Parshat Pinchas
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Before Parshat Pinchas buries itself in the special sacrificial order for each holiday (what becomes the “maftir” reading for these special days), we hear the story of Tzlafchad’s daughters. Without rehashing old ideas that have been addressed here and here, suffice it to say Tzlafchad’s personal story is quite unclear and can’t be pinned on any single identification pointed his way in the words of the sages.
What is odd, however, is that his daughter’s make the claim that “he was not part of the Korach group…”
Of all things to say, isn’t that obvious? The worst offenders in the wilderness were from the tribes of Reuven (Datan and Aviram crowd) and Shimon (Zimri crowd), as well as the followers of Korach, who may have been from different tribes (though this is not delineated) or from the greater family of Yitzhar, Korach’s father – in other words, frustrated Levites. All of these groups lived south of the Tabernacle.
It is these episodes that provoked the Rabbis to proclaim, “Oy larasha oy lishcheino – woe is to the wicked one and woe is to his neighbor” (Bamidbar Rabba 18:5), suggesting that bad neighbors are a bad influence on those closest to them
But Tzlafchad was from the tribe of Menashe, safely hidden between Ephraim and Binyamin, somewhat away from the revolutionaries, west of the Tabernacle.
Moreover, at the beginning of the chapter preceding the Tzlafchad tale, we are given a rundown of the major families of every tribe – and a summary of who was part of the Korach group (26:9-11), as well as an out-of-place shout out to Tzlafchad and his daughters when the family of Chefer, Tzlafchad’s father, is mentioned (26:32-34). There is clearly no correlation and no connection between Tzlafchad and Korach.
So why mention it?
The Talmud (Baba Batra 118b) notes that the terminology utilized by Tzlafchad’s daughters actually refers to three groups – the “eidah” refers to the spies, “who protested against God” refers to the complainers of the Korach story (or perhaps the post-Korach story), and “the Korach group is self-explanatory” (those who challenged Moshe and Aharon). The Talmud notes that these groups all lost their merits to owning property in the land, which is why the daughters wanted to rule out any argument that their family was undeserving.
Which is fine – things work out relatively well for Tzlafchad’s daughters – despite their ending up having a limited pool of potential suitors. (See Bamidbar 36)
Let’s go back to the depiction of those who were destroyed in the Korach story. “Datan and Aviram were the communal leaders who led a revolution against Moses and Aaron as part of Korach's rebellion against God. The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach when the [rebellious] group died and fire annihilated 250 men. This involved a divine miracle. The sons of Korach, however, did not die.” (26:9-11)
When reading that story in Chapter 16 it seems plainly clear that there are two groups. Datan and Aviram complaining about Moshe being an ineffective leader, and Korach and company complaining that Aharon should not be the High Priest because others are equally worthy. Besides, Amram’s family has enough power with Moshe at the helm of the people; why does Aharon also merit a leadership position?
The fact that there are also two punishments – the ground swallowing up Datan and Aviram on the one hand, and fire consuming those using the firepans on the other - leaves us wondering about Korach's particular fate. Even though the Torah says it and Midrash indicates he was consumed by the ground (“Moshe is true, and his Torah is true!”) the people who burned the ketoret with him were burned with a fire - so which fate did he suffer? (Though see 26:10 which seems to clarify this point)
And now we are told that Korach’s children did not die! In Bamidbar 16:32-33 we were told that “earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them and their houses, along with all the men who were with Korach and their property. They fell into the depths along with all that was theirs.” This is followed by 16:35 – “Fire then came down from God, and it consumed the 250 men who were presenting the incense.”
How did Korach's sons escape?
Rashi says at the final moment they had pangings for Repentance. But Rashi also says this merited them a higher place in purgatory – closer to earth than those completely swallowed by the ground. But the verse says “they did not die!” Rashi’s explanation is troubling. More inline with the text, Ibn Ezra notes that the prophet Samuel descended from Korach, as did the authors of the Psalms that bear their names.
Targum Yonatan goes in a completely different direction saying they followed the teachings of Moshe, and not their father, and were not subject to the ground opening, the fire consuming, or the plague that followed.
While there is much to think about in that Korach’s sons seem to be heaped together with Tzlafchad in terms of the fates that they did not share, I think the lesson learned from Korach’s sons is that (at least in a free society) no one shapes your destiny but you.
And the same is true for Tzlafchad. Whatever his “sin” was, which may or may not have caused his death, it wasn’t of the magnitude that brought him out of deserving a portion of the land. As such, he should not be judged, and certainly his children should not be judged negatively on account of whatever it was.
In all likelihood, each of us has our own “little sin” that prevents us from being as complete as we would like to be. Maybe we’re not careful about a certain mitzvah, or maybe we succumb to a certain “minor” sin. Hopefully we can merit to pull ourselves out, like the sons of Korach, and hopefully in our efforts to do better we too will merit that our children (and we, if we repent!) should never suffer on account of our own misdeeds.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Thursday, July 21, 2016
To Live In The Promised Land, At Peace With the Neighbors
Parshat Balak
by Rabbi Avi Billet
A larger view of the Torah provides the context through which we can see how the Biblical Israelites were meant to relate to their neighbors living in the lands within and surrounding the Promised Land. (Bereishit 15:7)
Egypt was the land in which Abraham’s descendants were to be “strangers in a strange land” (Bereishit 15:13). It was also the land to which kings were forbidden to return the nation. (Devarim 17:16) The lands east of the Jordan River (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) were occupied by Edom/Seir, Midian, Moav, Emori, and Bashan respectively. Each of them was given the opportunity to allow the Israelites to pass freely through to the Jordan River, where the intended crossing into the Land was to take place. For reference: Edom – Bamidbar 20:14-19 (refused in verse 21); Emori – Bamidbar 21:21-22, attacked in verse 23; Bashan – didn’t wait for the request, but attacked the Israelites in Bamidbar 21:33.
In the case of Moav, the Torah tells us they had already been conquered by Sichon (Bamidbar 21:26), and perhaps the defeat of Sichon freed them from his oppression. We are told in Devarim 2:8-9 that the people of Edom and Moav were untouchables, owing to Edom being descendants of Eisav and Moav being descendants of Lot. It was only the defeat of Moav at the hands of Sichon, and their land no longer belonging to Moav that allowed the Israelites to conquer that land.
Even the Gaza area, historically owned by the Phillistines since the time of Avimelech King of Gerar, was untouchable to the Israelites on account of the peace treaty that had been made in the time of Abraham (Bereshit 21:22-34). Similarly, lands further east of the areas previously mentioned were also not in the realm of Israelite conquest on account of the treaty made between Lavan and Yaakov (Bereshit 31:51-54), and the line they made that each was not to cross.
As for the seven nations living in the Land, God declared they were unworthy of maintaining their presence there on account of their idolatrous practices and immorality. (see Devarim 7:1-2, Devarim 20:16-18, Yehoshua 3:10 and other places) Despite what the biblical text says, they were given the option to leave, as the Girgashi did, or to accept Israel’s authority (see last Tosafot on Sotah 35b), and had they done so, there would have been peace in the land since time immemorial. Even cities further out of these areas were to be given the option of accepting Israel’s authority, and had they done so they would have been spared of the sword. (Devarim 20:10-11)
We can also note that had Israel been deserving of staying in the land, they never would have been exiled.
All of this points to the idea that, while ancient Israel were certainly given one-time instructions to wipe out certain nations, the peaceful offer was always to be put on the table first. In many cases, such as Emori, Bashan, Moav, Midian, Jericho, Ai, as well as all the nations of Canaan (see Yehoshua 9:1-2), they chose to attack Israel. When your nation attacks, they become subject to a counter-offensive, which in ancient times often translated to a complete annihilation. Think about the aims and goals of the nation of Amalek, and what became the mantra towards Amalek which we still recall to this day (Shmot 17:14, Devarim 25:19), and was actually acted upon by King Saul (Samuel I 15) and David (Samuel I 30).
All of mainstream Jewry today does not subscribe to ancient rules of genocide. Any Biblical mandates of such were for a specific time, a single time, and never had any bearing beyond that time period. We may all find it troubling, just as, hopefully, contemporary Christians and Muslims do not subscribe to the horrific deeds perpetrated by their co-religionists over the last 2000 years. In an age of modernity, the civilized world has embraced coexistence and rejected the “accept my way or die” offer of bygone times.
In our parsha, we see that Moav (of the Lot family) and Midian (as easily represented by Moshe’s father-in-law Yitro) chose to attack the Israelites before even hearing an offer. Their efforts to destroy Israel from within forced Israel to take revenge against Midian (see Bamidbar 31).
The Middle East is a very large swath of land, which has room for many groups. Were each group to look at itself and say, “Let us make the best living conditions for ourselves. Let us grow our economy. Let us provide for ourselves. Let us make something of ourselves,” while at the same time realizing that war and fighting is beneficial to no one, it would be incredible to see what could come from putting down weapons.
In Solomon’s days, peace reigned in the Land. If Israel is not attacked, if Israel is simply respected and allowed to live their lives in peace, there would be no fighting, because Israel – from ancient Biblical times – has only wanted to live in the Promised Land in fulfillments of God’s vow to Abraham of “To your children I have given this land.”
Whenever they were not attacked, they had no reason to fight on the offensive or to defend themselves. (There were exceptions in ancient times, either for "Milchemet Mitzvah" or for expansion of land purposes (a common practice of many ancient nations) - but these were uncommon events)
And that is what the modern State of Israel would like to see today: neighbors who are happy to live as neighbors, who have no desire to destroy Israel’s rights to her Ancestral Land.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
A larger view of the Torah provides the context through which we can see how the Biblical Israelites were meant to relate to their neighbors living in the lands within and surrounding the Promised Land. (Bereishit 15:7)
Egypt was the land in which Abraham’s descendants were to be “strangers in a strange land” (Bereishit 15:13). It was also the land to which kings were forbidden to return the nation. (Devarim 17:16) The lands east of the Jordan River (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) were occupied by Edom/Seir, Midian, Moav, Emori, and Bashan respectively. Each of them was given the opportunity to allow the Israelites to pass freely through to the Jordan River, where the intended crossing into the Land was to take place. For reference: Edom – Bamidbar 20:14-19 (refused in verse 21); Emori – Bamidbar 21:21-22, attacked in verse 23; Bashan – didn’t wait for the request, but attacked the Israelites in Bamidbar 21:33.
In the case of Moav, the Torah tells us they had already been conquered by Sichon (Bamidbar 21:26), and perhaps the defeat of Sichon freed them from his oppression. We are told in Devarim 2:8-9 that the people of Edom and Moav were untouchables, owing to Edom being descendants of Eisav and Moav being descendants of Lot. It was only the defeat of Moav at the hands of Sichon, and their land no longer belonging to Moav that allowed the Israelites to conquer that land.
Even the Gaza area, historically owned by the Phillistines since the time of Avimelech King of Gerar, was untouchable to the Israelites on account of the peace treaty that had been made in the time of Abraham (Bereshit 21:22-34). Similarly, lands further east of the areas previously mentioned were also not in the realm of Israelite conquest on account of the treaty made between Lavan and Yaakov (Bereshit 31:51-54), and the line they made that each was not to cross.
As for the seven nations living in the Land, God declared they were unworthy of maintaining their presence there on account of their idolatrous practices and immorality. (see Devarim 7:1-2, Devarim 20:16-18, Yehoshua 3:10 and other places) Despite what the biblical text says, they were given the option to leave, as the Girgashi did, or to accept Israel’s authority (see last Tosafot on Sotah 35b), and had they done so, there would have been peace in the land since time immemorial. Even cities further out of these areas were to be given the option of accepting Israel’s authority, and had they done so they would have been spared of the sword. (Devarim 20:10-11)
We can also note that had Israel been deserving of staying in the land, they never would have been exiled.
All of this points to the idea that, while ancient Israel were certainly given one-time instructions to wipe out certain nations, the peaceful offer was always to be put on the table first. In many cases, such as Emori, Bashan, Moav, Midian, Jericho, Ai, as well as all the nations of Canaan (see Yehoshua 9:1-2), they chose to attack Israel. When your nation attacks, they become subject to a counter-offensive, which in ancient times often translated to a complete annihilation. Think about the aims and goals of the nation of Amalek, and what became the mantra towards Amalek which we still recall to this day (Shmot 17:14, Devarim 25:19), and was actually acted upon by King Saul (Samuel I 15) and David (Samuel I 30).
All of mainstream Jewry today does not subscribe to ancient rules of genocide. Any Biblical mandates of such were for a specific time, a single time, and never had any bearing beyond that time period. We may all find it troubling, just as, hopefully, contemporary Christians and Muslims do not subscribe to the horrific deeds perpetrated by their co-religionists over the last 2000 years. In an age of modernity, the civilized world has embraced coexistence and rejected the “accept my way or die” offer of bygone times.
In our parsha, we see that Moav (of the Lot family) and Midian (as easily represented by Moshe’s father-in-law Yitro) chose to attack the Israelites before even hearing an offer. Their efforts to destroy Israel from within forced Israel to take revenge against Midian (see Bamidbar 31).
The Middle East is a very large swath of land, which has room for many groups. Were each group to look at itself and say, “Let us make the best living conditions for ourselves. Let us grow our economy. Let us provide for ourselves. Let us make something of ourselves,” while at the same time realizing that war and fighting is beneficial to no one, it would be incredible to see what could come from putting down weapons.
In Solomon’s days, peace reigned in the Land. If Israel is not attacked, if Israel is simply respected and allowed to live their lives in peace, there would be no fighting, because Israel – from ancient Biblical times – has only wanted to live in the Promised Land in fulfillments of God’s vow to Abraham of “To your children I have given this land.”
Whenever they were not attacked, they had no reason to fight on the offensive or to defend themselves. (There were exceptions in ancient times, either for "Milchemet Mitzvah" or for expansion of land purposes (a common practice of many ancient nations) - but these were uncommon events)
And that is what the modern State of Israel would like to see today: neighbors who are happy to live as neighbors, who have no desire to destroy Israel’s rights to her Ancestral Land.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Moshe's Sin
Over the years that I have been writing a weekly thought on the parsha, one topic that has come up over and over is the question of the sin of Moshe - what caused Moshe (and Aharon) to be denied entry into the Promised Land?
Rashi says "hitting the rock." But the truth is it's not that simple. As Rabbi Menachem Leibtag has pointed out, the punishment does not fit the crime. And as I have pointed out, God never says it's because of a specific action that Moshe did. It's because of what he DIDN'T DO. (Elsewhere there is a general accusation of Moshe's rebellion here, but not specifically attached to "the hitting of the rock.")
This posting is simply a gathering of the pieces I've written that appear in the blog. First you'll see the links, which are followed by some of the suggestions of the commentaries as to what Moshe's sin actually was - or rather, an explanation for why he could not enter the Promised Land.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/01/moshes-destiny-to-never-enter-land.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2012/08/moshes-failure.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/07/time-and-plan-make-all-difference.html - Moshe's failure has much to do with being unprepared for the death of Miriam
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-moshes-punishment-has-very-little.html (I linked this one above)
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-new-interpretation-of-al-asher-mritem.html
And perhaps, as a footnote, Moshe understood what role he was supposed to play, and that it wasn't about him. http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2012/02/truly-humble-leader.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2011/06/moshes-teachable-moment-commitment-to.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2019/08/moshes-non-entry-to-promised-land-in.html
A different kind of thought about how Moshe let his emotions get the better of him
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/07/time-and-plan-make-all-difference.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/netziv-on-moshes-sin.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-formula-how-moshe-teaches-profound.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2020/07/is-there-merit-to-blaming-others-what.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-was-punished-with-moshe-and-aharons.html
HERE's a SHIUR I gave on this subject, using the commentary of Kli Yakar (audio)
What follows are notes I once put together on this subject (forgive the informality), and then the summaries of many views as recorded by Abravanel and Or HaChaim. The main point is, as Luzatto has pointed out (quoted by Nechama Leibowitz), Moshe has one story here which "seems" to be connected to his inadmission to the land (though in the Torah, there is a space which separates the "rock incident" from God's declaration that Moshe and Aharon will not lead the people into the land - suggesting they may not be directly connected), and the Rabbis heaped over ten sins onto Moshe and Aharon. This is why the approach of Abravanel, as summarized very nicely by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his Yalkut Meam Loez, is that Moshe and Aharon's tales of punishment are much bigger than what we find in this episode, and that the Torah masked the real reason for their non-entry in this story, to protect them.
No one has a good answer for these two questions: If the non-entry into the land has to do with this story, why did Miriam have to die? And what did Aharon do here that caused him to have to die?
Abravanel (summarizes different views)
Rashi says "hitting the rock." But the truth is it's not that simple. As Rabbi Menachem Leibtag has pointed out, the punishment does not fit the crime. And as I have pointed out, God never says it's because of a specific action that Moshe did. It's because of what he DIDN'T DO. (Elsewhere there is a general accusation of Moshe's rebellion here, but not specifically attached to "the hitting of the rock.")
This posting is simply a gathering of the pieces I've written that appear in the blog. First you'll see the links, which are followed by some of the suggestions of the commentaries as to what Moshe's sin actually was - or rather, an explanation for why he could not enter the Promised Land.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/01/moshes-destiny-to-never-enter-land.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2012/08/moshes-failure.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/07/time-and-plan-make-all-difference.html - Moshe's failure has much to do with being unprepared for the death of Miriam
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-moshes-punishment-has-very-little.html (I linked this one above)
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-new-interpretation-of-al-asher-mritem.html
And perhaps, as a footnote, Moshe understood what role he was supposed to play, and that it wasn't about him. http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2012/02/truly-humble-leader.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2011/06/moshes-teachable-moment-commitment-to.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2019/08/moshes-non-entry-to-promised-land-in.html
A different kind of thought about how Moshe let his emotions get the better of him
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2016/07/time-and-plan-make-all-difference.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/netziv-on-moshes-sin.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-formula-how-moshe-teaches-profound.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2020/07/is-there-merit-to-blaming-others-what.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-was-punished-with-moshe-and-aharons.html
HERE's a SHIUR I gave on this subject, using the commentary of Kli Yakar (audio)
What follows are notes I once put together on this subject (forgive the informality), and then the summaries of many views as recorded by Abravanel and Or HaChaim. The main point is, as Luzatto has pointed out (quoted by Nechama Leibowitz), Moshe has one story here which "seems" to be connected to his inadmission to the land (though in the Torah, there is a space which separates the "rock incident" from God's declaration that Moshe and Aharon will not lead the people into the land - suggesting they may not be directly connected), and the Rabbis heaped over ten sins onto Moshe and Aharon. This is why the approach of Abravanel, as summarized very nicely by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in his Yalkut Meam Loez, is that Moshe and Aharon's tales of punishment are much bigger than what we find in this episode, and that the Torah masked the real reason for their non-entry in this story, to protect them.
No one has a good answer for these two questions: If the non-entry into the land has to do with this story, why did Miriam have to die? And what did Aharon do here that caused him to have to die?
Ibn Ezra
Because Moshe lost his
concentration and did not speak to the rock when he hit it the first time it
only gave water with the second strike – he did not sanctify God and all the
rebellion was accidental.
Ramban
The sin was saying נוציא
לא קדשתם was in thinking it was Moshe and Aharon who
had drawn forth water
מעלתם בי no one saw what Moshe and Aharon were trying
to demonstrate (that it’s from God)
מריתם פי is because God had told them to speak to
the rock לעיניהם. They didn’t.
לא האמנתם
בי refers to the Israelites, or b/c
M&A did not do enough to strengthen faith
They agreed together to
hit the rock twice: Did not put faith in God. They rebelled
against the spirit of the law, which in turn is sacrilege. The problem
here was their anger which ultimately caused them to hit the rock an
unnecessary second time.
Bachya
Kabbalah says “פעמיים” was the problem.
In Shmot 17 Moshe hit the
rock one time because הנני עומד לפניך על הצור
Here he was told take a
stick – clearly for the purpose of hitting the rock – so M&A decided to hit
twice: a. for the צור b. for Hashem.
The “b.” was because
M&A thought God was angry at the people, and they needed to draw out a
“bracha” from up high.
They did not sin in
this respect (hitting, even hitting twice)
Problem was that there
was no Kiddush Hashem in the eyes of the Jews.
Devarim 3 – God was angry
at me because of you – led them to believe God’s strength waned. This was
the sin because it lessened the peoples’ faith in God.
Not that they
themselves (M&A) sinned, but that they caused the people to violate all the
things God accused Moshe of. Ultimately, since they sinned with a צור they were punished
Sforno
Problems: The people were challenging both Moshe as the agent of God, and God Himself, Who sent Moshe. The challenge for Moshe is to prove that he, the messenger, is a good leader, and God (the sender) is all good.
Miracle is to prove
this.
There are three possible kinds of miracles:
1. Hidden. Dewfall, general
reprieve from illness etc. Comes from prayers of righteous
2. nature could never accomplish alone, but with tzaddik’s help, through an action, it can be achieved. Turning the staff to a snake. Splitting the sea. Ground
opening; sun standing still
3. nature could never do. But it can be achieved when the Tzaddik says it will happen. The ground opening, the sun standing still. In this case, it would be when the stone turns into water, or provides water that is not coming from some other source.
This third miracle was
what God wanted the people to see through דיבור. This would resolve the problems of leader and
Sender (God)…there is nothing to fear for He is there. Once that is achieved, Moshe’s stick could even channel the water for each tribe, following miracle type 2 from above.
Because M&A decided together to make the second kind of miracle because they
did not believe God would make the third kind for the undeserving Israelite
mob (this is why Aharon is included in the consequence). An additional problem with doing this one is that the 2nd
miracle makes the messenger (Moshe) look great, but completely disregards the
Sender. And didn’t show the ‘fighters’ the error of their ways.
ולזה נכתב עליהם לא האמנתם בי שהרצון
בו לא בטחתם בי שאעשה מה שאמרתי ומעלתם בי (דברים לב, נא) שחיללתם כבודי
ולא הראיתם למריבים את סכלותם ומריתם פי בשלא שמרתם מצותי:
Or Hachaim
Moshe understood 2
reasons for the stick: 1. to strike, 2. to demonstrate power
ודברתם changes meaning based on intent of
speaker. Could mean to hit or to talk to it, teaching it some Toirah.
God intended for him
simply to hold the stick, and He wanted Moshe to teach the rock something,
while Mo thought “he means to hit it.” Of course “pshat” is to speak – but
Moshe never considered it b/c אמר "הנה לפני שני
דרכים, ואם אני עושה דיבור לבד ולא הכאה, אני חושש שמא הפירוש האמיתי הוא להכות,
ומה גם שהוא יותר פשטי, ועוד שהוא דבר רחוק שהדומם יתעורר בדיבור בן אדם, כמו
שכתבתי בסמוך, לזה אם אני מדבר בלא הכאה שלא כדרך שאמר ה' אין הסלע נותן מימיו,
ויתחלל שם שמים חילול גדול לעיני העדה אשר אני עושה הנס לעיניהם, ואתחייב ראשי
למלך, לזה יותר אבחר להכות, ואטה לפירוש היותר צודק במשמעות מאמר קח את המטה,
ויקוים גם כן מאמר והוצאת להם מים" וכו' כמו שפירשתי
And he spoke with the
rock as he hit it anyway. Then he contemplated which rock to hit, but
ultimately, Moshe’s main concern was God’s honor – his שוגג
happened באונס.
And it happened because
he developed a doubt – now let’s understand יען לא האמנתם
בי להקדישני. “You guys decided to go your path, assuming the rock would not
give water unless it was the rock. And only through hitting it. You did
not consider My name and how sanctified it would be if water came out, and
without any physical striking.
The fundamental point is if M&A had done a Kiddush
hashem, they would have entered the land, built th beit hamikdosh, which would
have brought even more of divine wrath upon them when they sinned because He
would not be able to destroy the Temple .
Kli Yakar
“The stick” = Aharon’s. Moshe was to show this stick to the people to teach
them “just as God had this stick produce water and flowers, so too a rock can
produce water.”
“Speak to the rock” = “ונתן מימיו”
סלע=160=עץ,
so rock should learn from the stick.
When Moshe hit rock - he used his own stick and initiative. The stick that
was מלפני ה' was commanded, but
every other act was not what God had commanded.
At קי"ס, Moshe הרם מטך ונטה ידך .. הרמה = removal.“Remove stick and use hand – because people credited
stick w/ supernatural powers, source of Moshe’s “magic.” “remove” the stick to
show no “shtickim” up his sleeve. This is why it says וירא
ישראל את היד הגדולה.
קי"ס
long ago, new gen Q = M’s hand or מטה?
Assume Yam Suf=Egypt =with
מטה. Now as he hits rock, people back 40 years
in thinking+אמונה saying stick had
magical powers. י"ס has הרמה of stick then hand does miracle. Here, hand is removed, and
stick does miracle. יען לא האמנתם בי means you caused people to believe in the
stick.
2 probs: A. They did not speak towards the rock at all (as Aharon was obliged
to do) about Aharon’s stick. B. hitting the rock lessened everyone’s faith – יען לא האמנתם means “You did not cause others to
believe in Me.”
Rashi - hit the rock instead of speaking to it
Chazal - they were disrespectful to the people in the tone in which they addressed them, especially calling them rebels
Rambam - they got angry/ lost their temper
Ramban - caused a lack of faith in God, said "WE" will bring forth water (not God)
Ibn Ezra - the second hitting of the rock (one time was sufficient)
________ - they did not sing "Shirah" after the water came out
Sefer HaIkrim - they did not speak to the rock, and therefore did not properly sanctify God's name
________ - there was no sin in actuality. Moshe suffered as a consequence of the bad behavior of the people
Abravanel's view - Aharon's sin was the Golden Calf, and Moshe's sin was the Spies. This story is just a distraction (he compares the sketchy details of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu to the sketchy details surrounding the reasons for Moshe and Aharon's deaths)
Or HaChaim's summary of other's views (many of these have been recorded already)
1. Rashi – Moshe hit the rock after God told him
to speak.
2. Ibn Ezra – Moshe was
correct to strike the rock (based on Shmot 17), but because the people were
complaining, he lost his concentration and required an unnecessary second
strike to regain his composure. Additionally, any action
before speaking to the rock, was considered ‘not doing what God commanded.’
3.
The sin was the second striking because the command to “speak” to the rock
really means to “hit” the rock, but only once (as per Shmot 17).
4. He did not
sing or cause song/praise of God after the miracle.
5. Maimonides - He called
the children of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob “rebels”.
6. Ibid #2 – he lost
his temper, causing the people to think God was angry at them, when He was not.
7. Nachmanides/R. Chananel/Or Hachaim – Moshe led the people to believe he and
Aharon were to cause the miracle, without giving credit to God .
8. R”M
Hakohen - The question regarding “this rock” is sarcastic, shedding doubt
on God’s ability to have water drawn from a rock – or any rock.
9. R”Y Albo - Instead
of using their prophetic rights to cajole the rock, as Joshua demanded of the
sun to stand still in Givon, they appealed to God to tell them what to do –
thereby causing a diminishing of faith.
10.
Maaseh Hashem – Moshe fought with the people as he wanted to draw water from a
different rock than they wanted – and he threw his stick in anger.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Time, and a Plan, Make All the Difference
Parshat Chukat
by Rabbi Avi Billet
It’s incredible what time can do to a person’s maturation process, in how a person deals with adversity. O – and how having a strategy can also help a person cope with the curveballs of life.
Of course, not having a strategy is what separates the proverbial “men from the boys” in seeing how people deal with life-challenges “in the moment," when a plan can’t be put into effect because no plan exists.
In Bamidbar 20, we see a situation that we’ve seen before: the people complain because they have no water to drink. In the past, we’ve seen Moshe’s response to this kind of complaining has spanned from crying out to God (Shmot 15:25) to getting into a fight with the people (Shmot 17:2) to thinking he was going to be killed (Shmot 17:4). And after the infamous rock incident in this chapter (20), we’ll see Moshe ignore the people completely in 21:5-6 when they complain about lack of water again.
So what is the strategy that is so helpful to Moshe in Bamidbar 20? The strategy is what we saw in two places in last week’s Torah portion. The first was in 17:3-5 when Elazar was instructed to hammer out the copper fire pans and attach them to the altar “as a sign and remembrance” to people who are not Kohanim not to encroach into places they do not belong. The second was Aharon’s blossomed staff that was "to be placed near the Ark to serve as a testimony to those who rebel." (17:25-26)
We do not see challenges to Aharon’s role in the Torah, nor do we see challenges to Moshe’s role, on par with Korach’s rebellion. But we do see similar affronts to Moshe’s leadership when there is no water. And here, unlike at the last episode in Shmot 17, we watch as the water dispute does not lead to a fight between Moshe and the people.
Instead of taking the complaint personally, as he did in the past, Moshe knows all he needs to do is produce Aharon’s blossomed staff, the symbol that is meant to put down insurrection and stop rebellion, and the people will remember what happened with Korach, and they will back down.
And that’s exactly what happened. God tells Moshe to take out the staff, which turns out to be the one that was “before God as God had commanded him” (20:9)
And the strategy would have worked, had Moshe not felt the need to say what he said in 20:10. Because all that was needed was the sign/symbol and the people would have looked, seen the staff, and remembered to back down. This should have been the result of Moshe's having grown on the job, having had the experience of time lead him in the direction of non-confrontation, as well as God's plan to rule the day.
So what went wrong here?
Moshe followed God’s instruction, but he let his emotions get the better of him. Even the best-laid strategies can’t cover for every contingency plan.
One major difference here is that while the people fought with Moshe in Shmot, it is clear here that they are fighting with God (20:13) (this may help us understand why the complaint in Chapter 21 goes in the direction it goes, with the snakes unleashing God’s wrath against complainers).
There is no question that had Moshe followed the plan of bringing the staff out and showing it, waiting for the people to process what they were to glean from seeing it, this story would have panned out differently. But when Moshe chastised the people as well, with all the implications his words included, his fate was somehow sealed.
We need to have plans for the challenges life will present, hopefully with the ability to anticipate the twists of any circumstance. People who have aging parents, or parents with declining health need to have a plan. While it is not easy to decide where a person wants to be buried, making such decisions (and paying for them in advance) eases a tremendous burden off of loved ones. What happens in the case of an unanticipated accident – where do the children go? How are they to be raised? Who will take responsibility?
Can each spouse manage alone – because inevitably one person will be widowed? Is there a plan for how to cope, how to deal with the loneliness? Will children be involved in keeping the widowed parent occupied and looked after when that time comes?
Part of the problem Moshe and Aharon faced in this story is that they seemed unprepared for the death of their sister. Remember that she died immediately before this story, and Alshikh notes the devastation they were dealing with at the time that the people came to complain about lack of water.
Even the most exceptional human beings have weak spots. Moshe’s planning did not anticipate his weak points – the loneliness that came from the loss of his sister, the inability to let God’s strategy of showing the staff work itself out, and the inability to restrain himself from giving a rebuke at the same time as he was giving water to the people.
May our lot be to create strategies for challenging times and to implement them in the most effective ways.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
It’s incredible what time can do to a person’s maturation process, in how a person deals with adversity. O – and how having a strategy can also help a person cope with the curveballs of life.
Of course, not having a strategy is what separates the proverbial “men from the boys” in seeing how people deal with life-challenges “in the moment," when a plan can’t be put into effect because no plan exists.
In Bamidbar 20, we see a situation that we’ve seen before: the people complain because they have no water to drink. In the past, we’ve seen Moshe’s response to this kind of complaining has spanned from crying out to God (Shmot 15:25) to getting into a fight with the people (Shmot 17:2) to thinking he was going to be killed (Shmot 17:4). And after the infamous rock incident in this chapter (20), we’ll see Moshe ignore the people completely in 21:5-6 when they complain about lack of water again.
So what is the strategy that is so helpful to Moshe in Bamidbar 20? The strategy is what we saw in two places in last week’s Torah portion. The first was in 17:3-5 when Elazar was instructed to hammer out the copper fire pans and attach them to the altar “as a sign and remembrance” to people who are not Kohanim not to encroach into places they do not belong. The second was Aharon’s blossomed staff that was "to be placed near the Ark to serve as a testimony to those who rebel." (17:25-26)
We do not see challenges to Aharon’s role in the Torah, nor do we see challenges to Moshe’s role, on par with Korach’s rebellion. But we do see similar affronts to Moshe’s leadership when there is no water. And here, unlike at the last episode in Shmot 17, we watch as the water dispute does not lead to a fight between Moshe and the people.
Instead of taking the complaint personally, as he did in the past, Moshe knows all he needs to do is produce Aharon’s blossomed staff, the symbol that is meant to put down insurrection and stop rebellion, and the people will remember what happened with Korach, and they will back down.
And that’s exactly what happened. God tells Moshe to take out the staff, which turns out to be the one that was “before God as God had commanded him” (20:9)
And the strategy would have worked, had Moshe not felt the need to say what he said in 20:10. Because all that was needed was the sign/symbol and the people would have looked, seen the staff, and remembered to back down. This should have been the result of Moshe's having grown on the job, having had the experience of time lead him in the direction of non-confrontation, as well as God's plan to rule the day.
So what went wrong here?
Moshe followed God’s instruction, but he let his emotions get the better of him. Even the best-laid strategies can’t cover for every contingency plan.
One major difference here is that while the people fought with Moshe in Shmot, it is clear here that they are fighting with God (20:13) (this may help us understand why the complaint in Chapter 21 goes in the direction it goes, with the snakes unleashing God’s wrath against complainers).
There is no question that had Moshe followed the plan of bringing the staff out and showing it, waiting for the people to process what they were to glean from seeing it, this story would have panned out differently. But when Moshe chastised the people as well, with all the implications his words included, his fate was somehow sealed.
We need to have plans for the challenges life will present, hopefully with the ability to anticipate the twists of any circumstance. People who have aging parents, or parents with declining health need to have a plan. While it is not easy to decide where a person wants to be buried, making such decisions (and paying for them in advance) eases a tremendous burden off of loved ones. What happens in the case of an unanticipated accident – where do the children go? How are they to be raised? Who will take responsibility?
Can each spouse manage alone – because inevitably one person will be widowed? Is there a plan for how to cope, how to deal with the loneliness? Will children be involved in keeping the widowed parent occupied and looked after when that time comes?
Part of the problem Moshe and Aharon faced in this story is that they seemed unprepared for the death of their sister. Remember that she died immediately before this story, and Alshikh notes the devastation they were dealing with at the time that the people came to complain about lack of water.
Even the most exceptional human beings have weak spots. Moshe’s planning did not anticipate his weak points – the loneliness that came from the loss of his sister, the inability to let God’s strategy of showing the staff work itself out, and the inability to restrain himself from giving a rebuke at the same time as he was giving water to the people.
May our lot be to create strategies for challenging times and to implement them in the most effective ways.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Strength Comes From... Strength
Parshat Korach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There is a certain irony to be found in the resolution to the plague that came about in the aftermath of the k’toret incident, when Korach’s followers all brought the incense with a strange fire and died. After some of the Israelites witnessed this devastation, they declared that Moshe and Aharon were destroying holy people, and these individuals were also smitten by a plague which only ended when Aharon, the High Priest, took some burning k’toret himself and preserved life through standing between the living and the dead – using the ingredients that not only killed so many people, but killed his older two sons as well.
Commentaries have different ways to describe this episode: Daat Zekenim suggest that what people viewed as a fatal drug could actually be an elixir of life. Rashbam clarifies this notion through noting that the k’toret which brings death to non-Kohanim preserves life when in the hands of the Kohanim. (Seems pretty ironic though, considering how Nadav and Avihu died – perhaps the culprit in their case was the strange fire, and not the k’toret.) Yosef B’khor Shor actually notes the Nadav and Avihu contradiction, and suggests that the episode here demonstrates Aharon’s superiority and greatness over his sons. Despite this possible advantage that Aharon had, B’khor Shor notes that anyone could rise to the level of being a Kohen, which is why the test of the staffs (17:16-24) needed to demonstrate which tribe had been chosen by God.
Most fascinating to me is the comment of Ibn Ezra, who notes that Aharon was told by Moshe to “place k’toret” and not to “place THE k’toret.” “V’hamaskil yavin,” – the wise person will discern and understand.
While I don’t think I understand the point Ibn Ezra is hinting at, I’ll take a stab at it.
17:11 – “Take k’toret.” 17:12 = “Aaron took, as Moshe had told him, and he ran to the middle of the assembled masses, where the plague had already begun to kill people. He offered THE incense to atone for the people.”
He did exactly as Moshe said – he took “k’toret” (no ‘the’), but in the end “the k’toret” brought atonement for the people.
The incense brought by Nadav and Avihu in Vayikra 10:1-2 is described as being “k’toret” (no “the”) as is the incense brought by the 250 firepan people in 16:7,17,18. However, when the whole episode is described in its conclusion, the spices they had brought are “the k’toret” (16:35)
And so I think we can suggest that the letter “heh” (meaning “the”) at the beginning of the word, teaches much about the role of the Kohen and the intention of the people.
It is understood that a non-kohen is not supposed to present the k’toret. This is hinted to in Bamidbar 3:10, and spelled out, of course, in the aftermath of the Korach episode in 17:5. But the ideal of “k’toret” – no matter if it is brought by the right person or the wrong person – is to bring it pure and simple. No one is “arriving,” no one is bringing “THE” k’toret. And anyone who thinks they have “arrived” are in the wrong. Unless the one(s) bringing it are designated by God to do so.
And perhaps this is the distinction between Aharon and all the others – his sons, and the Korach followers. Nadav and Avihu went on their own – they aimed to bring plain and simple k’toret. But because their fire ingredient was strange, they never got to complete their offering.
The Korach followers had proper intention! They did it right! But their improper ingredient was that they were non-kohanim. And they felt that after they brought their offering that they had “arrived.” Which is why their k’toret is described in the end as being “the k’toret” – albeit the kind that killed them.
Aharon, on the other hand, brings what he brings as a direct response to Moshe’s instruction. Bring k’toret. And he did exactly as Moshe said, with no higher intent, no personal motive for gain. As a result, his k’toret turned into “the k’toret” unbeknownst to his intention, because his was done completely correctly, with the correct fire, brought by the right person, and under the auspices of God’s most direct instruction as channeled through Moshe.
This is a very important lesson in awareness of self, one’s abilities, one’s destiny, and where a person takes life’s challenges. Certainly we should always be proud of our accomplishments. But we should never rest on our laurels, thinking that our diligence has brought us to the point where there is nothing more to do.
That attitude came back to haunt the IDF after the 6-Day war in the devastating fallbacks in the early days of the Yom Kippur War.
It was a great boon to the IDF after the incredible rescue at Entebbe, whose 40th anniversary was celebrated this week. But more recent IDF rules have handcuffed the IDF, holding them back from saving and protecting Jews in the manner they are best trained to serve.
May our people always remember that until the Messiah comes, there is work to be done. And we should never be satisfied with where we are, but always moving forward to improve our lot and the welfare of the good people of the world.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There is a certain irony to be found in the resolution to the plague that came about in the aftermath of the k’toret incident, when Korach’s followers all brought the incense with a strange fire and died. After some of the Israelites witnessed this devastation, they declared that Moshe and Aharon were destroying holy people, and these individuals were also smitten by a plague which only ended when Aharon, the High Priest, took some burning k’toret himself and preserved life through standing between the living and the dead – using the ingredients that not only killed so many people, but killed his older two sons as well.
Commentaries have different ways to describe this episode: Daat Zekenim suggest that what people viewed as a fatal drug could actually be an elixir of life. Rashbam clarifies this notion through noting that the k’toret which brings death to non-Kohanim preserves life when in the hands of the Kohanim. (Seems pretty ironic though, considering how Nadav and Avihu died – perhaps the culprit in their case was the strange fire, and not the k’toret.) Yosef B’khor Shor actually notes the Nadav and Avihu contradiction, and suggests that the episode here demonstrates Aharon’s superiority and greatness over his sons. Despite this possible advantage that Aharon had, B’khor Shor notes that anyone could rise to the level of being a Kohen, which is why the test of the staffs (17:16-24) needed to demonstrate which tribe had been chosen by God.
Most fascinating to me is the comment of Ibn Ezra, who notes that Aharon was told by Moshe to “place k’toret” and not to “place THE k’toret.” “V’hamaskil yavin,” – the wise person will discern and understand.
While I don’t think I understand the point Ibn Ezra is hinting at, I’ll take a stab at it.
17:11 – “Take k’toret.” 17:12 = “Aaron took, as Moshe had told him, and he ran to the middle of the assembled masses, where the plague had already begun to kill people. He offered THE incense to atone for the people.”
He did exactly as Moshe said – he took “k’toret” (no ‘the’), but in the end “the k’toret” brought atonement for the people.
The incense brought by Nadav and Avihu in Vayikra 10:1-2 is described as being “k’toret” (no “the”) as is the incense brought by the 250 firepan people in 16:7,17,18. However, when the whole episode is described in its conclusion, the spices they had brought are “the k’toret” (16:35)
And so I think we can suggest that the letter “heh” (meaning “the”) at the beginning of the word, teaches much about the role of the Kohen and the intention of the people.
It is understood that a non-kohen is not supposed to present the k’toret. This is hinted to in Bamidbar 3:10, and spelled out, of course, in the aftermath of the Korach episode in 17:5. But the ideal of “k’toret” – no matter if it is brought by the right person or the wrong person – is to bring it pure and simple. No one is “arriving,” no one is bringing “THE” k’toret. And anyone who thinks they have “arrived” are in the wrong. Unless the one(s) bringing it are designated by God to do so.
And perhaps this is the distinction between Aharon and all the others – his sons, and the Korach followers. Nadav and Avihu went on their own – they aimed to bring plain and simple k’toret. But because their fire ingredient was strange, they never got to complete their offering.
The Korach followers had proper intention! They did it right! But their improper ingredient was that they were non-kohanim. And they felt that after they brought their offering that they had “arrived.” Which is why their k’toret is described in the end as being “the k’toret” – albeit the kind that killed them.
Aharon, on the other hand, brings what he brings as a direct response to Moshe’s instruction. Bring k’toret. And he did exactly as Moshe said, with no higher intent, no personal motive for gain. As a result, his k’toret turned into “the k’toret” unbeknownst to his intention, because his was done completely correctly, with the correct fire, brought by the right person, and under the auspices of God’s most direct instruction as channeled through Moshe.
This is a very important lesson in awareness of self, one’s abilities, one’s destiny, and where a person takes life’s challenges. Certainly we should always be proud of our accomplishments. But we should never rest on our laurels, thinking that our diligence has brought us to the point where there is nothing more to do.
That attitude came back to haunt the IDF after the 6-Day war in the devastating fallbacks in the early days of the Yom Kippur War.
It was a great boon to the IDF after the incredible rescue at Entebbe, whose 40th anniversary was celebrated this week. But more recent IDF rules have handcuffed the IDF, holding them back from saving and protecting Jews in the manner they are best trained to serve.
May our people always remember that until the Messiah comes, there is work to be done. And we should never be satisfied with where we are, but always moving forward to improve our lot and the welfare of the good people of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)