Behaalotcha answers

BeHa’alotcha 5726

Alef.

Without the word “Petach”, one could have thought that the cloud was simply above the tent, but that it was possible to see inside by looking through the door. If that were the case, then it would not have been such a surprise that Miriam had been plagued with Tzora’at. The word “Hineh” suggests a sudden, surprising realization that was completely dependent upon the cloud’s removal.

י) והענן סר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן אל מרים והנה מצרעת:

Beit.

The additional usages of the first person plural pronoun ending for the two words at the end of the verse, suggests that something additional is being suggested in contrast to the first usage of the same pronoun. Consequently the first pronoun could refer to Aharon and Miriam, while the latter ones suggest that Moshe ought also to be included.

יא) ויאמר אהרן אל משה בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו:

RashI on Beraishit 42:11 appears to make a similar point.

רש"י בראשית פרק מב פסוק יא

(יא) כלנו בני איש אחד נחנו - נצנצה בהם רוח הקדש וכללוהו עמהם שאף הוא בן אביהם:

The additional word “נחנו” is being interpreted as including Yosef, which in fact was true; the brothers just didn’t know it at the time. This is a case of someone “prophesying, but not realizing what they are saying. Two other instances of the rule where someone inadvertently states the truth without being aware according to the Rabbis are:

      a. Bat Pharoah—

רש"י שמות פרק ב

(ט) היליכי - נתנבאה ולא ידעה מה נתנבאה הי שליכי:

            b. Datan and Aviram—

רש"י במדבר פרק טז

לא נעלה - פיהם הכשילם, שאין להם אלא ירידה:

Of course, if such an approach is accepted, it would then have to be explained just how Moshe should be included within this sin.

Possible hypotheses:

      a. Perhaps Moshe’s actions towards the Isha Kushit ,

א) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה על אדות האשה הכשית אשר לקח כי אשה כשית לקח:

either a reference to another wife that he married in addition to Tziporra, resulting in his siblings expressing empathy for the competition that his first wife is experiencing, or the fact that he separated from Tziporra once HaShem Makes him the permanent prophet for the revelation of the laws of the Tora (both of these approaches appear in commentators on this verse) could be considered Marit Ayin, and lacking a plausible explanation, caused Miriam and Aharon to look critically upon this development.

b.  It is possible that Moshe’s new patterns of behavior once the Revelation at Sinai had taken place, e.g., wearing a veil, separating himself from the rest of the Machaneh, living apart from Tzippora, etc., caused feelings of inferiority on the part of his siblings, leading to their criticism. Should Moshe have undertaken to deemphasize the changes that he underwent?

c.  Since Aharon and Miriam had quasi-leadership roles, Aharon the public spokesperson and Miriam the  women’s leader (reflected in her taking the lead at the Sea of Reeds for the women’s Shirat HaYam as well as being a women’s Tora teacher, as in Sifre Zuta, cited in Daled of this worksheet), Moshe perhaps should have shared with them what was going on to a greater extent to prevent their suspicions of the younger brother  lording it over them from developing.

d.  According to Rabbinic tradition, Miriam had been the one to convince their father Amram to return to Yocheved in order to have Moshe. Now Moshe himself is modeling for other men behavior that could be interpreted as promoting celibacy and the breaking up of families.

e.  ???

Gimel.
      1.  According to the simple meaning of verse 11,

יא) ויאמר אהרן אל משה: בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו:

the phrase “בי אדני” is an appeal to Moshe to simply pay attention to Aharon’s plea, with the content of the supplication beginning with the words “אל נא”. Alshich understands these two words as part of the appeal as opposed to its introduction, i.e., “within me I always looked upon you as our master, and therefore any disrespect was only on the outside, verbal, rather than internal.”

2.  Aharon addresses Moshe as “אדוני” only one previous time, following the sin of the Golden Calf when Moshe furiously turns on his brother for having allowed this to happen on his watch. However, instead of using “בי” a different introductory phrase contains the “אדוני" term, i.e.,

שמות פרק לב

 כב) ויאמר אהרן אל יחר אף אדני אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הוא:

Perhaps Aharon’s change in usage precipitated Alshich to see the word “בי” in a different light.

However, according to the principle, “דברים שבלב אינם דברים” why does it matter what at least Aharon, if not Miriam as well, were thinking? What they said is what is actionable, and therefore they have to answer for their words against Moshe. Is this simply an attempt at a defense, whereby the individual making the claim knows full well that his explanation will not carry the day?

3.  The difference between “נואלנו" and "חטאנו” is whereas the former is less condemning, i.e., we weren’t thinking, we spoke foolishly, an approach that suggests common human error and lack of reflection, “חטאנו" is more condemning, implying transgression, something that those who have the reputation for being righteous, cannot excuse of forgive. Furthermore, if “חטאת” is associated with inadvertent sin,

מלבי"ם אילת השחר פרק לט

שסג. [חטא עון פשע] פעל חטא נאמר על הנטיה מדרך הראוי וכולל בין השוגג בין המזיד כל שלא היה בסבת כפירה ומינות, וע"כ הוצרך לומר כי תחטא בשגגה. (ויקרא סימן קצב וס' שמח). אבל אם באו השמות בדיוק, וכ"ש כשנרדפים (ידח) [יחד], יציין בשם חטא את השוגג, ובשם עון את המעוה מצד השכל שהוא המזיד. ובשם פשע יציין את המורד בשאט נפש (ויקרא ס' קצב. אחרי סימן כא וסימן נה). ולפ"ז המעוה הוא הפך השוגג. והפשע הוא הפך האונס. והחוטא הוא הפך הספק (אחרי סימן נה):

nevertheless, the inadvertent sin of a righteous person is considered a deliberate sin since there is a higher expectation of such an individual, as in

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף לג עמוד ב

כדדריש רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי: מאי דכתיב )ישעיהו נ"ח( “הגד לעמי פשעם ולבית יעקב חטאתם.” “הגד לעמי פשעם” - אלו תלמידי חכמים, ששגגות נעשות להם כזדונות. “ולבית יעקב חטאתם” - אלו עמי הארץ, שזדונות נעשות להם כשגגות. והיינו דתנן, רבי יהודה אומר: הוי זהיר בתלמוד, ששגגת תלמוד עולה זדון.

Daled.

זכריה פרק ב

(יב) כי כה אמר יקוק צבקות: אחר כבוד שלחני אל הגוים השללים אתכם, כי הנגע בכם נגע בבבת עינו:

שמואל א פרק ג

(יא) ויאמר יקוק אל שמואל:...

(יג) והגדתי לו כי שפט אני את ביתו עד עולם בעון אשר ידע כי מקללים להם בניו ולא כהה בם:

איוב פרק ז

(כ) חטאתי מה אפעל לך נצר האדם למה שמתני למפגע לך ואהיה עלי למשא:

ירמיהו פרק ב

(יא) ההימיר גוי אלהים והמה לא אלקים ועמי המיר כבודו בלוא יועיל:

איוב פרק לב

(ג) ובשלשת רעיו חרה אפו על אשר לא מצאו מענה וירשיעו את איוב:

      לפי מפרשים שזאת דוגמא של "תיקון סופרים", אם לא מצאו מענה, סימן שלא הגינו על ה'.

1. The examples of “תיקון סופרים” in Midrash Tanchuma all have to do with avoiding blasphemy or anthropomorphisms. The “כינה הכתוב” in Siphre Zuta is an example of a person wishing to avoid saying something negative about himself, the point made in the footnote (indicated by an asterisk) attributed to Shaul Lieberman.

2.  The Tikun Sophrim in Iyov 32:3 is explained by commentators as regarding the statement that the friends of Iyov could not offer an explanation for the travails of Iyov, in effect impugning God for Allowing this to happen. However instead of directing the criticism at God, the text has them attributing to Iyov evil in order to explain his suffering.

3.  The example in BaMidbar 12 has to do with not stating directly a terrible thing that is happening to those involved in the conversation, as opposed to a theological issue having to do with conceptions of God.

4.   RaShI’s first explanation would have us understand the verse as whatever is happening to Miriam is literally happening to Moshe as well. The second explanation presents the situation as a bit more removed, i.e., naturally there is commonality between Moshe and Miriam since they both emerged from the same mother. However, this stops short of saying that whatever is happening to Miriam is also in effect happening to Moshe.

5.  If “Tehi” is interpreted as a being verb relating to Miriam, it could be understood as very clinical and impersonal, i.e., the state of this woman. So RaShI personalizes Aharon’s plea by emphasizing that this isn’t just any woman, buy our sister, which should make Moshe decide to take action that much more quickly and resolutely.

6. In the verse in BaMidbar 12:12, the first half of the verse is in the feminine, while the latter portion is in the masculine.

בראשית פרק ג

(יח) וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך ואכלת את עשב השדה:

רש"י

(יח) וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך - הארץ כשתזרענה מיני זרעים תצמיח קוץ ודרדר קונדס ועכביות, והן נאכלים על ידי תקון:

RaShI is defining the antecedent of the feminine verb at the beginning of the verse.

בראשית פרק ל

(לג) וענתה בי צדקתי ביום מחר כי תבוא על שכרי לפניך כל אשר איננו נקד וטלוא בעזים וחום בכשבים גנוב הוא אתי:

רש"י

(לג) וענתה בי וגו' - אם תחשדני שאני נוטל משלך כלום, תענה בי צדקתי, כי תבא צדקתי ותעיד על שכרי לפניך, שלא תמצא בעדרי כי אם נקודים וטלואים, וכל שתמצא בהן שאינו נקוד או טלוא או חום בידוע שגנבתיו לך, ובגניבה הוא שרוי אצלי:

Despite Yaakov being male, it is not he who will attest to his righteousness, but rather his “צדקות” which is feminine.

ויקרא פרק יט

(יג) לא תעשק את רעך ולא תגזל לא תלין פעלת שכיר אתך עד בקר:

רש"י

לא תלין – לשון נקבה מוסב על הפעולה:

Despite the fact that the first half of the verse are second person masculine imperatives, the last half deals with the payment for the work of the hired laborer which is feminine.  

In all four instances, RaShI is attempting to reconcile apparent inconsistencies vis-à-vis the gender of the verbs employed in a single verse.  

Heh.

The three sources in “Gimel” all thought that the real intent on the part of Aharon was to personalize Miriam’s situation; yet people are averse to pronouncing terrible things about themselves and consequently speak as if they are referring to an impersonal third party. Ibn Ezra understands what Aharon says as literal and therefore he is analogizing Miriam with a miscarriage, comparing the imperfections of the fetus’ body with the symptoms of Tzora’at. Consequently there is no need to assume that Aharon wished to personalize his plea to Moshe any further than what is actually stated in the text.

Vav.

1.    Our verse (BaMidbar 11:11) separates “Bilti” from the three words that follow it. This is similar to Beraishit 43:3, but different from Shemot 22:19 where “Bilti” is incorporated into the two words following it.

2.    In the first two verses, “Bilti” is used for emphasis, i.e., except, unless…. In the third verse, since the second part of the verse is the positive statement of the negative converse appearing at the beginning of the verse, there isn’t the same need for emphasis. 

Zayin. 

1.   ShaDaL understands the first and third thirds of the verse interrelated, with the middle third not directly leading into the final portion. The burden of the people is equivalent to HaShem Doing something negative to Moshe. The middle portion, i.e., why have I not found favor in Your Eyes, would seem to allude to a situation that the verse does not deal with. The verse talks about what has been given to Moshe, not what he could/should have been given.

2.    The cantillation cuts off the middle third from the first and third thirds of the verse.

3.    As Moshe’s frustration grows over the course of the verse, the first “Lama”  is more matter-of-fact than the second which is a cry of personal hurt and therefore is given greater emphasis in terms of the pronunciation.  

במדבר פרק יב

(א) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה על אדות האשה הכשית אשר לקח כי אשה כשית לקח:

(ב) ויאמרו הרק אך במשה דבר יקוק הלא גם בנו דבר וישמע יקוק:

(ג) והאיש משה ענו עניו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה: ס

(ד) ויאמר יקוק פתאם אל משה ואל אהרן ואל מרים צאו שלשתכם אל אהל מועד ויצאו שלשתם:

(ה) וירד יקוק בעמוד ענן ויעמד פתח האהל ויקרא אהרן ומרים ויצאו שניהם:

(ו) ויאמר שמעו נא דברי אם יהיה נביאכם יקוק במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו:

(ז) לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא:

(ח) פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת יקוק יביט ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשה:

(ט) ויחר אף יקוק בם וילך:

(י) והענן סר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן אל מרים והנה מצרעת:

(יא) ויאמר אהרן אל משה בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו:

(יב) אל נא תהי כמת אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו ויאכל חצי בשרו:

(יג) ויצעק משה אל יקוק לאמר אל נא רפא נא לה:

(יד) ויאמר יקוק אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים תסגר שבעת ימים מחוץ למחנה ואחר תאסף:

(טו) ותסגר מרים מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים והעם לא נסע עד האסף מרים:

(טז) ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות ויחנו במדבר פארן: פ

Baha'alotcha questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/972.html

Answers to Nasso

Naso 5730
Alef.
      1. The two evaluations of the Nazirite that emerge from these commentaries are:

a. The individual is a sinner for having willingly deprived himself of wine when there was no obligation to do so.

b.  The individual is holy for trying to separate himself from some of the “ways of the world.”

RaMBaN who suggests that the sin is entailed in ceasing to be a Nazirite, would support the second of these two views. 

2. The two interpretations of “Nefesh” that arise from the dispute in Tractate Ta’anit are:

a.   R. Eliezer HaKapar B’Rebbe: The Nazirite sinned against himself, i.e., he is the “Nefesh”, by depriving himself of something that was permitted.

b.   R. Elezar: The Nazirite sinned against himself, i.e., he is the “Nefesh”, due to his failure to maintain the holiness of his “Nefesh” by avoiding ritual impurity.  

3. Abrabanel suggests that if R. Eliezer HaKapar were correct, then not only when the person was exposed to ritual impurity should the text have made a comment how he has sinned against his soul, but also when he concludes his Nazirite state (v. 13 ff.) a similar comment should have been made. Since the comment appears only within the context of becoming ritually impure, that leaves the implication that as long as the Nazirite state is completed without incident, there was no sin against the Nazirite’s soul. (The fact that even in the latter case, one of the sacrifices brought is a sin offering would still have to be explained in some way. )

4.  One could have asked regarding R. Eliezer HaKappar why the case of suddenly being exposed to ritual impurity constitutes the Nazirite sinning against his soul—it was innocent and unanticipated. RaMA suggests that the entire state of being a Nazirite, while possibly proving beneficial in the long run, when the person after having gone to an opposite extreme finally reaches equilibrium, nevertheless during the time that he is in the extreme state, is considered as sinning against his soul. (But then you would have the Abrabanel’s issue of why a similar statement does not appear with respect to his conclusion of his Nazirite period without incident.)

Beit.

If the only times according to RE”M RaShI cites the hermeneutic principle “Semichut HaParshiot” is when something is not in its logical place, with respect to the issue of the juxtaposition of Sota and Nazir, it could be said that just as the discussion immediately preceding it, i.e., an aspect of the Asham sacrifice (5:5-10) would be more appropriate in the section where Asham is discussed—VaYikra 5, so too Sota which includes an offering that is precipitated by the woman’s sinful behavior should also more logically appear in the Chatat (VaYikra 4) or Asham section, as opposed to here at the beginning of BaMidbar. Once Sota is out of place, I can then consider its relationship to Nazir, which also could have been in the the Chatat section in VaYikra, since a sin offering is required whether the Nazirite suddenly become Tameh Meit or he completes his term.

Gimel.

Even if the sin according to RaMBaN is that the person is returning to the ways of the world which by definition are less holy than the life of a Nazirite, nevertheless, a sin offering is brought a)  for an inadvertent sin, and the decision to end the Nazirite state is deliberate, and b) the sin offering is usually brought after a sin has been committed, but here, the sin offering is required before the person resumes his normal life, and a sin per se has not as yet been committed. 

Parshat Nasso Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/172.html

Answers to Bamidbar

BaMidbar 5717.

Alef.

1.  The disagreement between Abrabanel on the one hand, and RaShI and RaMBaN on the other is whether based upon the beginning of Parashat Ki Tisa, every time a census was to be taken of the Jewish people, it was to be carried out indirectly by collecting and counting  ½ Shekalim.  

2.  RaMBaN emphasizes  the element of “Kofer Nafsham” (an atonement for their souls) that is entailed with the Machtzit HaShekel. The Chinuch only deals with the fact that the public sacrifices  of Tamidim and Musafim would be purchased with the money. While it could be said that sacrifices achieve atonement for the people, therefore continuing the theme of “Kofer Nafsham” (possibly RaMBaN’s view,) it could also be claimed that these sacrifices are neither Chatat or Asham and therefore the theme of atonement is not connected to specifically this type of sacrifice (possibly RaShI’s view.)

     Machzor Vitri assumes that the Tamidim are achieving atonement:

מחזור ויטרי סימן צט

כיצד תמיד של שחר מכפר על עבירות שנעשו בלילה. ותמיד של בין הערבים על עוונות שנעשו ביום. וכנגד כן אנו אומרי' והוא רחום כלומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים היו תמידים מכפרים ועכשיו שבית המקדש חרב ואין לנו תמידים וזבחים אלא תפילה הק' שהוא רחום יכפר עון בשביל התפילות שהן כנגד התמדיים וגם בתפילת השחר אנו אומרים והוא רחום בסדר קדושה.  

I did not find a source that claimed that the Mussafim were also for atonement purposes, but I can imagine positions that would maintain that all sacrifices contain some element of atonement.  

3.  RaShI assumes that by definition a census must be conducted indirectly. Abrabanel feels that this is not logical. If there is a specific Commandment from God to do something, why should any aspect of its proper fulfillment run a risk of plague or punishment—the implication of the verse from Tehillim 91 ? Since Abrabanel feels that since this census was not an optional count of the people initiated by one of the people’s leaders, but rather a count that God Commanded them to engage in at this point,  and there was no simultaneous pressing need to gather funds via a mandatory contribution of money (as there had been in Ki Tisa, when the Mishkan was being constructed and the silver sockets for the planks had to be fabricated), there is no basis to insist that the census must be conducted indirectly, by means of counting monetary contributions. Perhaps Abrabanel is further bothered by a Bal Tashchit aspect of contributing money for no reason. We have seen that when enough material for the construction of the Mishkan had been contributed, an order went out throughout the camp that there should not be any additional contributions (Shemot 36:7.) Similarly during the Korach dispute, Moshe protests how he never enriched himself throughout his leading the people (BaMidbar 16:15) suggesting that there had been suspicions that he had done so. This is certainly suggested in the following Midrashim:

שמות רבה (וילנא) פרשת פקודי פרשה נא

ב עליו נאמר (מ"ב =מלכים ב'= יב) ולא יחשבו את האנשים אשר יתנו את הכסף, ולא יחשבו זה דורו של יואש שהיו עושין באמונה, שנו רבותינו מי שהיה נכנס לתרום את הלשכה לא היה נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפליא שאם יעשיר יאמרו מתרומת הלשכה העשיר, שאדם צריך לצאת ידי הבריות כדרך שהוא צריך לצאת ידי המקום שנאמר (במדבר לב) והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל, ומשה היה גזבר לעצמו על מלאכת המשכן, אלא בשעה שא"ל הקב"ה למשה שיעשה המשכן מיד ויבואו כל איש וגו', לכמה ימים הביאו כל הנדבה, א"ר יוחנן לשני בקרים הביאו והותר, שנאמר (שמות לו) והמלאכה היתה דים, נכנס משה אצל בצלאל ראה שהותיר מן המשכן אמר לפני הקב"ה רבון העולם עשינו את מלאכת המשכן והותרנו מה נעשה בנותר, אמר לו לך ועשה בהם משכן לעדות, הלך משה ועשה בהן כיון שבא ליתן חשבון אמר להם כך וכך יצא למשכן וביתר עשיתי משכן לעדות, הוי אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות.

מדרש תנחומא (בובר) פרשת פקודי סימן ד

[ד] אלה פקודי המשכן. כל מה שהיה משה עשה היה עשה על ידי אחרים, שנאמר עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר (שמות לח כא), לא עשה אלא משנגמרה מלאכת המשכן, אמר להם בואו ואעשה לפניכם חשבון, נתכנסו כל ישראל עד שהוא יושב ומחשב שכח אלף ושבע מאות וחמשה ושבעים שקל, שעשה ווים לעמודים, אמר להם ואת האלף ושבע המאות וחמשה ושבעים [עשה ווים לעמודים] (שם שם /שמות ל"ח/ כח). באותה שעה נתפייסו ישראל על מלאכת המשכן, ומי גרם לו, על ידי שישב ופייסן, אלה פקודי המשכן, ולמה עשה עמהם חשבון, והקב"ה מאמינו, שנאמר לא כן עבדי משה [בכל ביתי נאמן הוא] (במדבר יב ז), ומשה אמר בואו ועשו עמי חשבון, אלא ששמע משה ישראל מדברים מאחריו, שנאמר (והיה כבא משה האהלה וגו') (שמות לג ט) [והיה כצאת משה אל האהל וגו' והביטו אחרי משה (שם שם /שמות ל"ג/ ח)], ומה היו אומרים, ר' יצחק אומר לשבח היו אומרים, אשרי יולדתו של זה, כל ימיו הקב"ה מדבר עמו, כל ימיו הוא משולם להקב"ה, והביטו אחרי משה וגו', ור' חמא אמר לגנאי, היו אומרים ראה צואר, ראה שוקים, אוכל משל יהודים, ושותה משל יהודים, וכל מה שיש לו מן היהודים, וחבירו משיבו אדם ששלט על מלאכת המשכן אין אתה מבקש שיהא עשיר, כיון ששמע משה כך אמר להן חייכם משהמשכן נגמר אני עושה עמכם חשבון, שנאמר אלה פקודי המשכן וגו'. 

4. RaMBaN accuses David of simply wishing to indulge himself and feel good about the number of men under his command when he wished that his army be counted. Since there was no practical benefit from knowing the number of soldiers, this was a personal indulgence considered sinful. Abrabanel attributes to David a change in his general humble subservient attitude with respect to God. Before, he would simply depend upon God for everything; but here, by wanting to be “sure” that his forces were substantive enough to combat the number of troops of the enemy, he is demonstrating that he has abandoned his simple faith. If winning and losing were truly in God’s Hands, then it shouldn’t matter how many or few soldiers David had. When God is on your side, then,

 ויקרא פרק כו

(ח) ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה ומאה מכם רבבה ירדפו ונפלו איביכם לפניכם לחרב:

      (Yet it is difficult to understand why attempts are made to attribute to David some shortcoming when in light of II Shmuel 24:1 it was God that Caused David to make this decision in order to ultimately punish the Jews for some earlier transgressions. See commentaries on this verse.)

5.  Textual proofs that would appear to contradict RaShI are 1) the use of לגולגלותם (by their skulls) (which is in contrast to the method of counting via ½ Shekalim) as well as 2) the repeated emphasis upon the number of names (again, as opposed to the number of half-Shekalim):

במדבר פרק א

יח) ואת כל העדה הקהילו באחד לחדש השני ויתילדו על משפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמות מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לגלגלתם:

(כ) ויהיו בני ראובן בכר ישראל תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמות לגלגלתם כל זכר מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(כב) לבני שמעון תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם פקדיו במספר שמות לגלגלתם כל זכר מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(כו) לבני יהודה תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(כח) לבני יששכר תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(ל) לבני זבולן תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(לב) לבני יוסף לבני אפרים תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(לד) לבני מנשה תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמות מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(לו) לבני בנימן תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(לח) לבני דן תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(מ) לבני אשר תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(מב) בני נפתלי תולדתם למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא:

(מט) אך את מטה לוי לא תפקד ואת ראשם לא תשא בתוך בני ישראל:

6. Proofs from II Shmuel 24 for RaLBaG’s assertion that David put too much faith in the strength of the army rather than in God:

שמואל ב פרק כד

(ג) ויאמר יואב אל המלך ויוסף יקוק אלקיך אל העם כהם וכהם מאה פעמים ועיני אדני המלך ראות ואדני המלך למה חפץ בדבר הזה: It is irrelevant to HaShem how many soldiers you have.                                    

 (י) ויך לב דוד אתו אחרי כן ספר את העם ס ויאמר דוד אל יקוק חטאתי מאד אשר עשיתי ועתה יקוק העבר נא את עון עבדך כי נסכלתי מאד: David realizes that he has gone about this incorrectly.          

(יז) ויאמר דוד אל יקוק בראתו את המלאך המכה בעם ויאמר הנה אנכי חטאתי ואנכי העויתי ואלה הצאן מה עשו תהי נא ידך בי ובבית אבי: פ The numbers of people which gave him confidence, are now   reduced because of his foolhardiness.                                                                                                        

(כא) ויאמר ארונה מדוע בא אדני המלך אל עבדו ויאמר דוד לקנות מעמך את הגרן לבנות מזבח ליקוק ותעצר המגפה מעל העם:  Since it was my lack of trust in HaShem that brought on the plague, I must reestab-

lish my relationship via sacrifices to assure that such plagues do not take place again.                            

(כה) ויבן שם דוד מזבח ליקוק ויעל עלות ושלמים ויעתר יקוק לארץ ותעצר המגפה מעל ישראל: HaShem            Allowed Himself to be mollified by the sacrifices, since He Recognized that David (and the people?) had learned an important lesson.                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                              
      7. An alternate version of the words of Yoav in response to David’s order to count  the people:

דברי הימים א פרק כא

(ג) ויאמר יואב יוסף יקוק על עמו כהם מאה פעמים הלא אדני המלך כלם לאדני לעבדים למה יבקש זאת אדני למה יהיה לאשמה לישראל:

This version of Yoav’s response adds the concept that all of the people are the servants of the king one way or the other. This would appear to support the RaMBaN’s contention that the counting serves no purpose. They are all going to go out to war one way or another—“they are all your servants”—so why are you so interested in knowing how many there are? 

Beit.
The reason why the RaMBaN on BaMidbar 1:45 is not contradicting either his words on 1:3, or for that matter the words of RaLBaG on II Shmuel 24 is because whereas ostensibly in the case of David, the counting was initiated by the king (albeit, according to the text, the idea actually originated with God Himself), the counting at the beginning of BaMidbar was a Divine Command. Once there is a Divine Command, all sorts of reasons can be hypothesized, including this is the manner in which kings prepare for war. However, when God has not Commanded such an action, then for a person to undertake it on his own is considered a lack of faith, or an exercise in haughtiness.

Bamidbar

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/489.html

Parshat Behar Bechukotai answers

Bechukotai 5722
Alef.
      1. The Berachot in VaYikra 26 can be grouped as follows:
            4-5 Agricultural success.
            6-8  Peace and military success.
            9 The nation will numerically expand.
            9 HaShem will Make a Covenant with the people (spiritual dimension)
                  10 You will be able to eat aged food (superior in quality.
                  11-12 God will Be Close to the people even physically.
                  13 God will Assure that the people will not be subjugated to others.

                                          à7 separate aspects of blessing.
        
                 The Kellalot:

16-17   Stage 1:¹ Disease, plagues, produce consumed by others, domination by enemies

            18-20    Stage 2: Drought, infertile land, will not produce sufficient food for your needs.

21-2      Stage 3: Attacks of wild animals, deaths of domestic animals, decrease in population of nation, roads will be destroyed.

23-26 Stage 4: Attacks by enemies, besieged and contagion will break out among those being attacked, the enemies will be victorious, famine resulting in food shortages and general hunger.

27-41 Stage 5: Will consume children to satisfy hunger, the instruments of idolatry (which brought on these problems) will be destroyed, cities will be laid waste, Temple destroyed, exile among the other nations, deep suffering in exile, the people will be “eaten up” in foreign lands.  

à 5 stages leading to repentance and      reconciliation. 

(When one tries the same exercise in the Tochecha in Parashat Ki Tavo, it would appear that the Kellalot do outweigh the Berachot—see Devarim 28.) 

2.  A well-known source where it is emphasized that God’s Penchant for Blessing outweighs Punishment considerations can be found in RaShI on Shemot 34:7: 

שמות פרק לד

(ז) נצר חסד לאלפים נשא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה לא ינקה פקד עון אבות על בנים ועל בני בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים:

רש"י

ועל רבעים - דור רביעי, נמצאת מדה טובה מרובה על מדת פורענות אחת לחמש מאות, שבמדה טובה הוא אומר “נוצר חסד לאלפים”:

Beit.

The reason why ChaZaL interprets the term “Im” as “Halevai” rather than a language of conditionality is because of the succession of stages in the Kellalot. Since the Kellalot are all designed to cause repentance on the part of the sinning people, we see that all things being equal, HaShem would “Prefer” for the people to do the “right thing” right from the get-go rather than having to Punish them in order to achieve the same ultimate result.  

Gimel.

HaKetav VeHaKabbala apparently assumes that short of supernatural interventions, it is inevitable that invaders will desire the resources of a country that has attractive resources. Consequently promises of dwelling securely simply preclude the necessity to wander elsewhere to find what the nation requires. Furthermore, since exile is part of the ultimate stage of the curses, the converse, i.e., not leaving one’s country, is understandably part of the blessings.

Daled.

1. According to RaShI, the new Covenant will be irreversible, unbreakable. The suggestion is if the Jewish people truly study and understand Tora and Mitzvot, they will internalize the values and concepts to such an extent that it will become impossible for them to act in any other way, in effect obliterating their freedom of choice, since they will no longer desire to sin. This is a recreation of the status of Adam prior to his eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, feels that aspects of the original Covenant had never been fulfilled from God’s End, i.e., the expansion of the numbers of the Jewish people to the point where they literally would not be able to be counted—similar to the stars in the heavens and the dust of the earty—due to their incredible numbers which to date has never happened. What is the point of creating a new Covenant if there remain unfulfilled aspects of the old one?  

2.  RaShI sees the original Brit associated with a different Name of HaShem, leading him to conclude that something that has as yet not happened, i.e., the fulfillment of Tora U’Mitzvot as God Wishes them to be fulfilled, will lead to a new relationship symbolized by a different Name of God involved in that relationship. Ibn Ezra sees the verb HaKimoti as a language of preservation and continuity. Consequently, any Brit that is mentioned will not be a new one, but rather the continuing unfolding and development of the old one.  

Heh.

1.  בדעות בתורה שלא קנו מהשלמות המכוון—  the people have as yet not acquired the characteristics and attributes of perfection that is intended as a result of fulfilling the directives of the Tora.

       דבר מורגש—the intended outcome of personal perfection is not something theoretical or aesoteric, but rather measurable, outwardly observable.

     שלא קניתם מן השלמות בדעות מה שיתחייב שתדבק השגחתי בכם—there is a minimum threshold of positive character development in order to make possible HaShem’s close Supervision/Association with the people.

         הנימוס התוריי מיישיר אל קנין השלמות—Despite the fact that the positive qualities have as yet not been acquired, as long as the negative behaviors and attitudes that the Tora precludes are being avoided, that is sufficient to allow for God to Connect His Personal Supervision to the Jewish people.  

2.  Perhaps in light of v. 11, it is difficult to understand v. 12-3.

ויקרא פרק כו

(יא) ונתתי משכני בתוככם ולא תגעל נפשי אתכם:

(יב) והתהלכתי בתוככם והייתי לכם לאלקים ואתם תהיו לי לעם:

(יג) אני יקוק אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים מהית להם עבדים ואשבר מטת עלכם ואולך אתכם קוממיות: פ

The use of language of “H-L-Ch”  in 12-3 suggests that further development and improvement is still required. If this is the case, then why has God already Placed His Tabernacle among the people? Consequently, RaSBaM is able to suggest that even though the Mitzvot Aseh still have to be worked on, since the Mitzvot Lo Ta’aseh are already being perfectly observed, this is sufficient to justify God’s Commitment, since it is only a matter of time until the desired perfection is achieved.  

3.  The typical interpretation would take its cue from the first verse in the series:

ויקרא פרק כו

(ג) אם בחקתי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם:

The fact that this opening verse uses the language of “BeChukotai Teileichu” as well as “VeAsitem Otam,” suggests that the Mitzvot Aseh have already been complied with and therefore the desired perfection already achieved.

Vav.

1.

א. What is the reason why God will Pay special attention to the Jewish people? What is the meaning of the anthropomorphism that suggests that God has a Physical Presence that He can Turn from side to side?

ב. The reward of the Jewish people seems to be deferred in many respects. The Midrash explains why it is not more immediate. The lack of immediacy is because   eventually the reward will be incredibly extensive due to how great the Avodat HaShem that was required of the Jewish people has been. So it’s not a matter of HaShem turning towards us, but rather only when he completes rewarding those to whom is owed lesser reward, will he turn to the Jewish people to grant them what they have earned.

2. Siftai Chachamim accounts for RaShI’s interpretation in this instance by drawing attention to the usage of the objective pronoun “Etchem” two times instead of simply saying “VeHifreiti VeHirbeiti Etchem.” The extra word suggests that the two verbs are referring to two totally different things as opposed to the more typical interpretation “Cause you to be fruitful and cause you to multiply” which essentially are two aspects of the same state.

Parshat Behar Bechukotai questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/336.html