PHILOTORAH



Parshat CHUKAT - Avot 5



May HaShem protect our soldiers and the hostages; may He send Refu'ah Sh'leima to the many injured; may He console the bereaved families and all of Israel, may He end the war with total success and peace for Medinat Yisrael and Klal Yisrael wherever they are.



What Happened Last Week?

See all the way at the end of the file



YERUSHALAYIM in/out times for CHUKAT


9 Tamuz 5785 <> July 4-5, '25


7:14PM <> PLAG 6:20PM  <<>>  8:31PM <> R' Tam 9:00PM


Use the Z'MANIM link for other locales and other halachic times



CALnotes


KIDDUSH L'VANA

By the time you read these words, the first opportunity for Kiddush L'vana is past and if you haven't said it yet - what are you waiting for?

Oh, maybe for it to be nighttime. Good point.

Those who follow Minhag Yerushalayim, had a tricky first op.

The molad of Tamuz was on Wednesday night, June 25th, after 10:30pm Israel Summer Time. Three days after the molad would have been on Motza'ei Shabbat (June 28th) after that time. However, the Moon had set (in Israel) shortly before that time - so no KL this past Motza"Sh.

The first op was Sunday evening, June 29th, after dark.

First op for 7-days-after-the-molad people is on Wednesday night, July 2nd, after 10:40pm.

There are opinions that 7-day people can say KL a bit before 7 full days after the molad, so those who follow those opinions could have said KL Wednesday night after Maariv - even before 10:40pm.

Many (most) people usually say KL on Motza'ei Shabbat. They will say it this Motza"Sh (Chukat), July 5th.

"Man seeks the moon as a scientific conquest. Halacha sees it as a monthly covenantal rendezvous."

Chat-GPT in the imagined style of Rav Soloveitchik (believe it or not)

But seriously, folks. Regular readers of PhiloTorah (and Torah Tidbits in my time with it), will have noticed that Kiddush L'vana is a common focus of mine. I have tried to go beyond just giving the times - first, last, by explaining various aspects of the mitzva. 

One of the texts that many recite after the KL bracha is TANA D'VEI RABI YISHMAEL:

If Israel merited to receive the Face of their Father in heaven only once a month, it would be enough for them.

Calling Kiddush L'vana an act of Greeting the Divine Presence, lifts this b'racha way up there.

Specifically, 384,400 kilometers or 238,855 miles. That's roughly 800 million amot. I couldn't resist telling you that once I used the phrase 'way up there'.

But obviously, I'm talking about significance.

KL is one of many ways we acknowledge HaShem and don't take Him of His world for granted. 



CHUKAT


39th of 54 sedras; 6th of 10 in Bamidbar

Written on 159.2 lines; rank: 39

10 Parshiyot; 6 open, 4 closed

87 p'sukim; rank: 43rd

1245 words; rank: 40th

4670 letters; rank 41st

Smallest sedra in Bamidbar in lines, p'sukim, words, and letters

Fewer p'sukim than Sh'mini, more words, same number of letters. Chukat is a bit longer.



MITZVOT

3 mitzvot of 613; all positive 


Only 6 sedras (of the 54) have only positive mitzvot: B'reishit and Lech L’cha with 1 each, Metzora with 11, Chukat with 3, Pinchas with 6, Vayeilech with 2.


And again, to show the very uneven distribution of mitzvot in the Torah: Chukat has 3 (so do two other sedras). 26 sedras have more than Chukat; 25 sedras have fewer mitzvot. 3 is way below average (which is 11.4 mitzvot per sedra), but it is the median number of mitzvot in a sedra. About a third of the sedras have no mitzvot; about a third have more than 85% of Taryag; a little more than a third have less than 15% of the Torah's mitzvot. That also means that more than two thirds of the sedras have less than 15% of the mitzvot.



Aliya-by-Aliya Sedra Summary

[P>] and [S>] indicate start of a parsha p'tucha or s'tuma. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha.

Numbers in [square brackets] are the Mitzva-count of Sefer HaChinuch AND Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot. A=ASEI; L=LAV (prohibition). X:Y is the perek & pasuk from which the mitzva comes.



Kohen - First Aliya - 17 p'sukim 19:1-17

[P> 19:1 (22)] This whole Aliya plus the first 5 p'sukim of the second Aliya deal with the topic of the PARA ADUMA. (These 22 p'sukim of Bamidbar 19 constitute the Maftir for Shabbat Parshat Para.)

The mitzva involves taking a cow with reddish hair (even two black or white hairs invalidate it), that is blemish-free (i.e. fit for the Altar even though the Para Aduma is NOT a korban; it is prepared away from the Mikdash and Har HaBayit, across the valley, on Har HaZeitim) and that has not worn a yoke or carried a burden for people. (If it carried upon its back something for its own benefit e.g. a blanket to keep flies away, it is still acceptable, but if it carried a blanket for its owner's convenience, it cannot be used as a Para Aduma.) Elazar b. Aharon was in charge of the preparation of this first Para Aduma.

SDT: "And G-d spoke to Moshe and Aharon saying... DABEIR (you Moshe, not both of you, not DAB'RU) to the children of Israel... Only Moshe could tell the people about the PARA ADUMA, which is an atonement for the Sin of the Golden Calf. Aharon was too involved in the Golden Calf episode. He didn't tell this mitzva to the people and he didn't prepare the PARA ADUMA; his son did. Yet the pasuk tells us that G-d spoke to both Moshe and Aharon. Perhaps this contains a private rebuke by G-d to Aharon... And/or perhaps a bit of the opposite, since Aharon IS included in the command to prepare the Para Aduma.

SDT: Rashi says that the mitzva is for the assistant Kohen Gadol to tend to the Para Aduma, although any kohen qualifies. Commentaries see a symbolism in the son of Aharon doing it: just as the cow atones (so to speak) for her calf, so too the son atones for his father who was some - what involved.

"Take a PARA ADUMA T'MIMA" T'MIMA usually means blemish-free, fit for the Altar. However, here the word T'MIMA is followed by the phrase "that has no MUM (blemish)", making the adjective T'MIMA superfluous. Therefore, we are taught that T'MIMA in this context is describing ADUMA, indicating that COMPLETE reddish hair is required. Without T'MIMA, a cow that was a "gingi" would be acceptable even if it had some non-red hairs. Not so, because of ADUMA T'MIMA.

As opposed to all korbanot in the Mikdash which had to be brought "inside" (the Beit HaMikdash area), the Red Cow is slaughtered and prepared "outside" (not even on Har HaBayit - across the valley on Har HaZeitim). It is not a korban, but it does have korban-like features (e.g. blemish-free, atonement).

After the cow is slaughtered, it is burnt whole, some of its blood having been sprinkled towards the Mikdash first.

The complete process of the Para Aduma (including what is thrown into the fire, how the ashes are collected and how the potion is made) is a positive mitzva [397, A113 19:2] that has been fulfilled nine times, so far. The next (tenth) time will be in the time of the Moshiach.

A person who comes in contact with a dead body is rendered ritually impure for a seven-day period [398, A107 19:4]. The "Para Aduma Potion" is to be sprinkled on the defiled person on the third and seventh day.

Without this procedure, the state of ritual impurity remains forever.

It is most important to avoid entering the Mikdash (and eating of sacred foods) while one is defiled. Intentional violation is a (Divinely imposed) capital offense.



MITZVAnotes

Today, (temporarily) without a Beit HaMikdash, the are (at least) three ramifications of the rules of ritual impurity to the dead.

[1] A kohen must still avoid contact with a dead body (except those of his close relatives for whom he sits shiva), even though he is already TAMEI. This is both for "practice" as well as not to "add" to his state of TUM'A.

[Note: The seven relatives for whom a person sits shiva and the seven relatives for whom a kohein may become tamei are almost - but not quite - matched. Father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, spouse. A kohein (and all Jews) sit shiva for those relatives, and a kohein can become tamei to all of those relatives, but not a sister who is married. In other words, a kohein sits shiva today for his sister, but if she his married, the restriction against being M'TAMEI still applies.]

[2] We are not permitted to go onto Har HaBayit in those areas where the Beit HaMikdash and its courtyard stood (or might have stood).

[3] Some gifts of the Kohen (such as t'ruma, t'rumat maaser, challa) are not given to a kohen, but are "disposed of" according to alternate halachic procedures, because of TUM'A of both the potential Kohen-recipient, as well as the giver, and the gift itself. Note that there are gifts to the kohen that pose no TAMEI problems; these are given today (e.g. Pidyon HaBen).



Levi - Second Aliya - 11 p'sukim 19:18-20:6

The Torah summarizes the Para Aduma procedures. Note that the cedar branch and hyssop are added to the potion as well as to the burning of the Para Aduma. Commentaries see special significance in the fact that the cedar is a lofty tree and the hyssop is a lowly shrub.

The dual nature of the Para Aduma potion (that it purifies the defiled and defiles the ritually pure) is counted as a mitzva of its own [399, A108 19:19]. And, it is this feature of the Para Aduma that is considered most mystifying and enigmatic.

Ponder this... As an analogy - there are certain medications for certain diseases, that when taken by a person with the disease, they are beneficial. Yet if a healthy person takes the same medication, he can get sick from it. 

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: All the people (kohanim, but some of the steps can be done by non-kohanim) involved in preparing the Para Aduma Potion - the one who slaughters the cow, the one who collects blood from it and sprinkles it towards Har HaBayit, the one who burns the carcass with the EITZ EREZ, EIZOV, and SHANI TOLAAT, the one who gathers the ashes, the one who puts the ashes into MAYIM CHAYIM to make the PAP (Para Aduma Potion), one who touches the PAP - they all become Tamei. BUT the one who administers the SHPRITZ of the PAP on the T'MEI MEIT - if done properly, with proper KAVANA and without touching the water himself - he remains TAHOR. Commentaries variously explain the wording in the p'sukim, since on first reading, the P'SHAT seems to say that the MAZEH (shpritzer) becomes Tamei - but he does not; he remains Tahor. I hope that this clarifies rather than confuses the issue.

[P> 20:1 (6)] The next topic the Torah deals with is the death of Miriam in the Tzin Wilderness in Nissan (on the 10th of the month).

The Torah immediately tells us that the People had no water. (Midrashim speak of Miriam's Well that miraculously accompanied the People during their wanderings. This well disappeared upon her death, since it was in her merit because she had watched over Moshe at the river that we had the Well.) The People complain bitterly to Moshe and Aharon.

The custom of emptying out water containers in the room in which someone has died, comes from the sequence: "...and Miriam died ...and there was no water..."

Commentaries point out a connection between Para Aduma and the death of the righteous Miriam. Both are "instruments" of atonement.



Shlishi - Third Aliya - 7 p'sukim 20:7-13

[P> 20:7 (5)] In response (to the complaint of no water), G-d tells Moshe to take the Staff, gather the People, and that he (Moshe) and Aharon should SPEAK to the rock in the presence of the People, so that the rock shall give forth its water for the People and their flocks.

Moshe gathers the People and admonishes them to witness another of G-d's miracles. He lifts the Staff and strikes the rock twice; water flows from it in abundance.

[S> 20:12 (2)] G-d is "angry" at Moshe and Aharon for missing a chance to sanctify His Name by having the People see water come from the rock by speaking to it. (The People had previously seen water come from a struck rock.)

G-d decrees that neither Moshe nor Aharon shall lead the People into the Land of Israel.

Because of the inclusion of Aharon in this decree, there is an implication that he was not punished for any involvement in the Golden Calf - a point that needed clarification. Rashi says that the Torah is telling us that Moshe and Aharon would have gone into Eretz Yisrael, except for this, and only this incident. Interesting that Moshe himself tells the people (in D'varim) that he carries some of the blame for the Sin of the Spies. With Aharon's involvement in the Calf incident and Moshe's in the Spies episode, there is an interesting balance. On the other hand, Aharon IS held accountable in this case, even though it was Moshe who "acted".

G-d's decree seems excessively harsh on Moshe and Aharon. Commentators point to this as an example of how strictly G-d judges the greatest of our people. And the issue is a lot more complicated than that. It's not just 'punishment'.

Observation... Note that the rock gives forth water even though Moshe did not speak to it, as G-d had told him to. There are a few possibilities (maybe) as to why.

(1) It avoids a Chilul HaShem that would result if water did not come forth.

(2) Moshe Rabeinu was on the high level that he was able to control and divert nature (within limits). He had previously struck a rock to get water; this now is something he could do (and does).

(3) A twist on the Chilul HaShem possibility of (1) is that G-d wanted to avoid Moshe's losing face. G-d and Moshe are very much partners, so to speak, in the eyes of the People.

At the Sea, the people believed in "HaShem and in Moshe His servant, BASHEM UVMOSHE AVDO. In contrast, their lack of faith is expressed as their talking against G-d and against Moshe, BEILOKIM UVMOSHE. These are the only two times the word UVMOSHE (and in Moshe) appears in all of Tanach - with opposite connotations.



R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya - 8 p'sukim 20:14-21

[S> 20:14 (8)] Moshe sends messengers to the Edomites, to recount Israel's brief history and request right of way through Edomite land. The request is denied. A second attempt is made to obtain permission; this too is strongly rejected. The People of Israel change their route in order to avoid confrontation with Edom (according to G-d's command).

SDT: In asking for passage through Edom territory, Moshe's messengers state that the people "will not drink water of a well". Rashi says that we would have expected the Torah to say "the water of cisterns". Rashi explains that Edom had the cisterns; we had a miraculous well (and Manna for food). What we were offering Edom were the profits from selling us food and water. We had no need for their food and drink, but it was a proper offer to make. Rashi says that when staying at an inn, one should partake of the inn's meals rather than "brown bagging it" (not exactly Rashi's term). This increases the benefit to the inn-keeper and is a proper thing for a patron to do.

SDT: Moshe sends a message to Edom saying, "...you know all the trouble we had in Egypt." Imrei Shefer asks, how was Edom expected to know what happened to us in Egypt? The answer, he says, comes from Parshat To'l'dot, when Rivka sought out G-d to explain what was happening inside her. She was told that she would have twins and that they would grow to head great nations, and when one fell, the other would rise proportionally. Edom's life must have made a significant turn upward, says Imrei Shefer, during the dark years we spent in Egyptian servitude - so they know what had happened.



Chamishi - 5th Aliya - 17 p'sukim 20:22-21:9

[P> 20:22 (8)] The People travel from Kadesh to Hor HaHar. There Aharon is to die. Moshe takes Aharon and Elazar up the mountain, where the garments of the Kohen Gadol are transferred from Aharon to his son and successor. ALL the people mourn Aharon's death for 30 days.

COMMENTARIES POINT OUT that Aharon's death had elements that were missing in Moshe's. Seeing his son continue in his footsteps and being loved by all the people as Aharon was, adds a special dimension to Aharon's full life.

The Midrash says that the Heavenly Clouds that protected the People, left upon Aharon's death.

We can see now that the miracles of the Midbar were each associated with one of our leaders: Moshe, the Manna; Aharon, the Clouds; Miriam, the Well.

[S> 21:1 (3)] That made them vulnerable to attack from Emori. The People of Israel made a pledge to G-d and the Emori attack was successfully countered by Israel.

[P> 21:4 (13)] The People then tired of their extended travels and complained once again to G-d and Moshe. Their tirade included gross disrespect to G-d's miracle of the Manna. For this they were punished by an attack of "fiery" (poisonous) snakes that bit many people, causing many deaths. The People repented and pleaded with Moshe to pray to G-d to spare them. G-d told Moshe to fashion a copper (the choice of copper was Moshe's and it was a play on words Nechoshet/ Nachash) snake and mount it atop a staff, so that anyone who would see it would live.

The Mishna in Rosh HaShana (3:8) asks, "What? (The copper image of) a snake can kill or restore life?" Not so, says the Mishna. "Rather, when the People of Israel look towards the Heavens and subjugate their hearts to G-d, then they were cured; and if not, they would decay."

The Mishna in P'sachim (4:9) records that Chizkiyahu HaMelech destroyed the Copper Serpent and the Sages approved of his actions. People were misusing it, and misunderstanding it.

This same kind of problem exists with the use of Korbanot in the time of the Beit HaMikdash, and in our time, amulets, Tashlich, Kaparot, visiting holy places, notes in the cracks of the Kotel, red threads around one's wrist, and even saying T'hilim - meaning that there are people who do certain things in lieu of heartfelt prayer and sincere kavanot, somehow expecting miraculous salvation. All of the above, to some extent, are meant to be incentive and inspiration to sincere repentance and prayer, not substitutes for them.



Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 11 p'sukim 21:10-20

The People continue their travels. They went to OVOT (identified as being due south of the Dead Sea). From there they went to "desolate passes" or "the ruins of AVARIM" (different understandings of the phrase IYEI HA'ARAVIM), along Moav's eastern border. They then continued on to NACHAL ZERED. Then to a part of the desert that was outside Moav territory (this because they were forbidden by G-d to encounter Moav.) These travels were recorded in the "Book of the Wars of G-d" (opinions differ as to what this was). Finally the people arrive at a place known as "the Well".

[S> 21:17 (4)] This was another significant event related to water. From a physical point of view, water is by far the most valuable "commodity" of the wandering Nation. On a spiritual level, water represents Torah and Life itself.

The "Song of the Well", a short but beautiful song is recorded, highlighting the preciousness of water. The words are filled with symbolisms and allusions.

The next piece of travelog is either part of the song at the well... or not. From the desert, the people went to Matana, from Matana to Nachliel, and from Nachliel to Bamot. From Bamot to HaGai in the field of Moav, on a clifftop that overlooks the Wastelands.

Notice that we have Songs over Water at both ends of the 40 years.



Sh'VII - Seventh Aliya - 16 p'sukim 21:21-22:1

[P> 21:21 (16)] As Israel nears the lands of Emori, requests are made for rights of passage. Not only are these requests denied, but Emori sends an army to confront Israel. Israel is completely victorious against King Sichon, and conquers the lands of Emori and Cheshbon. Further battles result in more Emori lands being conquered. Og, king of Bashan, also falls, as G-d promised.

SDT: It is important to note that Israel fights against whom G-d tells us to, and we do not engage in battle anyone that G-d forbids us to. It is irrelevant whether Edom was stronger or weaker than Emori. We didn't fight the latter and avoid the former for military reasons. G-d is our Commander-in-Chief. We must always keep this in mind.

SDT: Israel's military victories in the Midbar, towards the end of the period of wandering, were very important for the morale of the people as they faced long years of many battles upon crossing the Jordan River into Eretz Yisrael. In the Midbar, they get a taste of G-d's promises and might.

Moshe sends Meraglim to Ya'zer.

RASHI says that the spies who were sent said, "we will not do as our predecessors did; we have complete confidence in the power of Moshe's prayer." In a way, the sending of these Meraglim is a TIKUN (repair) of the Sin of the Spies. Spies were often sent to help plan the nation's next step. They were not meant to decide on what G-d already had decreed.

The final pasuk tells us that Israel traveled and arrived at Arvot Moav - this is their final stop before entry into Eretz Yisrael.

Note: We have four sedras of Bamidbar to go and eleven in D'varim, and we are already at Arvot Moav, With the conclusion of Chukat, we have arrived at the threshold of Eretz Yisrael. Way back in Mikeitz we left the Land and went down into Egypt. Now we are readying ourselves to return.



Haftara - 33 p'sukim - Sho-f'tim 11:1-33

The haftara consists of most of the story of Yiftach, the at-first scorned, later sought after, son of Gil'ad. He was shunned by his "half-brothers" and fled to the Land of Tov where he lived a rogue's life. The people of the Gil'ad region are attacked by the Ammonites and they pursue Yiftach to be their leader.

In the description of the wars with Amon, reference is made to the historical background of the area - specifically, the episode recorded in the sedra about Israel requesting permission from Emori for passage through their territory. This is a major connection to the sedra. The story of Yiftach seems to be peripheral to the reason that Chaza"l chose this reading for Chukat. 

And yet... the haftara ends with the first part of the story of Yiftach's vow and the resultant fiasco with his daughter. Chaza"l generally consider Yiftach to have erred; such a vow as his would be halachically invalid under the circumstances. The significance (if it does, in fact, connect to the sedra) of the story of Yiftach's daughter vis-a-vis the sedra is elusive. Actually, there is the vow that the people - correctly - made prior to battle. Yiftach's was way off.



From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein z"l


A goal is more than an end to strive for; it is a strong arm which leads one along, where otherwise he would flounder or falter.


Our life must be a constant process of spiritual alchemy in which we ceaselessly convert base elements into gold.



Bringing the Prophets to Life

Weekly insights into the Haftara by Rabbi Nachman (Neil) Winkler

Author of Bringing the Prophets to Life (Gefen Publ.)


CHUKAT - 33 p'sukim - Sho-f'tim 11:1-33


YIFTACH b'DORO k'SHMUEL b'DORO


When we consider the Parasha of Chukat, the first thing that comes to the minds of many is the opening perek, the complex laws of the Para Aduma. Given our Rabbis broad discussion of the CHOK, it is a natural reaction to think of it first. But Chazal did not choose to focus on this one law when selecting a fitting haftara for this parasha. Nor did they decide to connect the haftara with the sin at Mei Meriva, nor to the death of Miriam or Aharon. Rather, our Sages focused upon the latter part of the parasha:  the battles against - and victories over - the Emorite Kings, Sichon and Og. This focus, had our scholars determine that the story of Yiftach in Sefer Shof'tim (ch. 11) to be a most fitting haftara for Parashat Chukat.

The haftara selection opens with the story of Yiftach, who would eventually become one of the later Shof'tim, but who, initially, was rejected by his family and community, who banished him from Gil'ad. However, when the population was threatened by Ammon, one of Israel's neighbors east of the Yarden River, the very elders who banned him from Gil'ad, now plead with him (and the "rag-tag" army he had gathered) to confront Ammon, and protect them from the hostile enemy.

I would submit, however, that the decision of Chazal was not based only upon the fact that the haftara tells of Israel's battle against a neighboring nation to the east - as does our Torah reading. Rather, the story is also meant to warn future generations that would face ongoing challenges from many who would falsely claim rightful ownership over our Holy Land. 

So does the haftara depict: how the enemy king had gathered his army and began open battles with the residents of Gil'ad, claiming that Israel had "stolen" their land from them after the Israelites had left Egypt.  Yiftach attempts to negotiate with Ammon. Basing his argument upon the truths of history, explaining that Israel had never warred with Ammon nor taken any part of their land.  Retelling the episode we read in today's parasha, he clarifies that it was the Emorite kings who defeated Ammon and took their land and Israel who, subsequently, defeated Sichon and Og.  Arguing that even the former kings of Ammon had accepted Israel's ownership of these lands for over three hundred years, Yiftach condemns the king for his unprovoked attacks against Israel. His claims, however, fail to move the enemy - just as historic truths fell upon deaf ears of subsequent enemies. In the end, it was only through Hashem's help, that Yiftach subdued Ammon in battle and removed the enemy's threat from Israel. 

Interestingly, both in the parasha and the haftara, Israel attempts to avoid war by attempting to negotiate with, what turns out to be, intractable enemies.  Likewise, in both the Torah and the haftara the Israelite leadership reviews their past history before the enemy - but to no avail.  It is also interesting to note that, despite Yiftach's reluctance to fight and despite his desire for peace, he refuses to consider the enemy's proposal of peace in exchange for Israel's surrender of her land. As Yiftach explains to the king: "Certainly, whatever your god K'mosh has you conquer - you will possess, and whatever nation Hashem drives out for us, we shall possess!" 

The puzzling choice of Yiftach to lead Israel is discussed by scholars throughout the centuries but, in spite of the somewhat "questionable" choice of Yiftach, it is clear that he remained steadfast in defending his nation and refusing to bow to the lies of others. It is no wonder, therefore, that, regardless of ancestry or accomplishment, any leader who was chosen by Hashem is the proper one to lead Israel and, therefore, demands respect and allegiance.

YIFTACH B'DORO K'SHMUEL B'DORO, Yiftach in his generation is (to be regarded) as Shmuel in his generation, remains a binding imperative for us in all generations, for the leader of the nation of G-d is determined through the choice of G-d.



ParshaPix explanations


The fun way to go over the weekly sedra with your children, grandchildren, Shabbat guests


CHUKAT

Photo of a real possible Para Aduma. If it is completely reddish - and stays that way, remain unblemished, and never be worked <> After Miriam's death, the Well dried up and there was no water for the people <> Although Moshe was commanded to speak to the Rock (the rock's ear indicates that it was ready to listen), he struck it with the MATEH twice and water gushed forth from the rock(s) <> Kohen Gadol with the garments that were transferred from Aharon to Elazar <> The people panicked and a plague of serpents attacked the people. G-d told Moshe to put the form of a snake on a rod (which he did, making the snake from copper) and anyone bitten by a poisonous snake who looks at the snake-on-the-stick would live. Known as the Rod of Asclepius - from Greek mythology, its origin as a symbol of medicine and healing is really from Parshat Chukat. The caduceus, also from Greek mythology, has two snakes and wings and is often used as a symbol of the medical profession, but that is a mistaken association. <> SEFER MILCHAMOT HASHEM, perhaps some kind of written record of the battles or possibly a cryptic term for the Torah. It is represented by the open book with a tank on one page and the HEI-apostrophe on the other <> DO NOT ENTER sign has a double-double meaning. Edom and Emori both responded to Israel's request for safe passage through their territory with DO NOT ENTER. Moshe and Aharon, as a result of the "hitting the rock rather than talking to it episode", were given DO NOT ENTER orders for Eretz Yisrael <> Bottle of water marked 5NIS represents the offer Bnei Yisrael made to pay for the water they would use while passing through Edom's land <> Well with the musical notes for the Song of the Well <> Math expression using the digits 1-9 in order and a bunch of operation-symbols totals 301, the gimatriya of EISH, fire. That is what the expression is equal to in the ParshaPix, and altogether represents the phrase, "For a fire has come out of CHESHBON..." <> MELECH CHESHBON, i.e. the math king. Emori's king Sichon is also referred to as MELECH CHESHBON, as in the haftara of Chukat. (In Chukat, there is reference to Sichon Melech HaEmori, who sits in (the city of) Cheshbon. For the title of Math King, Google seems to say that it would be Leonhard Euler (pronounced 'oiler') - hence, we have crowned him MELECH CHESHBON. With his picture is one of his math discoveries, which many mathematicians consider to be the most beautiful equation in math <> Logo of Chevrolet. As we read in Bamidbar 21:1, "And when king Arad the Canaanite, who lived in the Negev, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atarim; then he fought against Israel, and took some of them prisoners." The term in the pasuk for prisoner or captive is SHEVI, i.e. CHEVY as in CHEVROLET <> picture of one of the most famous clowns of the past in America, Emmett L. (Leo) Kelly - as in ...MAYIM CHAYIM EL KELI. In addition, his first name Emmett fits with the different examples of CHESED SHEL EMET (Emmett - EMET, get it?) in Parshat Chukat, in burying of Miriam and Aharon <> The four graphic elements along the bottom, from left to right are a gift-wrapped box representing the place - whose identity is disputed by various scholars - called MATANA. From MATANA, the Torah tells us, the people traveled to NACHLI'EL. The bird the arrow points to is a Wagtail, known in Hebrew as a Nachli'eili (minus the E sound at the end of the word). From there, via another arrow, the people traveled to BAMOT, either a place name or just the high places. In modern Hebrew, BAMOT are stages. Pictured is a stage times 2 to get the plural. From there, via yet another arrow, to HAGAI, which we are taking as HA (the) GAI (maybe a valley of sorts). The picture is one of Guy Smiley, a Muppets character <> The people complain of their thirst with these words: "And why have you made us come out of Egypt, to bring us in to this evil place? This is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink." Here are those same three fruits that the Meraglim brought back from their tour of the Land. Think of the extra slap in the face that this represents <> The picture of the mountain in Jordan that is thought to be HOR HAHAR <> The young fellow in the picture is GILAD (dressed up as Harry Potter), as is mentioned in the haftara. <> Mohammad Ali and a teddy bear stand for ALI-B'EIR from the song of the well. <> there are pictures of a cedar tree and a hyssop plant - two items thrown into the burning of the Para Aduma <> the egg yolk is for the YOKE (or any burden) that will invalidate a red cow from being a PARA ADUMA <> Kashering & Toveling metal vessels from Parshat Matot is the only other mitzva that the Torah calls ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH <> Kermes vermilio is a species of scale insect (TOLAAT SHANI) that feeds on trees. It is the source of the dye crimson <> Tuesday is the third day and Saturday is the seventh day, but they are crossed out, because they are not the 3rd and 7th day of the seven days of ritual impurity for a T'MEI MEIT, on which the person must be sprinkled with the PAP (Para Aduma Potion) in order to become TAHOR after mikve on the seventh day and after stars out, ending seven full days. <> There are two words in the sedra that end with two letters, each with a SH'VA under it. In 20:11, we find the word VATEISHT - and the People and their flocks drank (water from the rock that Moshe hit twice). In 21:1 we find the word VAYISHB - And they took a captive (the K'naani from Israel). <> Interesting: 13 times in the sedra +  another 6 times embedded, yet at  one point they had none. MAYIM. The word  occurs 13 times in Parshat Chukat. Another 6 times, MAYIM is embedded  in other words - 4 times in YAMIM, once in P'AMIM, once in PAAMAYIM. And after Miriam's death, they had no MAYIM. <> and one Unexplained (hard)



In Memory of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks z"l


Losing Miriam


CHUKAT


It is a scene that still has the power to shock and disturb. The people complain. There is no water. It is an old complaint and a predictable one. That is what happens in a desert. Moshe should have been able to handle it with ease. He has been through far tougher challenges in his time. Yet suddenly, at Mei Meriva ("the waters of contention"), he exploded into vituperative anger:

"Listen, you rebels, shall we bring you water out of this rock?' Moshe raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff" (Bamidbar 20:10-11).

In past essays I have argued that Moses did not sin. The reason he did not enter Israel was simply that he was the right leader for the generation that left Egypt, but not the right leader for their children who would cross the Jordan and engage in conquering a land and building a society. The fact that he was not permitted to lead the next generation was not a failure or a punishment but an inevitability. As a group of slaves facing freedom, a new relationship with God, and a difficult journey, both physically and spiritually, the Children of Israel needed a strong leader capable of contending with them and with God. But as builders of a new society, they needed a leader who would not do the work for them but who would instead inspire them to do it for themselves.

The Gemara comments that the face of Moshe was like the Sun, and the face of Yehoshua was like the Moon.  The difference shown here is that sunlight is so strong it leaves no work for a candle to do, whereas a candle can illuminate when the only other source of light is the Moon. Yehoshua empowered his generation more than a figure as strong as Moshe would have done.

But there is another question altogether about the episode we read of this week. What made this trial different? Why did Moshe momentarily lose control? Why then? Why there? He had faced just this challenge before.

The Torah mentions two previous episodes. One took place at Mara, almost immediately after the split of the Red Sea. The people found water but it was bitter. Moshe prayed to God, God told him how to sweeten the water, and the episode passed. The second episode occurred at Refidim (Sh'mot 17:1-7). This time there was no water at all. Moshe rebuked the people: "Why are you quarrelling with me? Are you trying to test God?" He then turned to God and said, "What am I to do with this people? Before long they will stone me!" God told him to go to a rock at Chorev, take his staff, and hit the rock. Moshe did so, and water came out. There was drama, tension, but nothing like the emotional distress evident in this week's Parsha of Chukat. Surely Moshe, by now almost forty years older, with a generation of experience behind him, should have coped with this challenge without drama. He had been there before.

The text gives us a clue, but in so understated a way that we can easily miss it. The chapter begins thus: "In the first month, the whole Israelite community arrived at the desert of Zin, and they stayed at Kadesh. There Miriam died and was buried. Now there was no water for the community…" (20:1-2). Commentators see the connection between this and what follows in terms of the sudden loss of water after the death of Miriam. Tradition tells of a miraculous well that accompanied the Israelites during Miriam's lifetime in her merit.  When she died, the water ceased.

There is, though, another way of reading the connection. Moshe lost control because his sister Miriam had just died. He was in mourning for his elder sibling. It is hard to lose a parent, but in some ways it is even harder to lose a brother or sister. They are your generation. You feel the Angel of Death come suddenly close. You face your own mortality.

Miriam was more than a sister to Moshe. She was the one, while still a child, to follow the course of the wicker-basket holding her baby brother as it drifted down the Nile. She had the courage and ingenuity to approach Pharaoh's daughter and suggest that she employ a Hebrew nurse for the child, thus ensuring that Moshe would grow up knowing his family, his people, and his identity.

In a truly remarkable passage, the Sages said that Miriam persuaded her father Amram, the leading scholar of his generation, to annul his decree that Hebrew husbands should divorce their wives and have no more children, because there was a 50% chance that any child born would be killed. "Your decree", said Miriam, "is worse than Pharaoh's. He only decreed against the males, yours applies to females also. He intends to rob children of life in this world; you would deny them even life in the World to Come."  Amram admitted her superior logic. Husbands and wives were reunited. Yocheved became pregnant and Moshe was born. Note that this Midrash, told by the Sages, unambiguously implies that a seven-year-old girl had more faith and wisdom than the leading rabbi of the generation!

Moshe surely knew what he owed his sister. According to the Midrash, without her he would not have been born. According to the plain sense of the text, he would not have grown up knowing who his true parents were and to which people he belonged. Though they had been separated during his years of exile in Midian, once he returned, Miriam had accompanied him throughout his mission. She had led the women in song at the Red Sea. The one episode that seems to cast her in a negative light - when she "began to talk against Moshe because of his Cushite wife" (Bamidbar 12:1), for which she was punished with tzaraat - was interpreted more positively by the Sages. They said she was critical of Moses for breaking off marital relations with his wife Tzipora. He had done so because he needed to be in a state of readiness for Divine communication at any time. Miriam felt Tzipora's plight and sense of abandonment. Besides which, she and Aharon had also received Divine communication but they had not been commanded to be celibate. She may have been wrong, suggested the Sages, but not maliciously so. She spoke not out of jealousy of her brother but out of sympathy for her sister-in-law.

So it was not simply the Israelites' demand for water that led Moshe to lose control of his emotions, but rather his own deep grief. The Israelites may have lost their water, but Moshe had lost his sister, who had watched over him as a child, guided his development, supported him throughout the years, and helped him carry the burden of leadership in her role as leader of the women.

It is a moment that reminds us of words from the book of Shoftim (4:8) said by Israel's chief of staff, Barak, to its judge-and-leader Devora: "If you go with me, I will go; but if you do not go with me, I cannot go." The relationship between Barak and Devora was much less close than that between Moshe and Miriam, yet Barak acknowledged his dependence on a wise and courageous woman. Can Moshe have felt less?

Bereavement leaves us deeply vulnerable. In the midst of loss, we can find it hard to control our emotions. We make mistakes. We act rashly. We suffer from a momentary lack of judgement. These are common symptoms even for ordinary humans like us. In Moshe's case, however, there was an additional factor. He was a prophet, and grief can occlude or eclipse the prophetic spirit. 

Rambam answers the well-known question as to why Yaakov, a prophet, did not know that his son Yosef was still alive, with the simplest possible answer: grief banishes prophecy. For twenty-two years, mourning his missing son, Yaakov could not receive the Divine word.  Moshe, the greatest of all the prophets, remained in touch with God. It was God, after all, who told him to "speak to the rock". But somehow the message did not penetrate his consciousness fully. That was the effect of grief.

So the details are, in truth, secondary to the human drama played out that day. Yes, Moshe did things he might not have done, should not have done. He struck the rock, said "we" instead of "God", and lost his temper with the people. The real story, though, is about Moshe the human being in an onslaught of grief, vulnerable, exposed, caught in a vortex of emotions, suddenly bereft of the sisterly presence that had been the most important bass note of his life. Miriam had been the precociously wise and plucky child who had taken control of the situation when the life of her three-month-old brother lay in the balance, undaunted by either an Egyptian princess or a rabbi-father. She had led the Israelite women in song, and sympathised with her sister-in-law when she saw the price she paid for being the wife of a leader. The Midrash speaks of her as the woman in whose merit the people had water in a parched land. In Moshe's anguish at the rock, we sense the loss of the elder sister without whom he felt bereft and alone.

The story of the moment Moshe lost his confidence and calm is ultimately less about leadership and crisis, or about a staff and a rock, than about a great Jewish woman, Miriam, appreciated fully only when she was no longer there.



Around the Shabbat Table:

How does grief sometimes affect our ability to make good decisions?

Why do you think Moshe reacted so strongly at Mei Meriva, even though he had faced similar challenges before? 

What other sibling relationships in the Tanach can you name? How were those relationships similar or different from that of Moshe and Miriam?

Y'HI ZICHRO BARUCH



Message from the Haftara

Rabbi Katriel (Kenneth) Brander, President and Rosh HaYeshiva of Ohr Torah Stone


The Power of Words to Break or Build


CHUKAT


Parshat Chukat marks a turning point in the journey of the Jewish people through the Wilderness. After nearly forty years of wandering, a new generation begins to emerge, and with that transition comes a series of dramatic events - the deaths of Miriam and Aharon, Moshe's sin of striking the rock at Mei Meriva, the battles against surrounding nations, and moments of both song and strife. 

At first glance, the connection between the parsha and its haftara from Sefer Shoftim appears to be only historical - both reference Israel's encounters with Amon. Yet beneath the surface lies a deeper and unifying theme: the power of speech, and how it can either build relationships or break them beyond repair.

One of the parsha's central scenes is Moshe's mistake at Mei Meriva. Commanded by God to speak to the rock, Moshe instead strikes it (Bamidbar 20:8-11). The consequence is severe: Moshe is denied entry into the Land of Israel. God's rebuke is telling - "Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel" (20:12). This was meant to be a moment of public education - not just a miracle, but a model of engagement through DIBUR, speech. God wanted Moshe to demonstrate that spiritual growth and divine connection emerge not from force, but from relationships - and that relationships begin with communication (see S'forno on 20:8).

This theme is also expressed in our parsha through the deaths of both Miriam and Aharon - figures whose legacies, upon closer reading, are deeply tied to speech. Although Miriam is often associated with water - our Sages note that Miriam's merit brought forth water from the well (see Ta'anit 9a), and indeed her passing is followed immediately by the loss of water (20:1-2) - it was her voice that shaped her story. In song, her voice moves the people in achieving a spiritual rendezvous with God and tragically, in her critique of Moshe questions the veracity of Moshe's unique position with God and the people. The Torah reminds us that words can carry profound consequences.

Aharon, the OHEIV SHALOM V'RODEIF SHALOM, the peacemaker who used words to reconcile and mend rifts between people (Avot d'Rabi Natan 12:3) is ultimately remembered for his quiet strength. When tragedy struck his own family, he responded not with protest, but with silence - VAYIDOM AHARON (Vayikra 10:3). Sometimes, restraint in speech is itself a form of holiness.

In a more uplifting moment, our parsha also tells of  the "Song of the Well" - a brief, poetic expression of gratitude, where the nation comes together to voice unity and thanks (Bamidbar 21:16-18). And when Moshe reaches out to neighboring nations with messages of peace - speech before confrontation - the Torah reinforces the value of dialogue (21:21-22; D'varim 2:26-29).

The haftara, from Sefer Shoftim, contrasts this ideal, and warns of the dangers of irresponsible speech. Yiftach, a judge and military leader, is a man whose life is marked by rejection, broken relationships and destructive speech, rises to save Israel. But he makes a reckless, tragic vow that results in the death (or cloistering) of his only child (Shoftim 11:30-40). His words, spoken in haste, leave devastation in their wake, and serve as a reminder of speech's potential to destroy. It is for this reason that this narrative is included in the haftara according to MINHAG TEIMAN - so that future generations will learn to be careful with speech. 

The underlying message of our parsha and haftara is timelessly relevant: Speech is the currency of connection, and has the power to work in ways both good and bad. With it, we build relationships, teach values, and shape community. Misused, it becomes a weapon that divides and destroys.

Chukat reminds us that every interaction - with God, with family, with society - begins with how we speak and how we listen. In an age inundated by constant communication, may we never forget the sacred weight of our words, and may we use them wisely, as tools for healing, holiness, and harmony. 



<PTDT>- PhiloTorah D'var Torah


Taking the Shlomo HaMelech Challenge

Whimsical title based on the famous statement of Chazal that the pasuk in Kohelet (7:23) - "I thought I could become wise, but it is far from me." is Shlomo's concession that he is baffled by the mitzva of Para Aduma. This is stated in Midrash Bamidbar Rabba 19:3, and elsewhere.

Para Aduma is considered to be the quintessential CHOK of the Torah, a mitzva whose logic and reason eludes and sometimes confuses us.

Interesting to note that the introductory phrase to the mitzva of ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH, this is the CHOK of the Torah, occurs in one other place in the Torah - Bamidbar 31:21 and refers to the mitzva of kashering & toveling metal vessels of non-Jewish origin. What eludes me here is why this would be considered a CHOK - let alone being labeled as ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH.

What I refer to as the Shlomo HaMelech Challenge is the attempt to understand the mitzva of Para Aduma and its elements.

I am a firm believer that ALL mitzvot contain elements of CHOK, meaning that there are details that cannot be understood with logic and common sense. And that's good because we should be doing mitzvot first and foremost because they are the decrees of HaShem. Only after that commitment and attitude may we attempt to understand the mitzvot and their details.

The starting point for the challenge is handled beautifully by Rashi, quoting from Rabi Moshe HaDarshan's understanding of the Midrashim.

(He was a contemporary of Rashi, perhaps older than Rashi - both from France.)

Not to go through the whole thing, but here is the general statement:

Para Aduma - This can be compared to the son of a maidservant who soiled the king's palace. They said, "Let his mother come and clean up the mess." Similarly, let the cow come and atone for the calf.

Just as the calf defiled all those who were involved in it, so does the cow render unclean all those involved with it.

And just as they were cleansed through its ashes, as it says, "[he] scattered [the ashes of the burned calf] upon the surface of the water", so [with the cow], "They shall take for that unclean person from the ashes of the burnt purification offering…

This midrash makes a very strong case for the connection between the Para Aduma and the Eigel HaZahav, and that the Para Aduma is a KAPARA (atonement) for the sin of the golden calf. Very solid multi-point connection.

Except for one 'small' thing.

The use of the Para Aduma Potion is to purify one who became defiled (TAMEI) from contact with a dead body. It is not a sin to be TAMEI. In fact, sometimes it is a great mitzva. And purification from a state of impurity is not the same as atonement for sin.

Here is an idea to match up Para Aduma and CHEIT (sin).

The body is the receptacle of the person's soul during his lifetime, or the partner of his soul - if you prefer to see it that way. When the soul leaves the body, the body should simply be viewed as having fulfilled its task in the world and should be respectfully discarded by burial, having been created in the image of G-d. But not more than that. Why is the dead body considered AVI AVOT HATUM'A - the greatest source of impurity?

The answer is - SIN. There is a famous mashal (parable) about a king who had a beautiful daughter who fell in love with a common peasant. And he with her. They wanted to be married. Rather than try to break them apart (or maybe failing to break up their romance), the king met with the peasant and warned him that he had better treat his daughter like the princess she was, and not like the wife of a common peasant.

HKBH warns the body - so to speak - that it had better treat the soul in it with the highest degree of spirituality - via a life of Torah and Mitzvot. And that it should not sin, which is a betrayal of the body's charge to treat the soul properly.

It is sin that causes the fact that a dead body is TAMEI. And so, it is the double-function of the Para Aduma Potion, to both purify the defiled AND to (partially) atone for the Sin of the Golden Calf in particular, but for all sin, in general.

To my mind, the Rashi makes a good case for Para Aduma being the Kapara for Cheit HaEigel. The details fit nicely.

We now have one other major issue to discuss - that which is considered the most enigmatic aspect of Para Aduma. The fact that its potion is M'TAHEIR T'MEI'IM, that it purifies the one tamei from contact with a corpse, and that it is M'TAMEI T'HORIM, that it makes those who worked to bring us the PAP, TAMEI.

Note that Mikve is a requirement of any purification process. So is time - be it a day or seven. Sometimes Korbanot are also required but let leave that for another time.

Only with TUM'AT MEIT is the extra measure of Sprinkling of the PAP on the third and seventh days a necessary component of the TAHARA.

Which makes for an interesting observation. Purification of all other types of TUM'A can be accomplished on one's own. Immersion in a mikve does not require any help.

But the Para Aduma Potion does.

Says something. (Not sure how to form it into coherent words, but it is something to ponder.)

And the people who brought the method of purification into being - they all become Tamei in the process.

To use an analogy that just happened a short while ago. My wife and I were shopping in a supermarket not very close to our home. A very pleasant fellow - out of the blue - offered us a ride home. We accepted. In the car he explained that driving a bit out of his way was a tiny gesture which brought much satisfaction to others. He said, it was worth it.

When a number of people become tamei for the day in order to facilitate the ritual purification of many, many fellow Jews - it is worth it.

And why is the halacha that they become tamei? Why not just help others and not become tamei?

Maybe it is part of KOL YISRAEL AREIVIM ZEH BAZEH - all of Israel is responsible for each other. PTDT



MicroUlpan

DODAN, DODANIT
And you thought that a cousin is either a BEN DOD or a BAT DOD. Well, that's what people use, but apparently, the official Hebrew words of DODAN and DODANIT.
Are you brave enough to use them?
And DODAN MISHNEH? Can you guess? Second cousin.
And a first cousin once removed?
Don't know, but there should be a word for it - don't you think?



Walk through the Parsha with Rabbi David Walk


CHUKAT


Sing! Sing a Song!


Many of you probably recognize my title as the name of the famous Sesame Street signature song from 1971. The title seems a bit repetitive, because, in general, what we sing are, indeed, songs. But this week's Torah reading also presents this turn of phrase: Then Yisrael sang this song (Bamidbar 21:17). What Song was that, and why must we identify that it was a Song which they sang. Well, the SHIR was the Song of the Well (verses 17-20).

First of all, in Hebrew the word SHIR really describes the words or lyrics of a song or poem. The Biblical word for the music or score is ZEMER. So, our Psalms are really the poems, unless they were written with lyrics and score together as in MIZMOR SHIR. 

Our Sages found tremendous significance in our Biblical songs. According to the Midrashic tradition, the world will produce 10 SHIRIM. The tenth and final SHIR will arrive together with MASHIACH! 

So, SHIRIM are produced when something massively significant happens. I understand why there was a SHIR for the Splitting of the Sea and there will be one for the advent of the Mashiach, but what exactly happened at the moment in our sedra in the MIDBAR to precipitate a SHIR!

That's actually an argument. Chizkuni claims that the 'THEN' referred to in the word AZ is a reference to the 'new' well produced by Moshe when he hit the rock in the verse: Then Moshe raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank (20:11). 

On the other hand, the Ohr HaChayim suggests that this was the SHIR for accepting the Torah. All the references to 'digging' for 'water' are really references to the hard work required for acquiring and then bequeathing Torah to future generations. Our Sages have always compared the life-giving properties of water to the benefits our soul receives from the Torah.

The great Rabbi informs us that this difficult excavation work required for Torah acquisition began with the story of Ya'akov: When Yaakov saw Rachel daughter of his uncle Lavan, and Lavan's sheep, he went over and rolled the stone away from the mouth of the well and watered his uncle's sheep (B'reishit 29:10).  And, of course, all the 'place names' later in the verse (MIDBAR, MATANA, NACHLI'EL and BAMOT) are oblique references to the amazing efforts our ancestors expended to keep Torah alive, vibrant and relevant throughout the millennia. 

As the Ohr HaChayim explains: The verse describes 'from MIDBAR to MATANA'. This is a hint that whatever Torah-scholarship we acquire is due only to our first making ourselves like a wilderness (HEFKER, without ownership). The Torah goes on in verse 19, 'and from Matana to Nachli'el.' This is an allusion to the fact that God entrusted us, as it were, by means of the Torah which He gave to us. U'MINACHLI'EL BAMOT, due to the fact that we have become His inheritance, He has turned us into BAMOT, elevated higher than the angels.

All of this is very cool, and I believe all of this is significant for us, right now.  I wish that I could inform you that I arrived at this conclusion all on my own, but that wouldn't be true. Over Shabbat I was reading the opinion columns in Yisrael Hayom (you know the freebie newspapers distributed by these pleasant people in bright red). I got to an article written by Moshe Klughaupt (great name, it's German and Yiddish for 'smart head'). He reckons that last week's great military victory ranks up there with Chanuka, Purim, Yom HaAtzma'ut and Yom Yerushalayim. In other words, he concludes: This is our fifth Day of Victory! Go forth and celebrate!

His rhetoric moved me! I'm not ready to declare a permanent CHAG, but I definitely agree that we should be celebrating and thanking God! We should be reciting T'hilim 100: 

A Psalm for giving thanks. Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth! Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing! Know that the Lord, He is God! It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture. Enter His gates with thanksgiving, and His courts with praise! Give thanks to Him; bless His Name!

Would that make this the Tenth Song ushering in the Messianic Era? No. Sorry. It would be great to be on the threshold of the Messianic Era, the great Geula. However, that's not quite how it works. 

You have to understand that the Ten Songs are really 10 paradigms for Divine songs. Each type of SHIR can have any number of manifestations or examples. But there are only 10 forms of SHIR. We have experienced 9, and those 9 can keep reappearing in slightly different formats. A prototype SHIR might discuss chariots and arrows. We can write a SHIR about F-35s and anti-aircraft missiles. 

Moshe Klughaupt had the right idea. We should be all praising God for our nation's great victory, and for the relative peace we are now experiencing. It's nice to sleep through the night again, but we still have hostages and unfinished business in Gaza. 

So, please, show our gratitude to God for our accomplishments, and then go back to focusing on what must be done to bring the time period when wars will never happen again. 

Then we will sing together SHIR #10. BIMHEIRA V'YMEINU!



Rav Kook Torah

by Rabbi Chanan Morrison <> www.ravkooktorah.com


The Death of a Tzadik


As the Israelites neared the end of their forty-year trek in the wilderness, they lost two great leaders, Miriam and Aharon. While a tremendous loss for the nation, their passing had a hidden spiritual benefit.

The Torah informs us of Miriam's death immediately after enumerating the laws of the Para Aduma, the red heifer, the potion of whose ashes were used for purification. The Talmudic sages already wondered what connection there might be between Miriam's death and the Para Aduma:

"Why is the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the laws of the Para Aduma? This teaches that just as the Para Aduma brings atonement, so too, the death of the righteous brings atonement" (Mo'ed Katan 28a).

While this connection between Miriam and the Para Aduma is well-known, the continuation of the same Talmudic statement, concerning the death of Aharon, is less so.

"And why is the death of Aharon juxtaposed to [the mention of] the kohanic garments? This teaches that just as the kohen's garments bring atonement, so too, the death of the righteous brings atonement."

In what way does the death of tzadikim atone for the people? And why does the Talmud infer this lesson from both the Para Aduma and the kohen's garments?

Larger Than Life

The principal benefit that comes from the death of tzadikim is the spiritual and moral awakening that takes place after they pass away. When a tzadik is alive, his acts of kindness and generosity are not always public knowledge. True tzadikim do not promote themselves. On the contrary, they often take great pains to conceal their virtues and charitable deeds. It is not uncommon that we become aware of their true greatness and nobility of spirit only after they are no longer with us. Only then do we hear reports of their selfless deeds and extraordinary sensitivity, and we are inspired to emulate their ways. In this way, the positive impact of the righteous as inspiring role models increases after their death.

While stories of their fine traits and good deeds stir us to follow in their path, certain aspects of great tzadikim - extraordinary erudition and scholarship, for example - are beyond the capabilities of most people to emulate. In such matters, the best we can do is to take upon ourselves to promote these qualities in our spiritual leadership, such as supporting the Torah study of young, promising scholars.

Two Forms of Emulation

In short, the death of tzadikim inspires us to imitate their personal conduct - if possible, in our own actions, and if not, by ensuring that there will be others who will fill this spiritual void.

These two methods of emulation parallel the different forms of atonement through the Para Aduma and the Kohanic garments. Ritual purification using Para Aduma ashes was only effective when they were sprinkled on the body of the impure person; no one else could be purified in his place. This is comparable to those aspects of the tzadik that are accessible to, and incumbent upon, all to emulate.

The kohen's garments, on the other hand, were only worn by the Kohanim. It was through the service of these holy emissaries that the entire nation was forgiven. This is like those extraordinary traits of the tzadik that are beyond the capabilities of most people. These qualities can be carried on only by a select few, with the support of the entire nation.

Gold from the Land of Israel, pp. 263-265; adapted from Midbar Shur, pp. 346-347



Parsha Story


Stories and Parables from the famed Maggid of Dubno


by Rabbi Chanan Morrison


The Three Patients


CHUKAT


This is the ritual law that God has commanded: Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a completely red cow, which has no blemish and which has never had a yoke on it (19:2).

In a small town with more cows than people, three locals came down with a mysterious illness. Same symptoms, same doctor, same treatment plan. But the outcomes? As different as a matza ball and a bowling ball.

(1) Patient A was an uneducated man who trusted his doctor completely. He followed the instructions to the letter. Didn't ask why, didn't question the logic. Just did what he was told - and he recovered.

(2) Patient B had experience; he had worked as a paramedic. He knew enough to be dangerous. He read the prescription, nodded thoughtfully, and then edited the plan. Took what made sense, skipped what didn't. He died. Nice guy, but not his finest decision.

(3) Patient C, also a paramedic, took a different route. He knew a bit, sure, but he also knew the doctor knew more. So, even when the treatment seemed baffling, he followed the instructions fully. He trusted the doctor, and he recovered.

King Solomon Hits a Wall

Some people approach mitzvot with a simple, unwavering faith. They don't ask why, they just do. They follow the commandments as they are, trusting that they are good, even if the reasons are hidden. This kind of faith is like that of Patient A: straightforward, uncritical, and wholehearted.

Others are wired differently. They question, analyze, seek logic. They want to understand the "why" behind the "what". That kind of curiosity is valuable, but it can also trip you up. Like Patient B, they may end up rejecting what they can't make sense of - and that doesn't end well.

Shlomo HaMelech, wisest of all men, believed his vast intellect could unlock every secret in the Torah. And for most mitzvot, it did. But when he reached the Para Aduma, the purification ritual involving the ashes of a red heifer, he was stumped.

"I thought I could fathom it, but it eludes me" (Kohelet 7:23), he admitted. Precisely because of his wisdom, Shlomo struggled to accept what he could not explain.

But that was the point. In that moment, Shlomo learned something deeper: The wisdom of the Torah, like the One who gave it, is ultimately beyond human grasp.

Like Patient C, who trusted the doctor's expertise even when the treatments seemed baffling, Shlomo came to a humbling conclusion: Sometimes, the wisest course is simply to rely on the wisdom of the Creator, whose ways are higher than our own.

Adapted from Mishlei Yaakov, pp. 328-329



Q&A


Reprinted from Living the Halachic Process by Rabbi Daniel Mann - Eretz Hemdah, with their permission [www.eretzhemdah.org]


Paying for a Program Canceled due to a National Emergency


Question: During Operation Tzuk Eitan (Protective Edge), summer camps were cancelled because their locations were not "missile-proof". Must the parents pay for them anyway? Does it make a difference if they already paid?

[We responded to this question during the fighting, but the halachic and moral concepts can be applied even after its conclusion.]

Ed. note: Same question to be asked and answered in 2025

Answer: We will begin with a few halachic sources in order to put this serious issue into halachic perspective, and we will then conclude with an important moral message.

The gemara in Bava Metzia sets down the general rule regarding a work agreement that became unfeasible to carry out. If one side is assumed to have been aware of the possibility that the work might be stopped in the middle, whereas the other was not, the side that knew loses (and therefore must pay or does not receive payment, depending on the case) because of his failure to stipulate regarding extenuating circumstances. If the degree of awareness of the two sides was comparable at the time of the agreement, however, the worker cannot demand to be paid. There are different opinions as to whether the worker loses because he has the more difficult legal task of extracting money or because in order for a worker to receive pay even if he will not end up doing the work, he must make such a stipulation in advance. One practical difference between these two explanations is in a case in which the worker was pre-paid. 

Another pertinent source discusses a case in which Reuven rented a boat from Shimon to transport wine, and the boat and wine sank midway. Does Reuven have to pay Shimon the boat's rental fee? There are four different halachic conclusions (Reuven is obligated, he is exempt, they split the money, it depends if Reuven already paid), in four different permutations of the case. The crucial factor is what exactly the legal nature of the agreement was - whether Reuven is entitled to provide other wine for transport and whether Shimon is entitled to provide a different boat. 

Finally, we must consider the concept of MAKAT MEDINA (an impediment that affects a broad population). The mishna and gemara state that a field's sharecropper is entitled to partial relief from his payment obligation if crops are destroyed by a regional infestation. The Maharam Padua explains that in such a case, we cannot say that one of the two sides simply had "bad fortune", as everyone is suffering. The Maharam Padua and the Rama both apply this concept also to a worker who was prevented from working due to a MAKAT MEDINA, although there are differences between their applications of the concepts. The Mordechai cites the Maharam as ruling that if the government suspends schools, parents must still pay the teachers. 

There is great debate regarding if and under what circumstances we accept the Rama's ruling on this matter. In reference to a situation in which teaching was suspended for weeks due to war, the Chatam Sofer wrote that he found it nearly impossible to determine whether the teachers must be paid according to strict halachic principles, and he urged the various sides to reach compromises.

If a specific case were to come to our doorstep (which would require that both sides present their claims in front of the beit din), we would likely find it difficult to be more certain than the Chatam Sofer was. If the question is general, as yours appears to be, it is even harder to answer, because many fluid factors are not addressed. Among other questions, we would have to explore the following: Is the camp in question in a region in which some such activities are continuing, or are all such activities suspended? Is it possible for the camp to make other arrangements? Was the problem known at the time of payment, and if so, by whom? 

One of the great national assets going into and up until the current stage of Operation Tzuk Eitan is a palpable feeling of solidarity. Especially around Tish'a b'Av time, we should recall the gemara that says that Jerusalem was destroyed because people were unwilling to go beyond the strict law and give of themselves beyond the letter of the law. In most cases, both parents and camp directors will have legitimate claims. It is our hope that all people involved in such disputes will be willing to offer their fellow Jews a compromise, if not the benefit of the doubt. One of our dayanim likes to tell of an ancestor of his who was sued in beit din for refusing to receive more payment than he thought he deserved for his job. While our beit din has not yet adjudicated such a case, we will happily do so. 

In the merit of mutual understanding and concern, may we defeat our enemies and see a GE'ULA SH'LEIMA.



The Daily Portion - Sivan Rahav Meir


Not to minimize what we don't understand


Translation by Yehoshua Siskin


Can we really understand the reason behind every mitzva and its true meaning? This week's Torah portion opens with: "This is the decree of the Torah." And then a mystery which has not been understood until today - that of the red heifer - is described. It's a mitzva associated with purity and impurity without any clear explanation.

When we don't understand something, it's easy to minimize its significance and dismiss it as irrelevant. 

Down through the generations, our sages have warned precisely about such an attitude. From the time we received the Torah until today, this mitzva has symbolized those parts of the Torah beyond our grasp, reminding us of their divine, infinite origin. These are matters beyond the limited understanding of human beings. 

The Rambam wrote of such matters as follows:

"It is fitting for a person to contemplate the laws of the Holy Torah, and to understand them to the best of his ability, but a thing for which he finds no reason and knows no cause - should not be taken lightly."

In other words, a person should make every effort to understand what's written in the Torah, but there will always be matters beyond understanding. 

This is the ultimate test of our faithfulness to the Torah, allowing us to joyfully declare: "This is the decree of the Torah."


To receive Sivan Rahav-Meir's daily WhatsApp: tiny.cc/DailyPortion



From the Writings of Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher z"l


Where Have You Gone Aharon HaKohen?


To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel's great song, "Where have you gone Aharon HaKohen, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you!"

Why is Aharon HaKohen's yahrzeit the only one mentioned in the Torah? None of the Avot or the Imahot were accorded such an honor and not even Moshe Rabeinu. Only the date of the death of Aharon is mentioned. Why?

Ed. note: Although Aharon's death is reported in this week's sedra, his yahrzeit's date is mentioned in Parshat Mas'ei, included in the details of the travels of the People in the Midbar.

Aharon's yahrzeit is the first day of the month of Av, and the Jewish calendar is structured so that Parshat Mas'ei which records Aharon's death is read before Tish'a b'Av. Why?

The Mishna in Avot states that "Aharon loved peace and pursued peace". With his passing, disputes and divisiveness increased. The Talmud in Yoma 9 attributes the destruction of the Second Temple to "baseless hatred", Sinat Chinam, and divisiveness among Jews.

The destruction of both Temples was on Tish'a b'Av.

The yahrzeit of Aharon alone emphasizes the critical importance of his character traits, which are "loving peace, pursuing peace" and avoiding Machlokot. Thus, his yahrzeit is in Parshat Mas'ei, which is read before Tish'a b'Av, to teach us that Aharon's exemplary behavior is the TIKUN (repair) of SINAT CHINAM, which caused the tragedies of Tish'a b'Av.

Why did G-d choose Aharon to be the Kohen Gadol and to wear the Golden Vestments?

The Torah states, "And Aharon shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart constantly before G-D" (Sh'mot 28:30). This verse is a reference to the CHOSHEN, the Breastplate, which Aharon wore over his heart. This breastplate was folded in half to form a pocket into which was placed a parchment containing G-D's Ineffable Name. This was called the Urim V'tumim, which caused letters of the names of the Tribes of Israel and the Avot, which were inscribed on the CHOSHEN, to light up with answers to questions of national importance.

The merit of wearing the CHOSHEN was given to Aharon because of his special character. When he went to greet Moshe, after Moshe had been selected by G-D to lead the Jews out of Egypt, he came with a smile and a glad heart. As the Torah states, "And when he (Aharon) sees you (Moshe) he will rejoice in his heart" (Sh'mot 4).

This remarkable love for a younger brother, who will replace him as leader, was rewarded with the CHOSHEN that Aaron wore over his heart that rejoiced for his younger brother.

Was it so difficult to rejoice for a younger brother's good fortune? Does Aharon deserve such an amazing tribute just for being happy for his kid brother?

HaRav Nebentzahl maintains there are various levels of selflessness. It is one thing to defer to one's brother. It is a totally different level, when a person has been the leader of Israel throughout the years of persecution, pain and sorrow as Aharon was, and to have his younger brother take over, and be happy about it!

This character trait is exceptional and amazing. Aharon had pure selfless joy for Moshe's good fortune, even though he was now demoted from his position of leadership of Israel.

Only a person who possesses such a loving heart of gold, had the merit to wear the golden CHOSHEN over his heart! -ESP


Y'HI ZICHRO BARUCH



OzTorah by Rabbi Dr Raymond Apple z"l


KORACH


You must be reasonable


The strangest paradox in the Torah is the PARA ADUMA, the law of the red heifer (Bamidbar 19).

When a person was ritually impure, a mixture of substances was sprinkled upon him, with the effect that the impure became pure whilst the pure (the officiating kohen) became impure. One and the same substance thus had two opposite effects.

The Torah simply calls this a "statute" - a law obeyed out of loyalty to God though its motive remains a mystery. It implies that religion does not need to be amenable to reason and logic.

There is something attractive about such faith. It reduces doubts. It provides emotional security.

Some Jews share this approach, but Judaism as a whole rejects it. It is more normative in Judaism to say God gave you the gift of reason and expects it to be used. Reasoning may not bring final answers, but you are not absolved from asking questions and grappling with them.

Judaism agrees with the saying, "He who will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dare not reason is a slave."

The classical philosophers used to say, "God forbid there should be anything in the Torah which goes against logic."

They would largely endorse the words of AN Whitehead: "Religious truth must be developed from knowledge acquired when our ordinary sense and intellectual operations are at their highest level of discipline. To move from this position towards the dark recesses of abnormal psychology is to surrender finally any hope of a solid foundation for religious doctrine."

Does this mean nothing is true or to be accepted unless we have arrived at it by the use of the human mind?

That would negate the need and validity of Divine revelation. It would say, "God, I am not interested in Your word, only in what reason says is true!"

But that is to go much too far. Judaism believes the primary way to truth is through what God lovingly reveals to us. What our reason does is to enable us to reinforce our perception of the message and to try in humility to understand God's thinking.

There will be times, as with the red heifer, when our thinking brings us to a dead end, when reason does not produce results. That is when we recognize the limitations inherent in being mortal.

There will be things and their connections which we will never be able to grasp. But instead of saying, "I believe because it is absurd", we say, "I believe the Divine wisdom is infinitely superior to mine. I believe God expects me to apply my reason even to difficult things. But I know the limitations to my wisdom." -OZ


Y'HI ZICHRO BARUCH



Sedra Highlight - Dr Jacob Solomon, F.R.G.S.


CHUKAT


G-d said to Moshe: "Take the stick, assemble the congregation… and speak to the rock… You will bring out water from the rock and supply the people and their cattle." Moshe took the stick that was before G-d, as He commanded him (20:7-9).

But Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. Thus he was informed by Higher Authority that he would not bring the Israelites into the Promised Land.

Yet on a similar occasion when the Israelites faced a shortage of water, G-d actually did tell Moshe to take the stick and hit the rock (Sh'mot 17:5-6). This time - some forty years later - G-d did not tell Moshe to hit the rock, but to speak to the rock.

In that case, why did He tell Moshe to take the stick that was 'before G-d'? Sticks don't help people to talk.

The Rashbam puts forward that the stick that was 'before G-d' was not Moshe's, but Aharon's, as does the Kli Yakar. That was significant. After the revolt of Korach, Aharon's stick blossomed flowers when the sticks representing the other tribes did not (17:23). G-d then ordered Moshe to place Aharon's stick in the Holy of Holies, as a warning to those might incite rebellion in the future (17:25-6). And just as G-d could make flowers blossom out of a stick, so could He bring water out of the rock.

That gave the background to what followed. Aharon himself was a person of peace and strove to achieve results by peaceful means: "He loved peace and he pursed peace, he loved people, and would bring them close to the teachings of the Torah" (Avot 1:12). For that reason, G-d instructed Moshe not take his own stick that he used to strike the Nile and bring forth blood, but the stick of Aharon, placed in the Holy of Holies. As an instruction to Moshe: to be like Aharon. Approach like Aharon: love peace and pursue peace. Achieve your aims peacefully. Lead the people with just enough persuasion to be effective. Speak to the rock, not strike the rock as last time. Speak to the rock.

But Moshe did not. He did exactly what he did 40 years ago, to which the Rashbam suggests that he did in error, thinking that he was first to strike the rock as then as instructed then, and only afterwards speak to it.  So he struck the rock. But times had changed since then. He was now leading a new generation. They needed a different approach. Speak to the rock, don't strike the rock. As Rashi explains, it should demonstrate to the people that if the inanimate follow G-d's words without murmur, how much more should they as G-d's Chosen People. 

With the idea that the people now were a new generation, the Ohr HaChayim considers that addressing the assembled Israelites: "Pay attention, you rebels!" indicated a lack of respect for the people he was leading. It was a new generation. Possibly he was angry at the way they expressed their fears of dying of thirst: "If only we would have perished before G-d, as happened to our brothers." In any case, these - unlike the last generation - were people who then had an unblemished record of cooperation and good deeds. 

"Pay attention you rebels!" was not the leadership frame for addressing the situation. Names stick: people don't forget them. He should have handled the situation with the qualities of his brother Aharon: "loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the teachings of the Torah". According to the way G-d instructed him: by speaking to the rock. Not by battering it. 

G-d was effectively telling Moshe that the generation now before him would be receptive to a gentle approach, not the more military one that justifiably characterized his effecting Yetzi'at Mitzrayim and all that followed in that generation. Moshe, however, admittedly under pressure, chose to stick to the tried and tested methods that he knew, rather than adapt his style to suitably lead a very different generation. It was thus time for someone new and in tune with those people to succeed to the title role. Thus, later on, G-d told Moshe to appoint Yehoshua. 



Menachem Persoff - menpmp@gmail.com



CHUKAT

In this week's Parsha we recall the instructions regarding the Para Aduma, the Red Heifer. Rambam, in his reference and teachings concerning this Mitzva (actually a CHOK, the reason for which is unclear to our logical thinking), mentions that until the time of the destruction of the second Beit HaMikdash, nine such animals had been found and used to conduct the ceremony associated with it.

 Of interest and somewhat unusual is that the Rambam, known for his exact, terse, and applied use of language, adds to this comment, "And the tenth [red heifer] will be utilized by the Melech HaMashiach, speedily may he be revealed. Amein [and] so may it be His will."

The Lubavitcher Rebbe, known for his passion of expecting the Mashiach, would teach that the Rambam (seemingly uncharacteristic and out of context) was actually making a very specific point. That is to say, that even if the subject of the coming of Mashiach comes up in conversation almost by accident, it should arouse in us a great sense of immediate anticipation.

The truth is that although we pray three times a day, LISHU'AT'CHA KIVINU KOL HAYOM - 'We await your salvation all day long' - how many of us internalize what we are saying? The Rambam adds in Hilchot Melachim (11:1) that if we do not so believe in the Mashiach's coming, we are, in fact, counted as heretics. In the end, it appears that both our acceptance of the Para Aduma and of Mashiach boil down to a major quintessential pivot of our Jewish existence: faith in the word of Hashem. MP



The Weekly 'Hi All' by Rabbi Jeff Bienenfeld

CHUKAT 5784

Our Parsha contains the fascinating and strange episode of the N'CHASH HAN'CHOSHESH, the Copper Snake (21:4-9). When poisonous snakes attack the Jews in the desert, Gd instructs Moshe to fashion a special healing instrument: a pole topped with the form of a snake. Moshe sculptures a snake of copper and places it on top of a pole. Those who had been afflicted by the snake-bite would gaze on the serpentine image on the pole and be cured.  The Talmud (Rosh HaShana 29a), sensitive to what appears to smack of idolatry, declares: "But is the snake capable of determining life and death? Rather, when Israel would gaze upward and bind their hearts to their Father in Heaven, they would be healed; and if not, they would perish." Even so, the prophet records (Melachim Bet 18:4) that Chizkiyahu HaMelech (6th cent. BCE) destroyed the Biblical copper snake with the approval of the Sages (Mishna, Pesachim 4:9).

How are we to understand this peculiar incident? In what way did the people sin, and how would the bite of a snake and its subsequent symbol and cure provide them with some needed lesson?

Chazal (Avoda Zara 5a-b) offer this important observation: "Moshe said to the Jewish people: K'FUYEI TOVA - Ingrates, children of ingrates!" The Talmud explains that Moshe called the Jewish people ingrates, as they spoke disparagingly of the manna: "And our soul loathes this rotten bread" (21:5), despite the fact it was the highest-quality food. Apparently, this was not the first time that someone was accused of ingratitude. After sinning and eating from the tree of knowledge, Adam said: "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat" (B'reishit 3:12). Adam complained that the woman, given to him, was responsible for his sin, whereas in fact, she had been given to him to serve as his helpmate. 

Fine. Ingratitude is a terrible moral failing, but why the serpent? Says the Slonimer Rebbe (Nesivos Shalom, Bamidbar pp.124-125): The prophet states (Yeshayahu 65:25) that, "the serpent's food shall be earth." Whereupon the Talmud explains (Yoma 75a) that whatever the snake consumes, all tastes like dirt. As such, the serpent, in a sense, has all that it needs from the ground, and yet, it chooses to bite man. In the view of Chazal, quite apart from the zoological reptilian/ophidian reality, the snake was perceived as the epitome of ingratitude. It has everything and yet, it inflicts harm for no benefit. So too, HaShem had provided the people with their every need in the desert - water, manna daily - and yet, they chose to show such boorish ungratefulness and carp. At least, some 40 years earlier, their complaints had some merit, but now? 

HaShem commands Moshe to fashion a snake and raise it upon high. The people already knew they did something wrong. HaShem, who had protected them from the perils of the desert creatures, had suddenly withdrawn His divine shield. The were dying by the poisonous bite of snakes. They confessed: "We have sinned, for we have spoken against HaShem and against you [Moshe]" (21:7). However, they seemed clueless as to what exactly they did that was so horribly wrong. Moshe instructs: "Behold the copper snake and think hard: This was your sin; the sin of the serpent - inexcusable ingratitude." If it is true that any genuine penance must begin with HAKARAT CHEIT, a recognition of the sin itself, then concentrating upon the image of the snake would enable the people to identify their moral offense and give them the opportunity to do a complete and sincere T'SHUVA, repentance.

On the sin of KAFUI TOV, the Nesivos Shalom makes this general and keenly astute observation (ibid). Ingratitude, he asserts, may be the worst of sins precisely because its target is so nebulous. All transgressions can be identified rather clearly. Should a person cook on Shabbat, he knows exactly what sin he committed. But ingratitude has no specificity; what explicit sin is being referred to? And so, when accused of being an ingrate, one can easily shrug off the rebuke. "What did I do that was so terrible?!" But, if such an ethically undignified and morally disgraceful mindset harks back to Adam and Eve, failing to know how to say "thank you" becomes an existential failure of grave import.

The Slonimer then pushes his point even further and issues this candid alert and warning. The virtue of gratitude is so imperative and so high upon the axiological list of what is important that there can never be any justification not to express gratitude when you've been the recipient of some good. Rashi explains why "the spirit of the people grew short with the road" (Bamidbar 21:4, s.v. VATIK'TZAR). Why did the people become so disheartened and impatient; after all they were almost at the threshold of their Promised Land? Apparently, precisely because they were so close and their expectations were so high that they found it intolerably annoying and terribly upsetting that they had to detour and backtrack.  And so, perhaps understandably, they grumbled. "No excuse!" declares the Slonimer! You're not in the mood, bad day at the office, frustrated, disappointed - even if you may have good reason for being so - never mind. There is simply never an excuse not to acknowledge a favor, a chesed - small though it may be - by saying "Thanks". Not a perfunctory "Thank You", but saying it and meaning it!

Based upon the Nesivos Shalom's insights, we may now be able to understand why it was crucial that this lesson of expressing gratitude be taught prior to Israel's entering the Land. If, in the desert, when their utter reliance upon HaShem was crystal clear, the people were guilty of ingratitude, then all the more so upon entering Canaan. There, when the people would farm and build and develop the land by dint of their own efforts and skills, the danger of losing sight of HaShem's beneficence and dependency would be enormous. The temptation of believing that, KOCHI V'OTZEM YADI... My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me" (D'varim 8:17) would be overwhelming and simply eclipse any awareness to thank HaShem at all.

In this regard, we would do well to remember the perceptive comment of the Avudraham (Sh'moneh Esrei, s.v. U-K'SHE'YAGI'A) where he famously explains why during the repetition of the Sh'moneh Esrei when the shali'ach tzibur reaches the  MODIM bracha, the congregation - and only by this bracha - responds with their own MODIM D'RABANAN. Regarding all the other blessings in the Amida, the chazan is our appointed messenger, our shaliach, to HaShem. But when it comes to saying "Thank You" to Gd, there can be no one other than ourselves who - daily - must express our undying gratitude to HaShem for everything!

To conclude this reflection on the fundamental significance of expressing gratitude, let us attempt to say the message this way: When you are grateful and show it, demonstrating it in word and deed, you are essentially telling your benefactor how much they really matter to you. And there are few things that make a person feel more important than when you compliment them - via gratitude - in this very meaningful way.

What does it mean when you say to someone, "You matter to me?" What you are saying is: "You are deeply appreciated and important to me." It is declaring that: "You possess something without which I feel incomplete. It is you, without whom I feel bereft and lacking." To make a person feel that they matter means to recognize that he/she has intrinsic worth and significance. It means, in particular, to employ "focus attention" with your spouse, your children, your grandchildren, with your close friends, so that when you're with them - at that moment - they feel that there is no one else in the world more important than they are. 

Most of all, to state the obvious, it means to never take for granted the people that matter most to us. Never to forget the difference they make in our lives and - especially this - to let them know it by finding ways to express our gratitude; to show them how very much we value their presence in our lives. 

In a word, letting people know that they matter means to convey to such a person this truth: "That the moment you were born, HaShem decided that the world could not continue without you!" Indeed, there is no greater chesed you can bestow upon another than to make them feel they really matter!                                    

And…, saying a heartfelt "Thank You" is a good start! 



Insights into Halacha - Rabbi Yehuda Spitz

Ohr Somayach (yspitz@ohr.edu)


When do the Three Weeks start


What is commonly called the Three Weeks is called BEIN HAMEITZARIM, 'Between the Confines (Straits)' by the Midrash Rabba (Eicha 1:3). 

This period of Three Weeks commemorates the tragedies that took place prior to the destruction of both Batei Mikdash, from the breaching of the walls of ancient Jerusalem on the 17th of Tammuz, until the actual destruction of the Beit HaMikdash on the 9th of Av. Both of these days have since become communal Fast Days, in remembrance of the tragedies that happened on these days.

In order to properly commemorate and feel the devastation, halacha mandates various restrictions during these "Three Weeks", getting progressively stringent up until Tish'a b'Av itself.

This is following Ashkenazic minhag; many Sefardim only start restrictions on beginning of the week that Tish'a b'Av falls out on.

These restrictions include not getting married, not getting haircuts, refraining from public music and dancing, not putting oneself in an overly dangerous situation, and not making the SHEHECHEYANU blessing on a new item (i.e. refraining from purchasing a new item on which one would be required to make the blessing).

The issue of SHEHECHEYANU during the Three Weeks is the subject of a multi-faceted debate among authorities. There will be a comprehensive presentation of the issue coming to philotorah.co in the coming weeks.

There is some debate in recent Rabbinic literature as to when the prohibitions of the 'Three Weeks' start.

I have been asked this question a number of times: 

"Rabbi, I know the Three Weeks technically start tonight (eve of 17 Tamuz), but since the Fast of 17th of Tamuz only starts in the morning, can I still get a haircut and/or shave this evening?"

Rav Moshe Feinstein addressed a similar question over sixty years ago: whether one may get married on the night of the 17th of Tammuz. He maintains that since 

1) there is some debate among the early authorities as to whether the restrictions depend on the fast day itself - Meaning that if the 'Three Week' restrictions are dependant on the Fast of the 17th of Tammuz, then they would only start at the same time the fast does - on the morning of the 17th. But if they are considered independent of each other, then the restrictions would start on the preceding evening, even though the fast itself would only start the next morning

2) the whole issue is only a minhag to show communal mourning - Communal mourning is only recognizable in the morning when everyone is fasting,

and 3) a wedding is considered L'TZORECH (a great need), one may be lenient and get married on the eve of the 17th of Tamuz.

Some poskim extrapolate that Rav Moshe would hold similarly concerning a haircut and shaving - that if there is great need, then one may be lenient as well.

However, Rav Shmuel Wosner disagrees with this theory and maintains that regarding a wedding (especially on Motza'ei Shabbat, which actually was the original question asked of Rav Moshe), there is more halachic rationale to rely upon than for a haircut. Furthermore, haircuts are generally not considered "a great need".

Interestingly, years later, Rav Moshe addressed this issue directly and maintained that the same leniency does apply to haircuts and one may therefore get a haircut on the eve of the 17th of Tamuz in times of great need (and not as Rav Wosner understood Rav Moshe's opinion).

Nevertheless, many contemporary halachic decisors, including Rav Wosner himself, as well as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, and Rav Nissim Karelitz, feel that the issue is moot, and that even for a wedding, let alone a haircut, one should not exercise leniency, as the eve of the 17th is already considered part and parcel of the 'Three Weeks', and thus is included in the restrictions.

However, it is important not to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Instead of debating the finer points of whether a haircut is permitted or forbidden, it is important for us all to remember that these restrictions were instituted by our Rabbis as a public show of mourning during the most devastating period in the Jewish year. As the Mishna Berura explicitly notes, these days of sorrow and mourning serve to remind us of the national tragedies that befell our people, and the events that led to them. Our goal should be, then, to utilize these restrictions to focus inward, on our own personal challenges in our relationship with G-d, and rectify that negativity which led to these tragic events in our history.


Disclaimer: These are just a few basic guidelines and overview of the Halacha discussed in this article. This is by no means a complete comprehensive authoritative guide, but rather a brief summary to raise awareness of the issue. One should not compare similar cases in order to rules in any real case, but should refer his questions to a competent Halachic authority.

For any questions, comments or for the full Mareh Mekomot & sources, please email the author: yspitz@ohr.edu

Rabbi Yehuda Spitz serves as the Sho'el U'Meishiv and Rosh Chavura of the Ohr Lagolah Halacha Kollel at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim. He also currently writes a contemporary halacha column for the Ohr Somayach website titled "Insights Into Halacha".

ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/

Disclaimer: This is not a comprehensive guide, rather a brief summary to raise awareness of the issues. In any real case one should ask a competent Halachic authority.

Rabbi Yehuda Spitz's English halacha sefer, "Food: A Halachic Analysis" (Mosaica/Feldheim) containing over 500 pages featuring over 30 comprehensive chapters discussing the myriad halachic issues pertaining to food, is now available online and in bookstores everywhere."



CHUKAT

GM This week's sedra's name comes from the phrase ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH, in Bamidbar 19:2 - 

"the following is declared to be the Torah's decree"

The gimatriya of this phrase (NPP - Neat Partial Pasuk)  is 1532. Store that fact for later.

On this phrase, Rashi quotes the Midrash Tanchuma as saying:

Because the Satan and the nations of the world (and, sadly, many Jews, as well) scoff at Israel saying, What is this mitzva and what reason does it have, therefore it (Para Aduma, in this case) is called a CHOK, (and we say) it is a decree (from G-d) to me, and we do not question it.

Now take a look at T'hilim 49:2 -

"Hear this, all you peoples; hearken, all You inhabitants of the earth."

The gimatriya of this pasuk is 1532. Our statement to the scoffers - ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH...



No connection except numerically, but what was going on in the year 1532 from Creation?

No'ach was 476 years old. In another four years, G-d would command him to build the Ark...

L'havdil, in 1532 l'minyanam (CE), Sir Thomas Moore resigns as Lord Chancellor of England.



GM As Parshat Chukat ends, Bnei Yisrael find themselves in Arvot Moav, on the east side of the Jordan River. This is the threshold of Eretz Yisrael. Although there are four sedras remaining in the Book of Bamidbar and another eleven sedras in the Book of D'varim, the people have already arrived at their final encampment, set to cross the Jordan and conquer the Land. Bamidbar 22:1, the final pasuk of Chukat -   

The children of Israel journeyed and encamped in the plains of Moav, across the Jordan from Yericho.

The Meraglim had so scared the people into expressing their intention to refuse going into the Land, but rather to either remain in the Midbar (as the Meraglim themselves seemed to want) or return to Egypt (as the panicked people were demanding). 

On the other hand, the successful battles against Sichon and Og were intended to encourage the people to face the battles to come.

The gimatriya of this last pasuk of Chukat is 2394. Among seven other p'sukim in Tanach with the same gimatriya, is one from T'hilim (3:7) that contains an important message to the generation that is preparing to enter Eretz Yisrael and fight against the nations there. David HaMelech said this when faced with rebellion led by his own son. But it is a message for all generations...

I will not fear ten thousands of people, who have set themselves against me all around.

A message for all of us today.

No connection except numerically... In the year 2394 from Creation, Moshe Rabeinu was not yet Rabeinu - he was 26 years old and had fled to the Midbar six years earlier. A year later - according to sources - he became king of Kush, serving there for 40 years.



GM Bamidbar 20:25 (in Parshat Chukat) -   

Take Aharon and Elazar his son and ascend Mount Hor.

We know what's about to happen. Aharon will remove his Bigdei Kehuna and dress Elazar with them and then he will die.

The gimatriya of this pasuk is 2505. Found a meaningful match (new term - 5785 - in my searches for Gimatriya Matches. T'hilim 68:21 -

God is to us the God of salvations, but God HaShem has the ways to death.

Four AZKAROT (three different ones) for HaShem in this one pasuk. Note the pronunciation of the fifth and sixth words of the pasuk - V'LEI-LOHIM ADO-NAI. YUD-KEI-VAV-KEI is usually HaShem's name ADO... But sometimes, as here, it is pronounced ELOKIM.

Here's a different translation of the pasuk -

God is for us a God of deliverance; Elokim HaShem provides an escape from death.

The context of this pasuk - namely, the whole of T'hilim 68, does not per se make for a MM (Meaningful Match, the term just invented), but the connection between our pasuk from Chukat and 'death' referred to in T'hilim 68:21 gives one 'cause to pause' (another new term) and ponder.



RED ALERT!

CHUKAT

by Rabbi Eddie Davis (RED) of the Young Israel of Hollywood - Ft. Lauderdale (Florida)


DIVREI TORAH

<> The opening chapter of this Parsha is dedicated to discuss the laws of the Red Cow. Moshe was the first person in our history to observe this Mitzva, as he supervised this Red Cow ritual at the time of the inauguration of the Mishkan awhile ago. The obvious question is why did Moshe delay presenting this Mitzva to the people until now. Abravanel addresses this question in his commentary. After Korach's rebellion, close to 15,000 men died, making thousands of survivors impure since they needed to bury the dead. Therefore now was a perfect time for this law to be publicized. I guess that prior to this event, the only men who needed this ritual were those who carried Yosef's remains on their journey in the desert.

<> Even Shlomo HaMelech admitted that the Halacha of the Red Cow was incomprehensible to him. He could not understand how the one ritual can make an impure person pure, and at the same time make other people  (those who participate in preparing the Para Aduma Potion) impure. King Solomon was doing well if this was the only Halacha that puzzles him. There are so many more that are incomprehensible, like Shatnez, Kashrut, Circumcision, et al. This Halacha is the epitome of a Chok, an incomprehensible law. Rabbi Simcha HaKohen Kook z"l, served as Chief Rabbi of Rechovot, and in a Dvar Torah that I heard from him in Rechovot decades ago, he said that really every Halacha is a Chok. You just need to learn it deeply enough. His example was the law prohibiting murder. On the surface, it is very rational. But eventually you reach the following Halacha: Murder trials are in the court of 23 judges. If 15 judges vote guilty, and 8 innocent, he is executed. But if 23 judges vote guilty, then you may not execute the killer. Chok!

<> After chapter 19, there is the passing of some 38 years where the Torah does not record any activity. Chapter 20 begins with events that occurred in the 40th year in the desert. It starts with the death of Miriam, Moshe's sister. No mention is made of any sin that she committed, but she is denied entry into the Promised Land. Hashem is clearing out the senior leadership. The only thing that is not recorded that is worth noting is the death of most of the men who exited Egypt, fulfilling Hashem's decree after the sin of the spies. According to the Midrash, some 15,000 men died each year on Tish'a b'Av, all on one night. Now Moshe deals with the new generation. Yet they are not much different from their parents. Their complaints about food and water are the same.

<> When the Torah records the death of Miriam, there is no mention of it being as a result of any sin. Furthermore there is no mention of any mourning or tears shed over her death, as there would happen when her brothers died later. According to our tradition, Miriam died on the 10th of Nissan. The Torah tells us that Aharon dies several months later on the first day of Av. And Moshe dies on 7 Adar, on his birthday. Sad tidings for the nation of Israel. Right after she dies, there is a lack of water. This is the source for the idea that in the merit of Miriam, a well traveled with the nation supplying fresh water for the needs of the entire nation. The Alshich mentioned that the people didn't realize that the water was in Miriam's merit. Had they known that, they certainly would have mourned her passing.

<> Moshe hits the rock to produce water for the people, an act that violated Hashem's directive to speak to the rock. Many commentators debate the exact nature of Moshe's sin. Some reject this act of striking the rock as the sin, primarily, I assume, because if so, why did Hashem tell Moshe to take the staff with him. The Ramban declares that the Torah specifically kept the sin a secret, a mystery that only Hashem knows why. The sin seemed to be not a major infraction, but enough in Hashem's view to bar Moshe and Aharon from entering the Promised Land. Hashem said that Moshe and Aharon did not sanctify Hashem's name in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael. Hitting the rock did sanctify Hashem's name as it was a major miracle, but obviously, not exactly to the degree that Hashem desired. The Abravanel sees that Hashem saw a bigger picture in what Moshe and Aharon had done previously. Aharon was involved in the sin of the Golden Calf, and Moshe was involved in the sin of the spies.

<> The death of Aharon was not a surprise to the people. When it happened, the entire nation mourned and cried for thirty days. [RED's note: when Benjamin Franklin died in 1790, America mourned his passing. Congress decreed that every one of its members wear a black armband for thirty days. I assume that this is the source for the thirty day mourning period.] The real message in this story of Aharon's passing was the way the position of Kohen Gadol was transferred from father to son. Elazar came down the mountain clad as the new Kohen Gadol. I assume that as the Kohen Gadol, he was not permitted to mourn fully for the loss of his father. Moshe did mourn and also desired that his son could take over his position as Aharon's son did after him. But that was not going to happen.

<> Immediately after Aharon's death, a Canaanite (possibly an Amalekite) king felt that Bnei Yisrael were now vulnerable. The only loss that the Jews suffered was a captive slave. This slave woman was captured by the Jews in a previous battle with some Canaanites. Our Sages assumed that this woman could not have been Jewish, since the Jews never suffered any losses in a battle led by Moshe. I never heard of this protective shield that Moshe provided through his leadership, a divine benefit by Hashem. This is written in the commentary of the Ramban. As such, it should have resulted in tremendous trust and dedication by Bnei Yisrael to Moshe as their leader. But I don't see any evidence that such reverence existed.

<> MIDRASH. A miraculous event occurred but is not recorded. The Amorites planned to ambush the Israelites passing through a gorge set below two mountains. The Amorites hid in caves set into both mountains. Hashem moved the mountains together squashing the Amorites to death. The only way Bnei Yisrael discovered this miracle was when they passed through and saw blood flowing down the mountain sides.



Questions by RED 

From the text

1. Who performed the ritual of the Red Cow? (19:3)

2. What two leaders died in this Parsha? (20:1,28)

3. Where did Aharon die? (20:26)

4. For how long did the nation of Israel mourn the death of Aharon? (20:29)

5. What two countries did Bnei Yisrael defeat at the end of the Parsha? (21:1,33)


From Rashi

6. What is the definition of the Hebrew word Chok, a decree? (19:2)

7. How many black hairs would disqualify the Red Cow? (19:2)

8. When addressing Edom, Moshe said that Hashem sent a Mal'ach, an Angel, to take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt. Who was that angel? (20:16)

9. What agreement did Sichon have the kings of Canaan? (21:23)

10. Which Jew killed Og, the king of Bashan? (21:35)


From the Rabbis

11. What law of the Red Cow propelled King Solomon to declare that the law of the Red Cow is beyond his capabilities?

12. In the battle with Arad (21:1-3), the Jews suffered the loss of a captive woman. Why does the Midrash claim that it was a non-Jewish slave? (Ramban)

13. Whose idea was it for Bnei Yisrael to fight Sichon and his nation? (Ramban)


Midrash

14. Why did the people love Aharon more than the love they had for Moshe?


Haftara - Sho-f'tim

15. What was Yiftach's claim to be the leader of Israel?


Relationships

a) Elazar - Pinchas

b) Moshe - Elazar

c) Miriam - Pinchas

d) Chur - Elazar

e) Uri - Pinchas



ANSWERS

1. The deputy Kohen Gadol. (In the desert, it was Elazar, Aharon's son)

2. Miriam and Aharon.

3. On Mt. Hor (near Edom)

4. For 30 days.

5. Emori and Bashan

6. The law is incomprehensible to humans.

7. Two hairs.

8. It was Moshe. (The Ibn Ezra wrote that it was a real angel.)

9. The kings of Canaan paid a tax to Sichon to protect them from the oncoming nation of Israel.

10. Moshe did.

11. The ashes would make the impure person pure, while making the kohanim who prepared it, impure.

12. It was inconceivable that Bnei Yisrael would suffer any losses when led by Moshe.

13. Sichon's.

14. Aharon always sought peace between Jews and between husbands and wives. Moshe's responsibilities were to judge and sometimes admonish the people, thus lessening the love they felt for him.

15. None. The people asked him to lead them.

Relationships

a) Father & Son

b) Uncle & Nephew

c) Great Aunt & Great Nephew

d) First Cousins

e) Second Cousins



What  Happened  Last Week?


We left for the States on Wednesday, June 11th. Arrived there same day. 

Brookline, Mass. until Sunday, the 15th, then to Woodmere, NY for the duration. 

We were supposed to fly back on Motza'ei Shabbat, June 21st. 

Didn't happen. Seems there was a war on. All El Al flights were canceled.

Had brought my laptop with me and AnyDesk-ed with my desk computer in Jerusalem. Website was slow in updating but worked for Parshat Sh'lach. Not everything, but decent. 

Then came the week of Korach. Until Wednesday, the 25th when out of the blue philotorah.co was unreachable. Kept getting error message - This site can't be reached. So did many people who wrote to me asking what happened.

Meanwhile, was notified on Wednesday that we had a flight for Thursday, then on Thursday they told us the flight was two hours earlier. We made the flight and arrived back in Israel on Friday.

Called tech support of GoDaddy and after a long conversation they said everything was now okay even though e don't know why it failed in the first place. They added that it could take up to 24 hours to show up as fixed.

Next came Shabbat. Then Motza'ei Shabbat and a couple of hours on the phone with tech support. Finally got a guy named Ryan who finally found the problem. We fixed it together. he said it could take an hour or two to show correctly. Actually took less than an hour. Seems to be fine now.

That's the story. Updates throughout the week, link by link.

Great to be back.