Parshah Mas'ei

Train Ride: R Eliyahu Safran

"It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end." 
~ Ernest Hemingway

http://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/parsha-from-ou/masei-journey-lives/

 
Kol Tuv,
RRW

P. Matot: Umikneh Rav liv'nai R'uvein, Gad - So How did M'nasheh get Included?

R'uvein and Gad approached Moshe Rabbeinu requesting TransJordan. When Moshe acquiesced, he added Hatzi Shevet M'nasheh. Why?

Below is a an answer based upon the structure of the Tribes throughout Sefer Bamidbar - here is that dynamic at work

When Levi drops out of the "tribes" a shuffle occurs in Parshas Bamidbar, Nasso, B'haalot'cha. *

1. Gad is promoted to Honorary Ben Leah, camping with R'uvein and Shim'on

2. Yosef is divided into Two, Ephraim and M'nasheh to restore the number to 12

The 4 camps now are structured as follows

East - 3 from Leah
South - 2 from Leah plus Gad
West - 3 from Rachel
North - 3 from the "sh'fachot" - 1 from Zilpah, 2 from Bilhah

Levi was now in a circle inside
-------------------

When R'uvein and Gad chose TransJordan, then we have

20% of Leah
25% of the Sh'fachot
0% of Rachel

To Remedy this Moshe takes 1/2 of M'nasheh which comprises about 25% of Rachel - thereby restoring a balance of Imahot. [Counting Bilhah/Zilpah as a unit]

Why M'nasheh and not Ephraim? I'm not sure - but perhaps it is since he is the b'chor and so are R'uvein and Gad.

-------------------

* Note whenever Levi IS counted in the 12, Joseph is reunited.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Matot/Maasei, "How did Hatzi Shevet Menashe Get There?"

The tribes of Gad and Reuven approach Moshe about staying in East Jordan...
- Bamidbar: 32

Question: how did the "half-tribe of Menashe" get in the picture? Why Menashe and not another tribe?

I have a surprise answer....

...OK...

clear your minds.

I taught a parsha class for many years at Congregation Mt Sinai in Washington Heights. I found that many of the tribal dynamics had to do with the Matriarchs, Jacob's four wives. I don't have the time or space to explain it all now, but use that as a prism for viewing these inter-tribal dynamics. Now apply that here.

• Reuven, one of Leah's sons.
• Gad, one of the two maidservants' sons. (Zilpah)

Which matriarch is missing?
Rachel

Now take a loot at the proportions:
Leah gave birth to six sons. However, Levi didn't receive any land,  leaving five to inherit the land of Israel. So Reuven is about 20% of of the inheriting sons of Leah. Gad is about 25% of the maidservants' children.

What's needed?  20-25% of Rachel's children. Half the tribe of Menasseh is about 12.5 to 20% depending on how you compute the population. Shevet Menasseh is much larger than either Shevet Ephraim or Shevet Benjamin.

So Moses' agenda was to assert a matriarchal balance over East-Jordan. Half (or part of) Menasseh did the trick

Proof?

None

Hint?

Look at the configuration of the tribes in pasrshiot Bamidbar and Beha'alotecha. The tribes march along according to matriarch - except one. Gad, who is promoted to replace Levi along with Reuven and Shim'on.

This model "suggests" the Torah had a matriarchal proportion re: tribe vs tribe. Since half-Menasseh seems to jump out of nowhere, I simply plugged them in. Voila! It conformed to a an existing model.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Pinchus - "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

We have chosen an article that relates to the week's Parsha from Nishma's Online Library archives, both to direct you to this d'var Torah and in order to initiate some discussion.This week's Parsha is Pinchus and the topic is the generation of the desert. 

The behavour of the generation of the desert is simply perplexing. How can we explain this? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at https://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5768-35.htm .

Shalom, RBH

Parsha: Pinchas, "Leadership"

A local leader of a certain sect recently told me that while their World Leader may no longer walk the earth, he is still there for consultation. After all, no shepherd would leave his flock (צֹאן מַרְעִיתוֹ.) unattended.

I then began to wonder - why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu A"H lead his flock after passing away?  It seems he was very concerned about having a successor appointed before his passing.* What compelled Moshe  to find a LIVING successor instead of relying upon consultations from beyond?

It is also interesting that Shaul required a witch from Ein Dor to help him commune with the departed Sh'muel Hannavi. Why didn't Shmuel just advise Shaul from the afterlife, too?

Shalom,
RW

-----------------------------------------

* במדבר פרק כז

 טז יִפְקֹד ה”, אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל-בָּשָׂר, אִישׁ, עַל-הָעֵדָה.  יז אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם, וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם; וְלֹא תִהְיֶה, עֲדַת ה”, כַּצֹּאן, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-לָהֶם רֹעֶה. 

H. Of Pinchas, is it the rarest?

For the statistical reality see:

Calendar - What is the rarest Haftarah? - Jewish Life and Learning - Stack Exchange
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3898/what-is-the-rarest-haftarah

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Balak, "Schadenfreude I"

The Torah Claims that Balak hired Bil’am because: “Those whom he blessed were blessed, and those whom he cursed were cursed.”

Rashi objects to a literal read. After all, Balak is seeking only a curse and he considers the blessings just so much flattering blather.

What would happen if this were true and Bil’am was equally capable of blessing as well as cursing? If that were the case, then Balak would have had a choice in how to deal with the Israelite threat to his territory:

1. Curse the Israelites to make them vulnerable
2. Bless the Moabites to make his nation invincible.

What choice did Balak make? Why is that an important Torah lesson?  He did indeed choose to have Bil’am curse the Israelites. Balak's psychology was that it was more important to curse the Israelites than to bless his own people.

What does the Torah tell us about life in general? The Torah teaches us: It is more important for the Anti-Semite to do harm to the Jews than it is for him to obtain his own success. We will, BEH, explore this further on a series of posts

Shalom,
RRW


. Background Information:
Dictionary: schadenfreude (shäd'n-froi'də) n.
Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.[German : Schaden, damage (from Middle High German schade, from Old High German scado) + Freude, joy (from Middle High German vreude, from Old High German

Word Overheard: schadenfreude
Columnist George Will, who seems to enjoy the seven deadly sins almost as much as he does baseball, decided to add a pleasurable eighth — schadenfreude. "Sins can be such fun. Of the seven supposedly deadly ones, only envy does not give the sinner at least momentary pleasure. And an eighth, schadenfreude — enjoyment of other persons' misfortunes — is almost the national pastime."
Link: The economics of baseball — George Will
Posted October 15, 2006

Parsha: Balak, "Defining Evil"

We have chosen an article that relates to the week's Parsha from Nishma's Online Library archives, both to direct you to this d'var Torah and in order to initiate some discussion.This week's Parsha is Balak and the topic is the definition of evil. 

How can someone act evilly if he knows absolutely that God exists? Balak clearly knew of God. He chose to defy God even though he clearly understood the repercussions. How can we explain this? We invite you to look at an article on this topic.

Shalom, RBH

Counterfeiter, Rodeif, Hatra'ah

Kitzur SA 184:9
Based upon Rema Cho"M 388:11

Paraphrasing Goldin Translation

«A person who is engaged in counterfeiting money ... Is a "rodeif" ... And should be warned to desist from his practice [lest he jeopardize the community]»

Q1 : If the counterfeiter is indeed deemed a rodeif, why should he even get hatra'ah? What are the Rema and the Kitzur SA teaching us?

Note: Rema adds "v'im eino mashgi'ach" , so we expect that sometimes the counterfeiter will heed that warning.

Q2: Do we have sources re: Pinchas and Zimri? IOW did Pinchas warn Zimri first?

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha Balak -- Three Differences Between Bilaam and Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma

From RRW

  https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5771-balak/

Parshah: Huqqat, "Mixed Messages?"

It seems that many think that Moshe Rabbeinu's error at mei meriva was to hit the rock instead of speaking to it. 

That seems pretty pashut! However, when Hashem tells Moshe "aseih lecha saraph,"  Moshe Rabbeinu actually: "Vaya'as Moshe Nechash Nechoshes.."

Now Hashem had said "Saraph" and Moshe instead made "Nechash nechoshes." Is this not, too, a deviation - albeit minor - from Hashem's statement? Does anyone comment on this apparent contradiction?

Shalom, RRW

Parshah: Hukkat, Great Snakes

Given: Hashem asked Moshe to make a "S'raf"

Question: Why did Moshe change that and make a "n'chash n'choshet" instead?

-----------------------------------------

R Seplowitz:

CHUKAS (Numbers, 19:1-22:1) — "Tattle-Snakes & Copperheads" | Torah Talk

«Why copper?  Why the play on words?  By making it out of NECHOSHES, copper, Moses was emphasizing that the snake on the pole was a NACHASH, a snake defending G-d's honor, rather than a SARAF, a fiery serpent defending the honor of Moses. ...»

http://torahtalk.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/chukas-numbers-191-221-%e2%80%9ctattle-snakes-copperheads%e2%80%9d/


Best Regards,
RRW

Re: [Avodah] Prohibition of Eating Blood

Originally published 1/10/08, 11:52 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

From our Friend, Richard Wolberg:

On Jan 10, 2008 6:47 PM, Richard Wolberg,  cantorwolberg@cox.net, wrote:

It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object, there is no way of removing every trace of it. There is a substance called luminol. Luminol is a versatile chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. It is a white to slightly yellow crystalline solid that is soluble in water and most polar organic solvents.

Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes. It is also used by biologists in cellular assays (tests) for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides . There is no way in eliminating every trace of blood once it has appeared.

It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers around the fact that the tum'ah it conveys can never be fully eliminated.

I see a parallel between the paradox of the ashes of the para aduma and blood. As the ashes can render someone tahor who is tamei, and someone tamei who is tahor, likewise, without blood already inside of you, you would die. And conversely taking blood from the outside in, will cause a spiritual death.

ri

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

P. Korach Ki Chol Ho'eidah

Originally published 6/24/11, 10:11 am.

Korach to Moshe Rabbeinu -
"Kee Chol Ho'edah Kullam Q'doshim uvtocham Hashem - umadua titnass'u al Q'hal Hashem"?

Rabbi EX [REX] to G'dolim such as R Moshe -
"Kee Chol Yisroel Kullam M"lumadim uvtocham Torat Hashem - umadua titnass'u al Klal Yisrael"?

Could it be that the Yeshivishe devotion to "g'dolim" and the Hassidishe devotion to their respective Rebbes a device to prevent
"Bayamim haheim ein Melech b'yisroel - eesh hayyashar b'einav Yaashe"? [Last verse of Sefer Shoftim]
And that it is better to submit to some authority figure -even if imperfect as opposed to having anarchy.

Shalom,
RRW

P. Korach - Arguments for the Sake of Heaven

«The argument was brewing for five minutes when they all began to smile and instructed me to say the prayer as I had planned. Before I continued the service I sauntered over to the old Shammash who was sitting quietly through the tumult and asked, "what is the minhag (custom) of this shul?"

He surveyed the scene and beamed. "This shul is 100 years old. This is our minhag."»

Drasha - Korach, 5756 - Torah.org
http://www.torah.org/learning/drasha/5756/korach.html#


Shalom,
RRW

P. Korach - John Lennon, and Spiritual Anarchy

Guest Blogger - R David Joseph Mescheloff

«...Korach is the father of spiritual anarchy. Korach argues against all forms of spiritual authority and leadership, and against any proscribed role in the spiritual community. Korach aspires to create a society free from distinctions, borders and categories. We are all divine, and hence we are all one.»

[Apologies to John Lennon's lyrics from "Imagine" ]

Imagine. Imagine there was no Moses, no Aron, no Sanctuary, no Kohanites, Levites or Israelites, and no religious authorities too. It's easy if you try. And the Jews would live as one.»

Korach and John Lennon :: TheYeshiva.net
http://theyeshiva.net/Article/View/132/Korach-and-John-Lennon


-------------------

Also see a related post
For more background -

NishmaBlog: P. Korach Ki Chol Ho'eidah
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/06/p-korach-ki-chol-hoeidah.html
and below (there are comments at Nishmablog, though)
-------------------
Comment:

To be fair, John Lennon - unlike Korach - was apparently dreaming of a Utopian Society, somewhat analogous to our own Messianic Age, when no Yetzer Hara would prevail. Even we Torah Jews could imagine anarchy in that kind of society, when we are to become more "angel-like" but not in our current reality.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Korach, "The Motivation of Torah"

This week's parsha is Korach. Why does one follow Torah, observe mitzvot, identify with an Orthodox and/or Jewish lifestyle? There are many possibilities.

This Dvar Torah, The Motivation of Torah, which we have selected from Nishma's Online Library, will present some thoughts and offer itself as a starting point for this discussion.

Shalom,
RBH

Mussar: P. Korach - the Symbol behind the Drash

Rashi quotes a Midrash or Aggadah about how Korach belittled Mosheh Rabbenu using

1 the Tallit shekulo T'echeilet
And
2 the room filled with Sifrei Torah


Korah makes Moshe's reasoning seem silly to require one more thread of T'cheilet for the Tallit - And to require 2 more Parshiyot for the room already filled with Sifrei Torah

-------------------

While the story reads fine as is - many may notice the underlying symbolism and others may tend to overlook it.

The point of Korach's rebellion was madua titnas'u on K'hal Hashem? Meaning he advocated anarchy in order to dispose of the leadership whom he grew to resent due to the appointment of Elizaphan ben Uziel as per Hazal

Thus, the M'zuzah and the P'til T'cheilet are symbolic that EVEN a fully holy garment or room STILL needs a special symbolic "leader". And so, too, a K'hal Hashem - no matter how holy - needed a specific "p'til t'cheileit" or a "m'zuzah" anyway, in this case Moshe and Aharon.

This "chap" is not originally mine, but it is imho the key to reading between the lines of this Midrash for a further tremendous psychological insight of WHY Korach davqa picked these items to underscore his K'tatah.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Shelach, "Meraglim - the Parsha and Haftarah"

"On the other hand, whom did he pick? The successful merageil from last time around - Kaleiv ,  and a known zealot for Hashem - Pinchas.".
- Micha Berger, esteemed moderator of Avodah

True, this is a Midrashic approach.

Here is an alternative from Rabbi Wm. Cohen, the local Orthodox Rabbi when I was growing up. He darshens it thusly:

The meraglim in the parshah were bigshots. They were public figures who went "spying" with a lot of fanfare, and probably packed their egos too! Yehoshua learned this lesson. Regardless of the spies' names, they were sent privately. Their anonymity may have meant that they indeed traveled without their egos.

Beqitzur: This haftara represents both the tiqqun and the lesson learned.

--------------------

The kushiya: why did Moshe send out public figures anyway?

The Hint: What verb(s) describes Moshe's agents?

• In Shelach?
• In Huqqat?
• In Devarim?

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Beha’alotkha, "The Whispering Campaign"

Dvar Torah on Parashath Beha’alotkha
Rabbi Chaim G.Z. Solomon

The Whispering Campaign

Our sedra gives us three very puzzling vignettes, back to back.  Bemidbar chapter 11 begins thusly:  “Vayy’hee ha`am k’mithon’neem, r`a b’oznay Hashem - and the people were like murmurers, evil in the ears of the Lord.  The Lord heard and His anger was kindled.  The fire of the Lord burned amongst them, and devoured (those) at the boundary of the encampment.” (Bemidbar 11:1) Curious, as generally when such devouring fires issue forth, action and consequence occur somewhat near the center of the camp.  Also, when the people complained, how was it that the murmurs were heard by God, but perhaps not by Moshe?  Further, the actual complaint is not recorded.

In a curiously connected report, verses 4 and 5, we have more complaints. “V’hasaphsuph asher b’qirbo, And the ‘mixed multitude’ that was among them had craved cravings; and the children of Israel returned to weeping, saying: Who will provide us flesh to eat! We remember the fish, which we would eat in Egypt for nothing (chinam); the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic...And Moshe heard the people weeping. The ‘asaphsuph’, frequently rendered ‘mixed multitude’, is a puzzler.  

So to the complaint of the Children of Israel - first, they ask for meat, but then ‘fondly’ remember the fish and vegetables they ate ‘for free’ in Egypt. What does ‘free’ mean here?  The Israelites were slaves, after all!  At the end of the chapter, God’s anger is again kindled against the People, and God strikes those that lusted and meat-eaters, all the People, with a very great plague.  Interestingly, it is only those who lusted whom Scripture records are there buried.

So ends chapter 11.  Chapter 12 picks up straightaway with yet another curious vignette.   Miryam and Aaron speak against Moshe.  First they complain regarding Moshe’s Kushite wife, though the specific issue is not mentioned.  Then, they turn right around and raise a complaint that can really only be taken as criticizing Moshe as arrogant, “Has the Lord indeed only spoken through Moshe?  Has he not also spoken through us?”  God hears (like the first vignette) and God’s anger is kindled against Miryam and Aaron (as in both previous vignettes).   Here though, only Miryam is punished, and even so, only with tsara`at, not death.  Why is only Miryam punished?  And why is the punishment not death?

The trope ‘yichar aph’, rendered, ‘anger was kindled’ when applied to God with respect to the `Am, the People, appears in Shmot 32 (the Golden Calf), Bemidbar 25 (Ba`al Peor), and foretold in Devarim 6, 7, 11 and 29.  In each of these instances idolatry is the relevant transgression.  In our sedra, the anger of the Lord is kindled against the people, but idolatry is not clearly the transgression.  Our sedra appears to be the only outlier in this pattern, though Moshe applies the trope ‘yichar aph’ to God when recounting in Bemidbar 32 the incident of the Spies (Bemidbar 14).  Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed 1.36) would have us categorize all such usages of this trope applied to the People as caused by the sin of idolatry.  How are we to understand Rambam’s required classification?

In the second pericope we’ve studied, the phrase ‘zakharnu, et haddaga, asher nokhal b’mitsrayim, chinam, we remember the fish, which we would eat in Egypt for nothing’ certainly could do for some unpacking.  What is this ‘chinam’, generally rendered ‘for free’, or ‘for nothing’? Sinat Chinam - baseless or causeless hatred, is a phrase with which we are all familiar, unfortunately.  What is the ‘chinam’ of our verse meant to inform?  Yoma 75a would interpret chinam here as free from the obligations of mitswoth, specifically with respect to physical immoralities, for which ‘fish’ must serve as some manner of euphemism.  Sifre Bemidbar 67 is explicit in this regard, that ‘chinam’ in this verse is to be understood as ‘free from the commandments’.   God’s anger is kindled against the people, for an act signifying a desire to shake off the yoke of Torah.  The implication of Rambam’s classification is staggering.

---------------------

Whispering Campaign.
1.(idiomatic) A method of persuasion in which damaging rumors or innuendo are deliberately spread concerning a person or other target, while the source of the rumors tries to avoid detection.

In our third pericope, the exact subject of Miryam’s calumny is almost immaterial.  That Miryam could be criticizing Moshe for separating from his wife, on account of concerns over ritual purity vis a vis a perceived requirement for prophesy, well, that would be a textbook example of lashon harah.  Onqelos’ understanding of the word ‘Kushite’ as ‘beautiful’ is in consonance with Chazal’s interpretation of Miryam’s actions as in sympathy with a neglected wife, as the excuse for this criticism.  On the other hand,the possibility that Miryam is exhibiting color-consciousness would be even worse. What is curious and quite material is that it is clear from the language that Miryam was the primary speaker of the first complaint (vat’daber, not vay’dabru), and that it was God, not Moshe, that ‘heard’ (parallel to the first pericope).


Onomatopoeia
1. An onomatopoeia is a word that imitates or suggests the source of the sound that it describes.

So now, what do we make of the ‘asaphsuph’?  The difficulties with identifying asaphsuph as ‘elders’, ‘strangers’, ‘foreigners’ has been dealt with elsewhere  and need not be repeated here.  We merely must construct an alternative hypothesis.  For that, though, we have really no guidance from Tanakh itself, for this is an example of a hapax legomenon, a word that appears in Tanakh only this once, so no contextual hints as to its meaning may be drawn from other instances.  The word itself is perhaps a quadriliteral, with a root samekh-peh-samekh-peh. ‘Saph-saph’.  Even if not, it is still very similar to such words as gimgum (גמגום) stuttering tzichtzooach (צחצוח) polishing tiphtooph (טפטוף) dripping shifshoof (שיפשוף) rubbing, and of course baqbooq (בקבוק) a bottle (what is the sound of liquid pouring from a bottle?)

We’ve a word in English

Susurration
1. The sound of whispering

Perhaps the very word used to label these pestiferous miscreants itself is an onomatopoeia?

The pattern begins to come together.  These three vignettes, though not a re-telling of the same story, use several similar devices to tie them together.  In the first pericope, no one really spoke out loud, and the complaint itself was so immaterial it wasn’t even recorded.  It was those who were not central to the camp, those on the ‘outskirts’ bore the brunt of God’s kindled anger.  These, perhaps, were the people on the edge, whispering.  Whatever they were whispering, it was evil enough to warrant death.  In the second, the asaphsuph, the whisperers, goaded the People into their weeping.  The People’s complaints themselves seem logically unconnected, as if the first was merely a pretext for the second.  In their complaint, however, they rebel against God, throwing off the yoke of Torah in a baseless act of disloyalty.  God’s anger is kindled, yet the worse punishment seems to be attached to the whisperers.  In the third and final pericope, Miryam goads Aaron with a primary complaint that seems unspecific as to its nature (parallel to the first vignette) and unconnected to the secondary (parallel to the second vignette).  The secondary complaint does itself smack of an act of disloyalty against Moshe, the most humble of men, though it is God who seems to take it personally.  And who is punished? It is Miryam, the whisperer, the instigator.

So now what is left to us is to understand the severity of God’s response in the first two pericopes.  The third is easily understood as a lesson against one of several possible variations of lashon hara; Chazal and later commentators all seem quite comfortable with tsara’at as the appropriate punishment.   Miryam as the whispering instigator gives us a key to understanding the first two.  (Perhaps as a tool to strengthen the connection between the second and third pericopes Scripture uses as a play on words the root asph, gather, to describe how Miryam is to return to the camp after her seven day exile, instead of several more natural words, e.g. ‘return’, ‘enter’,  ‘come in’.)  Rambam would have us interpret these first two pericopes as instances of idolatry.   How so?  Our other clue is the Report of the Spies.  A principle message of the spies was that of God’s implied inability to see the People of Israel successfully through the settlement of Canaan.  Indeed, echoes of ‘Who can provide us meat’ are heard.  The message is clear.  Denying the omnipotence of God, ‘shorting his hand’ and through that pretext seeking to divest oneself of the yoke of Torah is no other sin than that of idolatry.  Underhanded disloyalty towards Moshe is bad enough to warrant tsara`at. Whispering others into disloyalty towards God will surely bring the severest consequences as the instigation of idolatry.

There is no middle ground between the genuine faith of Caleb and Yehoshua and the rebellious idolatry of the spies, whisperers and goaders.  Ours is to choose the path of genuine faith and loyalty to Torah. Bivrakhah,

- Rabbi Chaim G.Z. Solomon, Ph.D.

Note: Rabbi Solomon is a former student of mine, and is Rabbi in Mt. Dora, Florida

 
Shalom,

RRW