chukat answers

Chukat 5716
Alef.

Regarding the reason for why Moshe sent spies to the land of Israel that eventually led to the Divine Decree that the people would not be entering the land of Israel, RaShI attributes the decision to a request initiated by the people, and carried forward by Moshe, asking for HaShem’s Support. While HaShem only Allows the people to do what they want, Moshe takes this as Divine Approval for the enterprise. RaMBaN understands RaShI’s approach as leading to the conclusion that Moshe is to be blamed for sending the spies, since he did not object to the people’s request, and only in hindsight did he realize how destructive the project proved to be.

RaMBaN cites BaMidbar 21:32-5 as an indication that Moshe’s intentions were pure in the sense of looking for military information re how best to attack Canaan. If Moshe had had negative intentions back in BaMidbar 13, and was also seeking personal confirmation that the land was indeed a good land flowing with milk and honey, then once he sees the terrible consequences of sending spies, why would he send spies ever again instead of simply relying on God’s Leadership for conquering Canaan. By virtue of the fact that he does send spies again to Yazer, without consulting with HaShem for support, indicates that this is a normal practice, particularly in light of the principle that one should not rely on miracles, and that even the first time in BaMidbar 13, his intent was only to obtain information to be used in an attack. He failed to realize that the people and the overwhelming majority of the individuals who participated in the mission might have had a different agenda, i.e., to convince the Jews that Canaan was unconquerable, and that they should return to Egypt.

Beit.

1. “לפרק” means to divest oneself. The context of the statement is that however righteous and trusting one might be, he should always be prepared to doubt the inevitability of a good outcome because it is possible that something could go wrong. Fearing in this manner is a function of spiritual humility and the realization that one is not in control of events from the perspective of whether one continues to be deserving of positive Divine Intervention, regardless of previous Divine Promises.

2.  Although Yaakov is assured at the beginning of Parashat VaYetze that HaShem will Protect him and that generations will come after him and live in the land of Israel (Beraishit 28:13-5), when he is about to meet his estranged brother Eisav after many years of separation, he desperately prays that HaShem will Protect him (Ibid. 32:10-3). RaMBaN calls this state of mind “שמא יגרום החטא” (lest sin has caused [a change]), not attributing the lack of fulfillment of the Divine Promise to God’s Inconsistency, but rather to man’s inability to remain on the same spiritual level for any prolonged period of time.

3. With regard to why the Midrash assumes that Moshe might have been afraid only whether the Jews spiritually merited to win rather than because of Og’s military might,  

במדבר פרק כא

(לב) וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר וילכדו בנתיה ויירש ויורש את האמרי אשר שם:

(לג) ויפנו ויעלו דרך הבשן ויצא עוג מלך הבשן לקראתם הוא וכל עמו למלחמה אדרעי:

(לד) ויאמר יקוק אל משה אל תירא אתו כי בידך נתתי אתו ואת כל עמו ואת ארצו ועשית לו כאשר עשית לסיחן מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון:

(לה) ויכו אתו ואת בניו ואת כל עמו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד ויירשו את ארצו:

In the Gilayon for Chukat of 5709, which Nechama references in the present Gilayon, she quotes the same RaMBaN that she does in Section Gimel of this Gilayon, and it provides an approach for addressing this question.

In effect, RaMBaN explains that HaShem had Established a track record of being able to defeat any adversary that might present himself to the Jewish people. Therefore Og’s military prowess per se would not be a matter of concern as long as HaShem was on the side of the Jews. However, the latter was not necessarily a sure thing should the Jews have sinned to the point where God would Decide to Remove His Assistance, as happened later at the battle of Ai (Yehoshua 7:2-5). Another troubling factor to Moshe is that Og was not necessarily part of the Divine Plan of Conquering Canaan. Consequently it could be possible that the Jews could count on HaShem’s Assistance only for those battles that had direct bearing on the ultimate goal of bringing the Jews to Canaan. As it turns out, HaShem was Prepared to Assist in this battle as well. However, Moshe could not be certain of this from the outset.

Gimel.

1.  The addition of the word “אתו” in verse 34 suggests that there is something in particular about this individual that might give Moshe pause. Usually, warfare is a fear-inspiring setting regardless of who the adversary might be. Consequently, when, e.g., the Kohen Mashuach Milchama (in effect the military chaplain) gives the troops a pep talk prior to going into battle against any adversary, he says, (Devarim 20:3) “… 'Hear, O Israel, ye draw nigh this day unto battle against your enemies; let not your heart faint; fear not, nor be alarmed, neither be ye affrighted at them’”. However, there might be something in particular about Og, i.e., that he has earned some sort of special Divine Standing because of previous actions, that might result in him being victorious.

2.  In BaMidbar 21:23 ff. with regard to Sichon, messengers were sent, and preparations for war were initiated by the Jews. In the instance of Og, he is the one that is initiating hostilities. The fact that the Jews are begin beset upon could suggest that there is some Divine Retribution in this action, similar perhaps to the attack of Amalek, following the Jews leaving Egypt. (See for e.g., RaShI on Shemot 17:8.) Therefore Divine Reassurance is given to preclude such a line of thinking.

3.  Nechama refers to a particular RaMBaN to consider in addition to what RaMBaN states on v. 34:

רמב"ן במדבר פרק כא פסוק כא

(כא - כב) וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחון וגו', אעברה בארצך - אף על פי שלא נצטוו לשלוח להם לשלום פתחו להם בשלום, לשון רש"י. ועוד אבאר בע"ה במקומו (דברים כ י) כי בכל האומות נצטוו לפתוח להם לשלום, חוץ מעמון ומואב. אבל באמת מה שאמר לו "אעברה בארצך" זה היה משה עושה מעצמו דרך פיוס, כי ארץ סיחון ועוג ירושתם של ישראל היתה כי לאמורי היא, והיה מן הדין שאם יענו שלום ופתחו להם שיהיה כל העם הנמצא בה להם למס ועבדום. אבל משה היה יודע כי ישראל עתה לא יכבשו כל עשרה עממים, והיה חפץ שיהיה כל כבושם מעבר לירדן והלאה, שיהיה מושבם יחד, ושהיא הארץ הטובה אשר היא זבת חלב ודבש, הלא תראה שאם לא בקשוהו ממנו בני גד ובני ראובן לא היה מניח שם אדם אלא שתהיה לחרבה. וכן שנוי בספרי (תבא רצט) לתת לך, פרט לעבר הירדן שנטלת מעצמך, ועוד אמרו רבותינו (במדב"ר ז ח) בעשר קדושות, שאין עבר הירדן ראוי לבית המקדש ולשכון השכינה, וכן נראה בכתוב שאמר (יהושע כב יט) ואך אם טמאה ארץ אחזתכם וגו'. ולא שלחו אל עוג דברי שלום, כי הוא כאשר ראה כי הכו את סיחון יצא לקראתם למלחמה:

a) Moshe did not send messengers or offers of peace, implying that he was not prepared to fight Og.

b) The fact that Og attacked at Edrei, at the edge of his land, supports the idea that Moshe led the people in a direction that would have allowed them to avoid crossing Og’s land altogether.

c) Moshe did not expect that any of the Jewish people would reside anywhere but in Canaan proper, so there was no need to conquer lands on the other side of the Jordan.

4. If in Devarim 2:25, Moshe says that on the day when Sichon fought the Jews and lost, HaShem Began to cause surrounding nations to fear Him and His People, why was Moshe reticent about fighting Sichon, and only asked to be granted permission to pass through the land? RaMBaN on BaMidbar explains that Moshe had not been made privy to the fact that HaShem Wished the Jews to conquer not only Canaan, but also at least some of the peoples on the near side of the Jordan. Consequently, since Moshe thought that the Divine Plan was for everyone to take up residence in Canaan, he wanted to avoid confrontations with Sichon and Og. In retrospect, after HaShem’s Approval of the deal with Reuven, Gad and ½ Menashe (implied by BaMidbar 32:31, although not stated explicitly, and it could appear from the Peshat of the verses that this is an arrangement that Moshe forged without consulting with HaShem) Moshe realized that in fact the defeats of Sichon and Og were the beginning of the conquest of Canaan by the Jews, and that HaShem had deliberately Orchestrated Sichon’s warlike response—Devarim 2:30.

דברים פרק ב

(כה) היום הזה אחל תת פחדך ויראתך על פני העמים תחת כל השמים אשר ישמעון שמעך ורגזו וחלו מפניך:

(כו) ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות אל סיחון מלך חשבון דברי שלום לאמר:

(כז) אעברה בארצך בדרך בדרך אלך לא אסור ימין ושמאול:

(כח) אכל בכסף תשברני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי רק אעברה ברגלי:

(כט) כאשר עשו לי בני עשו הישבים בשעיר והמואבים הישבים בער עד אשר אעבר את הירדן אל הארץ אשר יקוק אלקינו נתן לנו:

(ל) ולא אבה סיחן מלך חשבון העברנו בו כי הקשה יקוק אלקיך את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו למען תתו בידך כיום הזה: ס

(לא) ויאמר יקוק אלי ראה החלתי תת לפניך את סיחן ואת ארצו החל רש לרשת את ארצו:

(לב) ויצא סיחן לקראתנו הוא וכל עמו למלחמה יהצה:

(לג) ויתנהו יקוק אלקינו לפנינו ונך אתו ואת בנו בניו ואת כל עמו:

5. An alternative reading might claim that even if eventually the other side of the Jordan would be conquered, how should Moshe know that this was to happen immediately on his way to Canaan, rather than at some future point? It stands to reason that Moshe would not wish to engage in any warfare other than explicitly authorized by HaShem, as in the case of the war against Midian (BaMidbar 31:1 ff.)

Daled.

Since HaShem is above time, i.e., the fact that He is Immutable—does not change—suggests that cause and effect relationships are irrelevant when it comes to God. If He has already Decided that the Jews would defeat Sichon, then for all intents and purposes, it was already done. This parallels the understanding of the languages of redemption at the beginning of Shemot:

שמות פרק ו

(ו) לכן אמר לבני ישראל אני יקוק והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים והצלתי אתכם מעבדתם וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע נטויה ובשפטים גדלים:

(ז) ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלקים וידעתם כי אני יקוק אלקיכם המוציא אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים:

(ח) והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לתת אתה לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב ונתתי אתה לכם מורשה אני יקוק:

Although it could be claimed that the “Vav HaHipuch” changes the past into the future, it could also be argued that HaShem’s Planning to Redeem the Jews makes it a fait accomplis even before it happens.

chukat

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/692.html

Korach Answers

Korach 5731
Alef.

1. By using the same expression that Moshe used in his response to their initial challenge, i.e.,    "המעט מכם" they reflect a mocking tone, rather than striving to provide a substantive answer to Moshe’s adjuration.

2.  Other manifestations of the disrespectful attitude of the rebels can be found in:

במדבר פרק טז

(יב) וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב ויאמרו .a לא נעלה:

(יג) המעט כי העליתנו .b מארץ זבת חלב ודבש .c להמיתנו במדבר .d כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר:

(יד) אף .e לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאתנו ותתן לנו נחלת שדה וכרם העיני האנשים ההם תנקר

.aלא נעלה:

a. (v. 12, 14) Datan and Aviram’s refusal to accept Moshe’s invitation to discuss the matter in the area of the encampment where Moshe resided.

b.  Moshe promised to bring the people to a land flowing with milk and honey (Shemot 33:3), but they charge that he took them out of such a land, i.e., Egypt.

c.  They accuse Moshe of leading them into the desert in order to kill them. (Ironically, as a result of the sin of the spies, the people bring that fate onto themselves.)

d.  As opposed to understanding that it was God Who Appointed Moshe to be in charge of the Jewish people, they claim that Moshe took charge on his own, seeking power and authority.

e.  Currently, we are in the desert rather than a land flowing with milk and honey and filled with fertile fields and vineyards. So Moshe has not made good on the promise that had convinced the people to leave Egypt.

f.   Everyone sees how the promises have not been fulfilled and Moshe has advanced himself. Moshe can’t blind them from observing the truth of his failure.

     3.  Disgruntled spies use the same terminology that Kalev uses to try to quell the   people’s concerns:

במדבר פרק יג

(ל) ויהס כלב את העם אל משה ויאמר עלה נעלה וירשנו אתה כי יכול נוכל לה:

(לא) והאנשים אשר עלו עמו אמרו לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו:

Beit.

1.  The Midrash is bothered by the fact that Moshe does not respond to the accusation that Korach and his followers initially make:

במדבר פרק טז

(ג) ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמרו אלהם: a. רב לכם b. כי כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם יקוק ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל יקוק:...

(ח) ויאמר משה אל קרח שמעו נא בני לוי:

(ט) c. המעט מכם כי הבדיל אלקי ישראל אתכם מעדת ישראל להקריב אתכם אליו לעבד את עבדת משכן יקוק ולעמד לפני העדה לשרתם:

(י) ויקרב אתך ואת כל אחיך בני לוי אתך .d ובקשתם גם כהנה:

(יא) לכן אתה וכל עדתך הנעדים על יקוק, .e ואהרן מה הוא כי תלונו תלינו עליו:

Korach’s accusation contains two points: a) Moshe and his circle have assigned themselves too much power, and b) all the people are equal in terms of their holiness and closeness to God, leading to the conclusion that no one should lord it over the others.

Moshe ignores both points, and instead raises the facts that c) the Levites have been given special status by HaShem, d) to ask for more status is unreasonable, and e) why are you attacking Aharon?

2.  There is an ambiguity regarding the identity of the “עדה” that Korach is fulminating to revolt.

במדבר פרק טז

(טז) ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני יקוק אתה והם ואהרן מחר:

(יז) וקחו איש מחתתו ונתתם עליהם קטרת והקרבתם לפני יקוק איש מחתתו חמשים ומאתים מחתת ואתה ואהרן איש מחתתו:

(יח) ויקחו איש מחתתו ויתנו עליהם אש וישימו עליהם קטרת ויעמדו פתח אהל מועד ומשה ואהרן:

(יט) ויקהל עליהם קרח את כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד וירא כבוד יקוק אל כל העדה: פ

א.  Korach did not wish to appear guilty of the same thing that he was accusing Moshe of having perpetrated, i.e., a power grab for himself. Consequently he tried to convince others that the was doing this for the good of the entire people rather than for a small group. It was to be perceived as a populist revolt even if Korach had in mind installing an oligarchy.

ב. Initially, Moshe tells Korach to prepare his group of 250 followers, as per BaMidbar 16:2 as well as the implication of 16:17—if there are 250 firepans, then we are talking about Korach’s 250 followers. But when the time for the showdown arrives, the text states that Korach gathered כל העדה as opposed to כל עדתו, suggesting that he had convinced others from the general community to if not join, then at least be sympathetic to his rebellion.

3.  א.  The Midrash wishes to illustrate that as long as there is a possibility that peace could be achieved, no one should stand on ceremony that he was too important to humble himself and pursue peace. Consequently, although Moshe, in light of his status, did not have to extend himself in order to try to defuse the confrontation, nevertheless he made the overture by going to the rebels, before giving up.

ב.  It appears that Moshe and the elders do not immediately follow HaShem’s Instructions in v. 24, i.e., to at once remove themselves from the area of the Korach encampment.

במדבר פרק טז

(כג) וידבר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(כד) דבר אל העדה לאמר העלו מסביב למשכן קרח דתן ואבירם:

(כה) ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל:

(כו) וידבר אל העדה לאמר סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם פן תספו בכל חטאתם:

(כז) ויעלו מעל משכן קרח דתן ואבירם מסביב ודתן ואבירם יצאו נצבים פתח אהליהם ונשיהם ובניהם וטפם:

This order is only given in v. 26, creating a chronology that Moshe made one last-ditch effort to reason with the rebels before resigning himself to their having  to be devastatingly punished in order to preserve order in the encampment.

Gimel.

1. א. When Korach and his followers use “רב” to attack Moshe, they intend to say that he has taken too much power for himself. Moshe responds that it is they who have appropriated for themselves “רב”, i.e., not that they have taken too much of something that is legitimately within their purview, but they have engaged in something that is entirely beyond them, in the sense that they are not arguing with Moshe, but with God Himself Who is the Source of the assignments of responsibilities.

ב. With respect to Korach’s complaint, the status that Moshe has “obtained” is something external to himself, and is merely a role, hence “to himself”. However Moshe responds that Korach’s actions go far beyond a role and constitute a self-image, i.e., “by himself” whereby he is presumptuous enough to challenge God Himself.

2. א. Perhaps Korach had to concede that Moshe had special standing with respect to the Sinai Revelation, given that he goes alone to the top of the mountain for forty days of being taught the Tora by the Divine. Consequently, even if Moshe is due a special position, Aharon did not have a special experience—if anything Aharon had a failed experience in terms of the sin of the Golden Calf  that it could be said he aided and abetted—and therefore it is Aharon’s position as Kohen Gadol that could be more easily challenged.

ב. With respect to the Ten Commandments as they appear both in Shemot and Devarim, the first two are stated in the first person whereas the others in the third person, leading to the Rabbinic comment (Makot 23b) that the entire people heard the first two Commandments directly, but had to listen to Moshe repeating the rest in order to understand them. Consequently, were Korach to reference the Commandments other than those that immediately lead off the Ten Commandments, he would be ceding to Moshe a victory in the argument regarding whether everyone was on equal footing when it came to the Divine Revelation.

3. א.  In both the verse in BaMidbar as well as that of Divrei HaYamim, there is an apparent lacuna for the sake of brevity and/or literary style, and a word that appears in the verse is understood as being repeated in another role in order to lend clarity.  Therefore, “הנבואה” is a noun that can stand alone , but is to be understood as repeated as the introduction of a phrase that relies on the construct form, “נבואת”. In the instance of BaMidbar, "הנועדים" is used as describing an association between Korach and his followers, but the word is understood to serve a second purpose, as defining that this entire group is standing in confrontation with God, rather than with Moshe and Aharon.

במדבר פרק טז

(יא) לכן אתה וכל עדתך, הנעדים על יקוק, ואהרן מה הוא, כי תלינו עליו:

ב. RaShI is accounting for the phrase, “ואהרן מה הוא”, i.e., if you are standing  in opposition to HaShem, Aharon is really irrelevant to the entire issue, and if so, why are you focusing upon him?

Korach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1415.html

shlach answers

Shelach 5724
Alef.

1. Verses appearing in Sotah 34b:

(BaMidbar 13:2

'Send thou men, that they may ויתרו (spy out) the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel; of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a prince among them.')

Devarim 1:22

And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said: 'Let us send men before us, that they ויחפרו (may search) the land for us, and bring us back word of the way by which we must go up, and the cities unto which we shall come.'

Yeshayahu 24:23

Then the moon shall be וחפרה (confounded), and the sun ashamed; for the LORD of hosts will reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His elders shall be Glory.

Since when one compares the verb that is used in BaMidbar, before it becomes apparent that the majority of the spies will give an evil report, with the verb that is used in Devarim which is a reprise of the events that took place @40 years before, in retrospect, Moshe recognizes that the spies for the most part (with the exceptions of Yehoshua and Kalev) were not objective observers, but rather biased with preconceived notions regarding the entire enterprise of entering the land of Israel in order to conquer and inhabit it. חפירה suggests digging up incriminating evidence that would justify a negative conclusion. From the context of the verse in Yeshayahu, where there is parallelism between וחפרה and ובושה, clearly indicating that the verb חפר has a negative connotation, such an interpretation is extended to the spies approach to the land of Israel.

2.  When one considers the two spy missions, i.e., BaMidbar 13 and Yehoshua 2, there is a marked difference in their intent. From the instructions that Moshe issues to the spies,

במדבר פרק יג יח) וראיתם את הארץ מה הוא ואת העם הישב עליה החזק הוא הרפה המעט הוא אם רב:

(יט) ומה הארץ אשר הוא ישב בה הטובה הוא אם רעה ומה הערים אשר הוא יושב בהנה הבמחנים אם במבצרים:

(כ) ומה הארץ השמנה הוא אם רזה היש בה עץ אם אין והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ והימים ימי בכורי ענבים:

it would appear that he was interested in obtaining qualitative rather than military data, i.e.,

what sort of land is it, what sort of people live there, in what sort of social arrangements do they live, do trees grow in the land. This was not about an imminent attack for which military information was being sought, as in the case of Yericho in the book of Yehoshua. Consequently, the fact that the same verb is used, reflects the fact that the spies came back with a military report, one that was not favorable to the Jews entering the land of Israel. Consequently, both in terms of the verb that Moshe originally used (see ans. 1) as well as the intent of the mission as per Moshe’s instructions, the spies obviously carried out their own personal agenda, resulting in the tragedy of the Jews wandering in the desert for an additional forty years.

Beit.

1.  Although the initial verb in the verse is in plural form, the verb describing the trip to Chevron is in the singular, suggesting that only one of the spies went there. This in turn raises the question of the identity of that particular spy.

במדבר פרק יג כב) ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון ושם אחימן ששי ותלמי ילידי הענק וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים:

2.  When Kalev is designated as “marching to a different drummer”, since we already know that Yehoshua has been designated for special consideration by Moshe, by the process of elimination, in light of Kalev defending the plan to enter the land of Israel, it is concluded that it was he who went to Chevron in order to draw inspiration to resist the influence of the majority of the spies.

3.  Rava understands the verb as Moshe praying on Yehoshua’s behalf to HaShem to Protect him from the negative influences of the other spies. The preposition “ל” would then take on the connotation “concerning” rather than merely “to”.

במדבר פרק יג טז) אלה שמות האנשים אשר שלח משה לתור את הארץ ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע:

4.  If each time Yehoshua would enter into a dangerous situation, Moshe would pray on behalf of his Talmid Muvhak, then what is stated in BaMidbar 13 is consistent with Shemot 17. While in Moshe’s mind, he was always hoping that HaShem would be with Yehoshua, the name may not have officially, publicly changed until the later period of BaMidbar.

Gimel.

במדבר פרק יג (כא) ויעלו ויתרו את הארץ ממדבר צן עד רחב לבא חמת:

(כו) וילכו ויבאו אל משה ואל אהרן ואל כל עדת בני ישראל אל מדבר פארן קדשה וישיבו אותם דבר ואת כל העדה ויראום את פרי הארץ:

1.  Since it has already stated that the spies had gone to carry out their mission, why does the beginning of v. 26 have to mention their “going”? It could have just as easily and understandably begun with the second word, “and they came”. Consequently, the conclusion is drawn that their spying had little to do with the conclusion that they ultimately shared, since this had always been their opinion from the outset.

2.  The people, perhaps as part of their slave mentality, had a very closed mind when it came to becoming independent and responsible for their own destiny. They felt vulnerable and incompetent. Consequently, even before they left, they wished that the status quo, i.e., all of their needs would be taken care of by HaShem, would continue, and this would happen only in the desert, not in a land for which they would have to take responsibility for their own destiny and welfare. The spy mission, therefore, was an exercise in futility, and only brought out the most negative feelings, both on the parts of the spies as well as the majority of the people to whom they reported.

Daled.

במדבר פרק יג כח) אפס כי עז העם הישב בארץ והערים בצרות גדלת מאד וגם ילדי הענק ראינו שם:

(כט) עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב והחתי והיבוסי והאמרי יושב בהר והכנעני ישב על הים ועל יד הירדן:

If Amalek were the first people that they encountered as they entered Israel from the South, then why mention the children of giants, who were not associated with a specific geographic location, first? The implication is that this is not a geographical consideration, but rather a tactic to incur intimidation.

Heh.

במדבר פרק יג לא) והאנשים אשר עלו עמו אמרו לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו:

1. RaShI quotes the Rabbinic interpretation on Sotah 35a re BaMidbar 13:31, according to Siftai Chachamim because of one of two reasons:

a. Since earlier, the term “הוא” was omitted in BaMidbar 13:28  אפס כי עז העםinstead of אפס כי אז האם ההוא ממנו, RaShI believes that they are adding an extra element to their argument. Whereas earlier they contended that the inhabitants were simply too strong for the Jews, this time they are emphasizing that they are too strong even for HaShem, KaVeyachol.

b.  The connotation that the spies are referring even to HaShem’s Inability, so to speak, to conquer the inhabitants is due to the implication of a literal rendering of כי חזק הוא ממנו, i.e., we are strong too, but they are just stronger. This assumption is rendered impossible when considering the metaphor that the spies adopt, i.e.,

במדבר פרק יג לג) ושם ראינו את הנפילים בני ענק מן הנפלים ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו בעיניהם:

that compared to them, we were like grasshoppers. Consequently, if someone who is strong is being compared unfavorably to the inhabitants of Canaan, it is HaShem, KaVeyachol.

2.  א. In both cases the meaning of the word “ממנו” is at issue—does the pronoun mean “of/from us” or “of/from Him/him”?

בראשית פרק ג כב) ויאמר יקוק אלקים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם:

 BaMidbar: The people in Canaan are stronger than Him--Derash (as opposed to us--Peshat). These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Not only are the people stronger than the Jewish people; they are even stronger than HaShem, KaVeyachol.

 Beraishit: R. Akiva—from him (man) will be decided Good and Evil, rather than from God—Derash. The reason why this is against the Peshat is because the rest of the verse no longer works, i.e., what does the phrase “הי' כאחד” mean when severed from “ממנו”?

ב. The end of the Midrash appearing in Sota 35a would seem to complement the Rabbinic idea cited by RaShI in his first comment on Beraishit:

רש"י בראשית פרק א

(א) בראשית - אמר רבי יצחק לא היה צריך להתחיל [את] התורה אלא (שמות יב ב) מהחודש הזה לכם, שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו [בה] ישראל, ומה טעם פתח בבראשית, משום (תהלים קיא ו) כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גוים, שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל לסטים אתם, שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים, הם אומרים להם כל הארץ של הקדוש ברוך הוא היא, הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו, ברצונו נתנה להם וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו:

Once one posits that HaShem Created the world, including the land of Israel, and Established who had the right to live in it, it should be possible for Him to Remover one nation and Replace it with another. Consequently it is heretical to suggest that He could not.  

shlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/269.html

behaalotcha answers

BeHa’alotcha 5731

במדבר פרק י

(לה) ויהי בנסע הארן ויאמר משה קומה יקוק ויפצו איביך וינסו משנאיך מפניך:

(לו) ובנחה יאמר שובה יקוק רבבות אלפי ישראל: פ

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said: 'Rise up, O LORD, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee.' And when it rested, he said: 'Return, O LORD, unto the ten thousands of the families of Israel.' 
Alef.

1. Although it may appear that Moshe calls upon HaShem to Give the sign for the encampment to move, HaShem has Authorized him to do so. Consequently, when Moshe gives the sign, it is tantamount to HaShem Giving the sign since it was HaShem Who originally set up this pattern.

משנה מסכת אבות פרק ב משנה ד

[ד] הוא (רבן גמליאל בנו של רבי יהודה הנשיא) היה אומר עשה רצונו כרצונך כדי שיעשה רצונך כרצונו בטל רצונך מפני רצונו כדי שיבטל רצון אחרים מפני רצונך.

The extension of the sentiment in Avot to our issue is that Moshe subsumed his personal will to the Divine Will, and therefore when Moshe gave the order for the encampment to move, it was the same as if HaShem had Done so, since they were both on the same wavelength.

2.  Either one of the following might qualify as representing the sentiment in BaMidbar 10: 

תהלים פרק צד

(א) קל נקמות יקוק קל נקמות הופיע:

תהלים פרק קטו

(א) לא לנו יקוק לא לנו כי לשמך תן כבוד על חסדך על אמתך:

Beit.

1. The common denominator in the two Midrashim is that an equation is drawn between God and Israel, maintaining that whoever hates Israel, is tantamount to hating God, Chas VeShalom.  The difference the two sources is reflected in the second source stating that the reason why others hate the Jews is because they clearly enact the lifestyle that HaShem has Commanded them to undertake. Consequently, when others attack Israel, they are really attacking God because the Jews represent God and His Commandments on earth, which is the cause of fury and frustration on the part of non-Jews.

2.   The discussions surrounding Amalek would appear to be another manifestation of this idea:

שמות פרק יז

(טז) ויאמר כי יד על כס קה מלחמה ליקוק בעמלק מדר דר:

רש"י שמות פרק יז פסוק טז

כי יד על כס קה - ידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא הורמה לישבע בכסאו להיות לו מלחמה ואיבה בעמלק עולמית, ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו, נשבע הקדוש ברוך הוא שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם, שנאמר (תהלים ט ז) האויב תמו חרבות לנצח, זהו עמלק שכתוב בו (עמוס א יא) ועברתו שמרה נצח, (תהלים שם) וערים נתשת אבד זכרם המה, מהו אומר אחריו (תהלים ט ח) וה' לעולם ישב, הרי השם שלם, (תהלים שם) כונן למשפט כסאו, הרי כסאו שלם:

דברים פרק כה פסוק יח  

אשר קרך בדרך ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים אחריך ואתה עיף ויגע ולא ירא אלקים:

רש"י דברים פרק כה פסוק יח

 …דבר אחר לשון קור וחום, צננך והפשירך מרתיחתך, שהיו כל האומות יראים להלחם בכם ובא זה והתחיל והראה מקום לאחרים. משל לאמבטי רותחת שאין כל בריה יכולה לירד בתוכה, בא בן בליעל אחד קפץ וירד לתוכה. אף על פי שנכוה, הקרה אותה בפני אחרים:

פסיקתא דרב כהנא (מנדלבוים) פיסקא ג - זכור

א"ר חוניא לאמבטי רותחת שלא היה ברייה יכולה לירד בתוכה ובא בן בליעל אחד וקפץ וירד בתוכה אף על פי שניכווה, אלא הקירה לפני אחרים. כך מן שיצאו ישראל ממצרים נפלה אימתן על כל אומות העולם, אז נבהלו אלופי אדום וגו' תפל עליהם אימתה ופחד (שמות טו: טו - טז), וכיון שבא עמלק וניזדוג להם אף על פי שנטל את שלו מתחת ידיהם, אלא הקירן לפני אומות העולם.

In other words, the throne of HaShem is never considered whole until the Divine Antagonist, who attacks the Jews, despite God’s obvious involvement with them and readiness to Perform miracles on their behalf, is defeated. Yet, ostensibly, isn’t it the Jewish people that Amalek attacks, not God? הא בהא תליא.

Gimel.

1. The term שובה according to R. Hirsch in BaMidbar 10:36 would suggest that in the future, when the Jewish people has expanded due to reproduction as well as conversion, HaShem will be able to Be within the people’s midsts if He now Dispenses their enemies whose intention is that population expansion never takes place.

2. רש"י במדבר פרק י

(לו) שובה ה' - מנחם תרגמו לשון מרגוע וכן (ישעיה ל, טו) בשובה ונחת תושעון:

רבבות אלפי ישראל - מגיד שאין השכינה שורה בישראל פחותים משני אלפים ושתי רבבות:

RaShI appears to understand the verse as describing a present rather than future circumstance.

3.   Sephorno’s idea is that the verse is describing the present situation of the Jewish people, because, in addition to the 603,550 men above twenty that were counted in the census (Shemot 38:26), once women and children were included. But if HaShem is Destroying His Enemies and we are describing a present situation, what is implied by His “Returning” to the Jewish people? They already number hundreds of thousands, it not more. If, as R. Hirsch contends, a future situation is being envisioned, then the idea of “Returning” to a people that has the potential to become that much greater in number would be in order. 

bhaalotcha

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1413.html

Parshat Nasso Answers

Naso 5731
Alef.

1.  Midrash: HaShem is Blessing the people via the Kohanim. Since God is Abstract, the people only know about such blessings when the Kohanim enunciate them. But God is there with them and Stands behind such blessings. Such an arrangement represents the Talmudic position that the Kohanim are Shluchai D’Shmaya—see Nedarim 36a. It is reminiscent of what HaShem Instructs Moshe before he and Aharon meet with Pharoah:

שמות פרק ז

(א) ויאמר יקוק אל משה ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך:

(ב) אתה תדבר את כל אשר אצוך ואהרן אחיך ידבר אל פרעה ושלח את בני ישראל מארצו:

And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. 

In the analogy, Aharon is to Pharoah what the Kohanim are to the Jewish people in the sense that each articulates the Divine Will. While in the case of Moshe and Aharon, there is yet another component, the Divine Revelation to Moshe; however, as far as Aharon was concerned, he had to give voice to a Revelation that he certainly did not directly receive, even as the Kohanim must follow the contents of the Revelation as articulated in the verses in the book of BaMidbar.

R. Hirsch: The essence of Birkat Kohanim is the congregation’s, via the individual who is dictating to the Kohanim what to say—usually the Shliach Tzibbur or some other official of the congregation. In effect, R. Hirsch claims, it is the congregation blessing itself by means of the words contained in BaMidbar. (This is a radical view, since I could have easily accounted for the Makri dictating to the Kohanim each word by thinking that this is in order that the Kohanim, who are unable to hold Siddurim at the time of the blessing of the people, not becoming confused and thereby able to  fully concentrate on what they were saying.) This would then be an instance of the Kohanim serving as Shluchai DiDan (see Nedarim cited above.) While the congregation is directed regarding how to bless itself, it nevertheless gives instruction to the Kohanim as to how to do this.

2.  V. 23 contains the phrase, “Say to them”, i.e., the Kohanim must be instructed each time to give the blessing, they must await the invitation from the people, which from R. Hirsch’s perspective suggests that it is in fact the people who are blessing themselves.

במדבר פרק ו

(כב) וידבר יקוק אל משה לאמר:

(כג) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם: ס

(כד) יברכך יקוק וישמרך: ס

(כה) יאר יקוק פניו אליך ויחנך: ס

(כו) ישא יקוק פניו אליך וישם לך שלום: ס

(כז) ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם: ס

3.  In order to demonstrate that the Kohanim can take neither the initiative nor contribute to the contents of the blessings, the example of Nadav and Avihu is cited (VaYikra 10:1-7). They brought was is called a “strange fire that was not Commanded by HaShem”, and this resulted in their deaths. Consequently, the Kohanim must diligently be sure to do only exactly as they have been directed, rather than add their own innovations or emphases to any of the Divine Service, including the blessing of the people.

4.  In verses 23 and 27,

כג) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם: ס

כז) ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם: ס

      the verb “ברך” seems to be used in two different senses. In the instance of v. 23, the connotation is the verbal blessing administered by the Kohanim to the people. In v. 27 the resultant manner in which HaShem will enact the blessings that have been administered is referenced. Consequently, in the first instance we are referring only to the words uttered by the Kohanim, while in the second we are talking about the actions that HaShem will hopefully proceed to take once the blessings have been administered.

Beit.

1. The citation from Shabbat 89a suggests that the essence of the Priestly Blessings, i.e., peace-- וישם לך שלום can only be achieved when there is a partnership between man and God. Even if God would Wish for there to be peace, if mankind is opposed, then peace will not result. Consequently, the blessing by the Kohanim is not only utilitarian in the sense that without them articulating the blessings, the people would not be aware of their existence, but it is also symbolic from the perspective that human beings are an important active part of the process, rather than helpless bystanders.

2.  R. Pollack is not interpreting HaShem’s Question to Moshe as a challenge to his not having Greeted God when he arrived, as RaShI seems to say, but rather in a more existential manner, i.e., did you actually strive to contribute to your society’s achieving a state of peace, rather than merely giving lip service to such an idea via pleasantries and courtesies demanded by social etiquette.

3.  It seems to me that according to Akeidat Yitzchak, the sense of “ברך” in the two verses would be the same, i.e., you, by not only your words, but also your actions must try to promote peace among the Jewish people, and only then will I be Able to Do the same.

4.  The interplay between what God will Do (Devarim 30:6; Yechezkel 36:26) and what the Jewish people is expected to do (Devarim 10:16; Yechezkel 18:31) suggests a synergy between God’s Actions and those of people. Without Siyata D’Shmaya, peoples’ efforts will prove futile; without peoples’ acceptance and intention, God’s Actions will Prove futile, Chas VeShalom when it comes to changing hearts and minds.