism, even though you may not be able to maintain those height?  Or do you give over the daily struggle in the jungle of corporate life, where idealism is just escapism from the work needed to make more money or earn a better position?

Explains Rav Kook, if nedarim -- if those commitments you make when inspired or in need or seeking something greater -- are not real, i.e. if your idealism is just an escape but is not part of your essence, then you cannot properly raise the children Hashem has given you.   You sadly view the world backwards, and therefore Hashem c"v will take back the gift he has entrusted you with. 

just a thought

Can you imagine how much safer the Middle East would be today if Chucky Schumer had been as vocal in speaking out against the Iran deal as he is in speaking out against whoever Trump wants to nominate for SCOTUS?  

And yet this man is celebrated a honored by orthodox institutions.  I can't figure it out.

leadership lessons

My wife says it's OK to be intense.  Bilam even gave us a bracha for it -- "Mah tovu ohalecha Ya'akov."  

A few thoughts on Moshe's request for Hashem to appoint a new leader:

1) "Vayidaber Moshe el Hashem leimor, 'Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah.'"  There should have been no mystery about who the new leader of Klal Yisrael would be.  Chazal tell us that Eldad and Meidad prophesized that Moshe was going to die and Yehoshua would lead the people into Eretz Yisrael.  According to another Midrash (see below) Moshe thought his own kids might be worthy of taking the reins from him (not sure whether you can get these two Midrashim to fit together).  Whatever the case, Moshe could have simply chosen whoever he thought fit.  Yet that's not what he does.  "Yifkod Hashem... ish al ha'eidah" -- Hashem, you choose.  M'lo ha'Omer writes that an appointment by Moshe would have meant the new leader was a shliach of Moshe.  Moshe wanted more than that -- he wanted the new leader to be the shliach of Hashem.  That's a completely different level of leader.

2) "Vayidaber Moshe el Hashem leimor…"  Why does the pasuk add "leimor" here?  This is a private conversation between Moshe and Hashem -- there is nothing to communicate to Bnei Yisrael?  

Rashi explains that Moshe not only made the request, but he wanted a response from Hashem -- "leimor" here means Hashem should say something back.  (Rashi on "Va'Eschanan el Hashem...leimor" lists one other place besides that pasuk and ours where Moshe demanded a response. However, there are actually five pesukim in Chumash, as the Midrash notes, where Moshe makes a request followed by "leimor," so you have to figure out why Rashi only quotes three.)  See Ohr haChaim as well here. 

The Igra d'Kallah offers a different answer.  He suggests that Moshe was not just davening for that generation, but he was speaking to all future generations.  When there is a leadership vacuum in Klal Yisrael, then "leimor," we have to echo Moshe's tefilah and ask Hashem to send us people to direct us.  "Hu segulah lomar ha'tefilah ha'zos b'chol dor v'dor k'she'ro'im ha'dor shameim m'bli moreh u'manhig," says the Igra d'Kallah.  Reciting Moshe's words is a segulah to get Hashem to respond to our need for a new captain for our ship.  There are segulos for all kinds of things.  A segulah for leadership is one that we sorely need.  How many people daven that Klal Yisrael should have proper leaders?

3) The Midrash writes that when Moshe heard the parsha of the inheritance of bnos Tzelafchad he thought to himself that it was time to consider his own children's inheritance.  When he asked Hashem to appoint a leader, it was his own children who he had in mind.  (The pashtus is that Moshe's request is linked to the previous pesukim, where he was told by Hashem to climb up Har ha'Avarim and look out over Eretz Yisrael because he was going to die without reaching the land.  It sounds like Moshe is being given notice that the end is near, and so he begins to think about find a new leader.  Why the Midrash ignores the obvious link to the previous pesukim and instead links this parsha back to bnos Tzelafchad is something to think about.)  Hashem responded to Moshe that his children were not up to the task because they had not dedicated themselves enough to learning.  Instead, the leader would be Yehoshua, who for years had served as Moshe's faithful helper.

What was Moshe's hava amina here?  Did he not know his own children's character?  Was Moshe no different than every Jewish parent who thinks his/her child is a genius, until Hashem comes to him and tells him kah mashma lan that they are not?

Rabbi Rakeffet tells the story (I hope I have it right) of the students who asked R' Aharon Kotler back in the day whether on Shabbos they could walk around with their suit jacket draped over their shoulders or is that carrying.  R' Aharon answered that the bachurim in Slabodka used to wear their jackets like that and the Alter never said anything, so it must be OK.  He didn't pull our a Shulchan Aruch or dig up a Mishna Berura -- R' Aharon simply knew the din because that is what he saw by the Alter.

The Ksav Sofer says something fascinating here.  Moshe Rabeinu's kids grew up in the home of Moshe Rabeinu.   So what if maybe they were not beki'im in every Shach and Taz -- they knew what was right because they got it through osmosis!  They lived with and saw a living, breathing Torah.  (I find it fascinating because the Ksav Sofer might as well be writing about himself.  Of course he was a gaon olam in his own right, but he also grew up in the home of the Chasam Sofer absorbing Torah through osmosis.)

It's a nice hesber of the hava amina, but now you have to struggle a bit to explain why Moshe was in fact wrong and it was Yehoshua who was meant to take over.  (See Ne'os Desheh from Ishbitz for a different hesber.)

4) Moshe asks Hashem to appoint a leader who will take charge in times of war and in times of peace (see Seforno), "V'lo ti'hi'yeh adas Hashem k'tzon asher ain lahem ro'eh," so we should not be like a flock with no shepherd.  

It's clear from the beginning of his request that Moshe wants Hashem to give us a strong leader.  What does he add by saying we should not be like "a flock with no shepherd?"  (See Netziv)

If you understanding this pasuk, then you understand what a Jewish leadership is all about.  Explains the Sefas Emes (5648), the shepherd of Klal Yisrael is only the Ribono shel Olam.  Sadly, we don't always realize that.  Sometimes we as sheep wander off.  Sometimes we are not even aware of the presence of the shepherd guiding the flock.  We think we are all alone, exposed to all kinds of dangers, when really we are being watched over every minute.  Moshe said to Hashem, "Please give Klal Yisrael a leader who will help them realize they are not a flock without a shepherd."  

True leadership is not about saying, "I'm in charge."  True leadership is about making people aware that Hashem is in charge.  "Hashem ro'i -- lo echsar…"

a nation, not a religion

Balak sent messengers to Bilam saying that he should come and help, "Va'agarshenu min ha'aretz."  The Midrash comments, "Lo haya mivakesh elah l'garsham she'lo yikansu la'aretz."  All Balak wanted was to keep the Jews out of Eretz Yisrael.

Balak would fit right in today with the progressives, the EU, the Reform.  "I'm not anti-Semitic," he would say.  "I'm just anti-Zionist."  

Balak made the fundamental error of thinking that Judaism is a religion and not a nationality.  A religion stakes no claim to a country.  You can practice whatever avodah zarah you like any place in the world and its all the same.  Not so Judaism.  Judaism without Eretz Yisrael is an incomplete Judaism (see Ramban in parshas Acharei Mos.  See also the first Shem m'Shmuel on the parsha re: this Midrash).

Rashi writes that Bilam's donkey banging Bilam's leg into the wall three times is an allusion to the three regalim.  Hashem was telling Bilam that he cannot beat a people that celebrates the three Yamim Tovim of the year.

Everyone asks (and we've discussed it before): why does the celebration of the shalosh regalim in particular signify that Bilam's efforts were doomed?  Why is it more significant than any other mitzvah that we do?

Sefas Emes (5648 -- you really want to see this one inside) answers that on the shalosh regalim we make aliya la'regel and come together "ba'makom asher yivchar Hashem."  We demonstrate the centrality of Yerushalayim, the centrality of the makom mikdash, to who we are as a people.

"Ki me'rosh tzurim er'enu u'migeva'os ashurenu…"  Rashi explains that Bilam looked back and saw our roots, the Avos.  The Sefas Emes reads the pasuk k'peshuto: Bilam looked out over the mountains and valleys of Eretz Yisrael, and when he looked out at the land, at its character, at its soul, what he saw was the character and soul of the Jewish people.  He saw that we are one with the land.  

R' Sadya Gaon on "mei" vs "meimei" and the three exceptions to his rule

1) This column on the parsha by R' Nachman Kahane is simply a MUST READ.

I hesitate to excerpt any of it because then people won't click the link; OTOH, some people won't read it anyway and therefore better an excerpt than nothing.  He writes:

In the process of bringing purity and kedusha to the world, one must be prepared to dirty one’s hands and soil one’s clothing if necessary.

This is the diagnosis of the ailment from which we religious people suffer. How much more pleasant to escape the responsibilities of being an active partner in bringing about the redemption of our nation. It was more pleasant to go on with one’s life in Europe in the early 20th century than going to the Galil to drain — the Chula swamp, or to clear the fields of the Jezreel Valley of the stones to prepare the land for planting after 2000 years of dormancy.

We who believe in the Torah and the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael didn’t do it; the Chalutzim (pioneers), whom we mock for their alienation from Torah, did. They fell from malaria, fought off the Arab gangs with no more than sticks in their hands, went into the ocean to bring in our brothers from the refugee ships under the noses of the brutish-British, and they established the State. And the nearly one million religious Jews in chutz la’aretz led by certain people continue to mock, degrade, despise, scorn, and disdain, the “Tzionim”; but to this day continue to sit on the sidelines, spectators of the renaissance of our nation.

Please read the rest.

2) The Chasam Sofer quotes a yesod from R' Sadya Gaon that Rabeinu Bachei cites on parshas va'eira: there is a difference between the words "mei" and "meimei."  "Meimei," like "meimei Mitzrayim," means water that is potable and tastes good.  The makah of dam turned the "meimei Mitzrayim," the good, drinkable water of Egypt, into blood.  "Mei," like "mei Yam Suf," is water that is not usable.  

Chasam Sofer writes that he found what appears to be three exceptions to the rule.  One is in our parsha.  When Bnei Yisrael want to pass to through the land of Sichon, they say "lo nishteh mei be'eir," we won't drink from the water of Miriam's well.  Instead, we will buy your water, "meimecha nishteh…"  Asks the Chasam Sofer: what could be better than the water from Miriam's well?  Shouldn't it be "meimei be'eir," not the "mei be'eir?"

Unfortunately, the Torah got it right.  When they came to the land of Sichon, Klal Yisrael looked at what the people of Edom had and suddenly they lost their appreciation for the gifts Hashem had given them.  They viewed the special water of the be'eir as "mei be'eir," something unpleasant to drink.  The water their neighbor had was "meimecha," it was Perrier.  It's no wonder that immediately following this incident Aharon was taken from them.

The second exception the Chasam Sofer notes is a pasuk we are all familiar with.  Mizmor l'David Hashem ro'i lo echsar…  b'nos desha yarbitzeini al mei menuchos y'nahaleini.  Simple pshat in the mizmor is that we are talking about Hashem giving us pleasant pastures with tranquil springs.  So why "mei menuchos" and not "meimei menuchos?"

Chasam Sofer answers that the mizmor actually means that even when Hashem punishes us, it is still pleasant.  Even if we have only "b'nos desha," vegetables to eat -- we are not living on prime rib or steak; even if it's only "mei menuchos" that we have, water that is unpleasant to the taste, "gam ki eiliech b'gei tzalmaves lo ira ra ko Hashem imadi," under the worst circumstances we are still satisfied because we know despite it all, Hashem is with us.

The third seeming exception is a pasuk less familiar to most of us, so for that you will have to look up the Chasam Sofer : )

3) The Mishna in Parah (2:1) writes that a cow which is pregnant cannot be used as a parah adumah.  The R"AB explains that the you cannot use an animal which has carried a burden for parah adumah.  The pregnant cow is considered to be transporting a burden -- the fetus -- within itself and is therefore pasul.  

The Chelkas Yoav asks (in the Kaba d'Kusyisa): How then can a pregnant woman walk in a reshuas ha'rabim on Shabbos?  Is she not carrying the fetus, just like the cow is carrying the calf within itself?

You probably want to work out some chiluk between hil Shabbos and parah to find an answer, or maybe you have something better to suggest?