Chukat Answers

Chukat 5728

במדבר פרק כא

(ד) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהֹר הָהָר דֶּרֶךְ יַם־סוּף לִסְבֹב אֶת־אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם וַתִּקְצַר נֶפֶשׁ־הָעָם בַּדָּרֶךְ:

(ה) וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹקים וּבְמֹשֶׁה לָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין מַיִם וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל:

(ו) וַיְשַׁלַּח יְקֹוָק בָּעָם אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים וַיְנַשְּׁכוּ אֶת־הָעָם וַיָּמָת עַם־רָב מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:

(ז) וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי־דִבַּרְנוּ בַיקֹוָק וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־יְקֹוָק וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת־ הַנָּחָשׁ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּעַד הָעָם:

(ח) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל־מֹשֶׁה עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל־נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל־הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי:

(ט) וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה נְחַשׁ נְחֹשֶׁת וַיְשִׂמֵהוּ עַל־הַנֵּס וְהָיָה אִם־נָשַׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ אֶת־אִישׁ וְהִבִּיט אֶל־נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת וָחָי:

Alef.

1.  R. Eliezer Ashkenazi is addressing the following textual anomalies:

a.  What is the difference, if indeed there are differences, between (v.6) “HaNechashim HaSerafim”; (v. 8) “Saraf”; (v. 9) “Nechash HaNechoshet”; and (Ibid.) “Nachash”?

b.  Assuming that there are differences between these terms, why didn’t Moshe carry out HaShem’s Directive to create a “Saraf” and instead made a “Nachash”?

c.  What is suggested by the nuance (v. 8) “Aseh Lecha”?

2.  The commentator understands “Aseh Lecha” as indicating that this action would be associated with the people’s sinning specifically against Moshe, and therefore the Saraf would be in order that the people atone for their speaking badly about their leader.

בראשית פרק יב

(א) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל־אַבְרָם לֶךְ־לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ:

רש"י

(א) לך לך - להנאתך ולטובתך, ושם אעשך לגוי גדול, וכאן אי אתה זוכה לבנים. ועוד שאודיע טבעך בעולם:

3.  (The link to the Gilayon to which Nechama is referring: http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=29 )

The differences between the RaMBaN’s and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi’s approaches in these two instances is that whereas the latter feels that he must account for the apparent inconsistencies, RaMBaN suggests that at times the Tora is effusive and presents detail, and at other times it is laconic and omits certain terms and phrases, thus rendering a close reading not always appropriate.

Beit.

1.

(ה) וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹקים וּבְמֹשֶׁה לָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לָמוּת בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי אֵין לֶחֶם וְאֵין מַיִם וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל:

The people are saying that they they have no food or water, when in fact they did have the manna as well as water provided by the Be’er associated with Miriam. (When Miriam dies, the Tora states that they had no water, implying that as long as Miriam was alive, their water needs were taken care of.)

2.  אשר להם כן Despite their protestations re lack of food and water, in fact they certainly did have these commodities.

3.  R. Hirsch addresses this issue:

רש"ר הירש במדבר פרשת חוקת פרק כא פסוק ו

(ו) וישלח ה' בעם. פירוש "שלח" בלשון קל הוא: לשגר, להניע דבר לקראת מטרה; ואילו "שַלֵּח" בלשון פיעל הוא על פי רוב: לפטור דבר ולשחרר אותו, לא לעכב אותו ולא לעצור בעדו, להניח לו ללכת בדרכוהטבעית ולתת לו לנוע כרצונו. כך "וישַלח את העֹרב", "וישַלח את - היונה" (בראשית ח, ז - ח), "ושלח לכם את - אחיכם" (שם מג, יד) "ויהי בשלח פרעה" (שמות יג, יז), "ושלח את - בעירה" (שם כב, ו) וכן עודבמקומות רבים. גם כאן אין פירושו: ה' שיגר נחשים, אלא: הוא שיחרר את הנחשים ולא עיכב בעדם. משום כך לא נאמר כאן "נחשים שרפים" אלא הנחשים השרפים; הם היו במדבר מאז ומתמיד, אך עד כהה' עיכב אותם בכוחו. עתה ה' הרפה מהם והנחשים של המדבר הלכו בדרכם הטבעית.

4.  The purpose of the Copper Snake was to remind them how dependent they were upon HaShem’s Miracles; consequently if they depended upon HaShem’s Protection regarding the creatures who resided in the desert, they should similarly confidently rely upon Him for their food and water supply, and not be disconcerted by their miraculous nature.

Gimel.

Ibn Kaspi states that he has complete faith in the fact that there actually was an occurrence whereby people who had been bitten by poisonous snakes were cured by looking at a copper snake atop a pole. However, what he feels he will never understand is the mechanism by which this actually happened. But then again he says that miracles in general are beyond his comprehension—which might be precisely why thesethings are considered miracles rather than simple phenomena occurring in nature. (There is another theory of miracles proposed by RaMBaM whereby the laws of nature are not suspended, but the miracle is the timing of the event whereby it achieves a certain greater purpose at precisely the time that it needs to.)

Daled.

1.  All of the other commentaries appearing in this Gilayon as well as the one from 5715 (http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=635 ) look upon the plague of snakes as representative of physical danger. R. Anshele Eshtrok interprets the incident in psychological, inward terms, seeing the snake as representative of the evil inclination that is within us all, and the need to defeat its influence by calling upon Divine Assistance as well as Divine Inspiration.

2. 

(ז) וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי־דִבַּרְנוּ בַיקֹוָק וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־יְקֹוָק וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת־ הַנָּחָשׁ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּעַד הָעָם:

By virtue of the people associating the plague of snakes with a previous theological shortcoming mentioned in v. 5, they did not consider what was transpiring simply a natural, physical threat that had to be overcome, but rather the product of some inner flaw that they now wished Moshe and HaShem to Assist them in correcting.

Heh.

1.א. RaShI believes that the idiom “Kitzur Nefesh” is usually accompanied by a reason for the disgruntlement that is being described. However, in this case, there is nothing explicitly stated by the text. Consequently RaShI concludes that it was not only in the way where this emotional upset occurred, but it was due to the way, as well.

  ב.   It would appear that RaShI is interpreting the “ב” of “בדרך” like the “ב” of “בלחם” in BaMidbar 21:5, in the sense that just like they were upset due to the spoiled bread, they were upset due to the difficulties of the way, i.e., the travel.

   ג.   RaShI assumes that in order for the emotion of “קיצור נפש” to be engendered, the catalyst has to be something of significance rather than just a minor irritant.

2.א.  If the phrase “הנחשים השרפים” is taken literally, then there had to be some sort of association between the snakes and fire, i.e., the burning snakes.

   ב.  R. Eliezer Ashkenazi sees the phrase  “הנחשים השרפים” as referring to a certain type of snake in contrast to “נחשים”.

RaShI understands the word “השרפים” as not distinguishing the type of snake, but rather describing the sensation that is experienced once someone is bitten and has been injected with the snake’s venom.

3.      Since we see in other places, Moshe prays for the people even when he has not as yet been asked by them and they have been quite sinful, e.g., after the sin of the Golden Calf, after the sin of the spies, so why is it so remarkable that he should pray for them at this juncture?

Perhaps RaShI’s interpretation can be defended by saying that whereas after the cases of the Golden Calf and the spies, the sin was more about how the people related to God than how they related to Moshe, this time, Moshe had been one of the focal points of the people’s sin: (ה) וַיְדַבֵּר הָעָם בֵּאלֹקים וּבְמֹשֶׁה. It would be very understandable if Moshe would be resentful and not be willing to pray for them after what they said to and about him. Nevertheless, since the people requested that he pray,

(ז) וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי־דִבַּרְנוּ בַיקֹוָק וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־יְקֹוָק וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת־ הַנָּחָשׁ...

Moshe’s acquiescence to pray for the people constitutes model behavior.