Chukat: Understanding Moshe's Reaction

Something struck me while learning this week's parsha (Chukas).

Moshe had just* experienced a deep personal tragedy, the death of his sister. And he didn't get a moment's pause. The people rose up with the same, tired*, complaint*. One could perhaps understand why Moshe overreacted* in the manner that he did in this one uncharacteristic instance. Yet he still was punished.

Footnotes and Caveats:
_________________________

* just: assuming the juxtaposition of events indicates that one followed the other in close proximity, as does the midrash. They were actually in that location for a long time.

* tired: they similarly complained about lack of water early in their wilderness tour, in parashat Beshalach.

* complaint: Sure, they were human and needed water, but they accompanied their request with a complaint and rebellion, and how it would be better had they had died previously.

* overreacted: Assuming that there was something wrong with either striking the rock or with 'hear now, ye rebels'. It is possible that this was not the problem, and it was just a failure of instilling emunah, such that they had the same attitude in the later year as they had in the earlier year.

Listen up, morons!

In a parsha sheet I read last Shabbos (Chukas), I saw the following:

Someone at my table in shul expressed dissatisfaction with this Rashi. How would klal Yisrael know Greek? or that Moshe was specifically choosing a Greek word here, rather than the Hebrew word morim [to mean, say, סרבנים, rebellious ones, as Rashi says earlier]? Was there even a Greek language at that time?

I suggested that there may well have been a Greek language (yaft Elokim leyefet) or some precursor thereof, and that perhaps Rashi (or whatever midrash he is channeling) was doing comparative linguistics, and explaining the meaning of a Biblical Hebrew word on the basis of its Greek cognate. And that the Hebrew term got its meaning from the Greek, as a loan word, or vice versa.

I had my own problem with this devar Torah, at least as written. It is internally inconsistent! If the Greek expression morim indeed means:

"fools who instruct their mentors"

then this indicates that within Greek culture at that time, they regarded someone who instructed his mentor to be a fool. If so, how can Rav Trunk turn around and say that Moshe used this Greek term in order to highlight the contrast of Torah studies with secular studies:

"[exemplified by Greek culture and influence]. Each subsequent generation improves and adds to the advances of the previous generation, and it is likely that students can attain greater heights than their mentors."

? The Greeks themselves considered such a student who would presume to instruct his mentor to be a fool!

I think the answer here was a hasty translation in this parsha sheet, and one with which Rav Trunk would not have agreed.

Rashi was actually giving three separate translations of the word morim, in quick succession:
1) סרבנים -- rebellious ones. Compare morim with mordim.
2) Greek cognate - morim, meaning fools.
3) A Hebrew play on words, morim, those who presume to teach those who are their teachers.

So there is a period or comma between לשון יוני שוטים and מורים את מוריהם. And so the Greeks themselves would not regard such a person who taught his teachers to be a fool. And Rav Trunk was connecting items (2) and (3). This is my guess and reconstruction of what Rav Trunk meant, but then I didn't hear the dvar Torah firsthand[1].

Looking now at Judaica Press, I see that they possibly render this Rashi similarly:

Shall we draw water… from this rock?: Since they did not recognize it, for the rock had gone and settled among the other rocks when the well departed. The Israelites said to them,“What difference is it to you from which rock you draw water for us?” Therefore, he said to them, הַמּוֹרִים, obstinate ones; in Greek, ‘fools,’ those who teach (מוֹרִים) their teachers. [He said,] “Can we draw water from this rock regarding which we were not commanded?” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 9, Num. Rabbah 19:9]

המן הסלע הזה נוציא: לפי שלא היו מכירין אותו, לפי שהלך הסלע וישב לו בין הסלעים, כשנסתלק הבאר, והיו ישראל אומרים להם מה לכם מאיזה סלע תוציאו לנו מים, לכך אמר להם המורים סרבנים, לשון יוני שוטים, מורים את מוריהם, המן הסלע הזה שלא נצטוינו עליו נוציא לכם מים:

At any rate, we can look at Greek dictionaries and figure out what the likely Greek word was. We can determine whether it just meant "fools" or "fools who instruct their mentors".

And we quickly arrive at the Greek word μωρός. That is, moros, foolish, or μωρὸν, moron, foolishness, or Μωρέ, more, fool, or μωροὶ, moroi, fools. The word just means "fools",  not "fools who instruct their mentors".

Note that this Greek word is the root of the English word "moron". Which means that Rashi is actually rendering this phrase uttered by Moshe as "Listen up, morons!"


_________________

Footnotes:

[1] The above might be unfair to Rav Blum. After all, Rav Trunk was interpreting the Greekness of the expression plus the message of 'those who instruct their mentors' specifically as of Greek origin, so this might just be an inconsistency in the dvar Torah itself.

Yiftach was necessary

This week's parsha is Chukas, and in the haftara (Shofetim 11) we read about Yiftach.

The sense one gets of Yiftach is that he was not the most refined or educated of individuals. Of ignoble birth, he left home and gathered a band of idle men.

Yet sometimes a situation calls not for the refined, and educated, but for the coarse and uneducated. Think to the present day, with abuse that was covered up or mismanaged by the Jewish leadership. It took a few Yiftachs to lead the charge and change Jewish society for the better.

Yiftach was tapped in order to deal with the immediate threat, but they appointed him as chief on a more permanent basis. And as a Shofet, which means governor or war leader, rather than necessarily a legal / "halachic" judge, he was a good pick.

The rest of the story is ambiguous. I am not sure if we are supposed to respect Yiftach's commitment to his vow, at the expense of his daughter. (Don't retroject our values onto the Biblical text!) Or what we are to think of the slaughtering of Ephraimites, who it does seem unjustifiably picked a fight with Gilead in the aftermath of the successful fight. Chazal did not think too highly of his halachic erudition, and criticized both Yiftach (lay leadership) and Pinchas (halachic leadership) for not seeking each other out and resolving the issue of Yiftach's daughter.

Even if a Yiftach is necessary for a given issue, we might be wary of ceding greater control to uneducated and unrefined individuals, and turning away from our previous leadership.

Where did Aharon die?

Here is a fascinating variant text that the Samaritans have, in Ekev (Devarim 10): The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left is the Samaritan text.

The Samaritan text is obviously not the original. It is a harmonizing effort, to bring in the material from Bemidbar 33 and make it harmonious.

That is, we have in Bemidbar 33:

לא  וַיִּסְעוּ, מִמֹּסֵרוֹת; וַיַּחֲנוּ, בִּבְנֵי יַעֲקָן.

31 And they journeyed from Moseroth, and pitched in Bene-jaakan.

which on a surface level seems the opposite direction than in Ekev. And in Bemidbar, it is clear that Aharon died at a much later encampment, at Mt. Hor, rather than in Mosera.

לז  וַיִּסְעוּ, מִקָּדֵשׁ; וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּהֹר הָהָר, בִּקְצֵה אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם.	37 And they journeyed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.--
לח  וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל-הֹר הָהָר, עַל-פִּי ה--וַיָּמָת שָׁם:  בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים, לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי, בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ.	38 And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month.
לט  וְאַהֲרֹן, בֶּן-שָׁלֹשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה, בְּמֹתוֹ, בְּהֹר הָהָר.  {ס}	39 And Aaron was a hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor. {S}

(So too in Bemidbar 20, the first recording of Aharon's death.)

The Samaritans seem untroubled by it, and just insert the intervening encampments, and put Aharon's death at Mt. Hor.

The contradiction between these two texts (Devarim and Bemidbar) is indeed a difficult one. Someone raised it in the comment section on my previous post, "Deuteronomy based on a different Biblical tradition? Simple vs. Simplistic", as evidence that Devarim was based on different source material.

But Shadal writes something very important, and instructive, about it:

פסוק זה ושלאחיו קשים מאד. 

It is OK to admit that something presents a great difficulty.

Shadal writes:

ו, ז ] ובני ישראל נסעו וגו ': פסוק זה ושלאחיו קשים מאד. כי לא ידענו מה ענינם במקום הזה. ורשב " ם וראב " ע אמרו שהם להודיע כי אהרן לא מת מיד, וזה לא יועיל ולא יציל, כי יודעים היו ישראל כי אהרן לא מת רק זה זמן מועט, ואם היה משה רוצה להזכירם זאת, למה לו להזכיר המסעות ולא אמר כי חי עד שנת הארבעים? ולדברי האומרים כי נוספו אחר זמן, לא הרווחנו מאומה, כי לא יובן מה ראה המוסיף להוסיפם. ואם בטעות לוקחו ממקום אחר, לא נודע מהיכן נלקחו ואיה מקומם. והשומרונים הוסיפו: ובני ישראל נסעו ממוסרות ויחנו בבני יעקן. משם נסעו ויחנו ביטבתה ארץ נחלי מים. משם נסעו ויחנו בעברונה. משם נסעו ויחנו בעציון גבר, משם נסעו ויחנו במדבר סין היא קדש. משם נסעו ויחנו בהר ההר. וימת שם אהרן ויקב שם ויכהן אלעזר בנו תחתינו . - כל זה להשוות הענין למה שכתוב בפרשת מסעי, אבל מה ענין כל זה לכאן?
"And the Israelites traveled...: this verse, and the one after it, are extremely difficult. For we do not know what their function is in this place. And Rashbam and Ibn Ezra said that they are to inform that Aharon did not die immediately. And this does not help or save, for the Israelites knew that Aharon had only died a short while before; and if Moshe wanted to mention this, why should he mention the traveled and not say that he lived until the fortieth year?
And according to those who say that this [text] was added after a time, we gain nothing, for it is not understood what the added saw to addthem.
And if they were taken from another place, we do not know from whence they were taken and where is their [proper] place.
And the Shomronim add [Josh: as above, see text that they add]. And all this is to make the matter equal to what was written in parashat Masei. But what relevance is this matter here?"

End quote.

In my prior post, I discussed many of the supposed contradictions between Devarim and the rest of Torah. To offer a taste of this, here is one purported contradiction:

2. The Court System 

According to Deuteronomy (1:9-13), the court system devised in the desert was Moses’ idea. However, according to Exodus (18:17-22), the idea was not Moses’ but that of his father-in-law Jethro.

I noted that whether or not one believes in Mosaic authorship of Devarim, it makes good sense that Devarim was written for an audience already familiar with the Torah, and that the author has a religious or political agenda to advance.

Since it is not meant as a parallel first-telling of the Biblical story, but as a retelling of the existing Biblical story, the author of Deuteronomy does not have to retell every single darned historical point...

In Exodus 18, the agenda is Jethro's role as visitor and influencer of the Israelites. And so, Jethro proposes this, and in the end, 18:24, וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, לְקוֹל חֹתְנוֹ; וַיַּעַשׂ, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אָמָר. We are not told there Moshe's words in instructing the Israelites.

In Deuteronomy 1, Moses does not claim exclusive credit for the idea. He does not mention Jethro because Jethro is irrelevant. Jethro would be a distraction to Moses' exhortation. Rather, he is reporting what he said to the Israelites when he implemented this action (or even, a portion thereof). And the purpose of mentioning this is not dry history, but of the transitioning of power from Moshe to others, in this cases, lower judges.

 This approach works well in the general case. But it does not work so smoothly when it comes to this Ekev /  Masei divergence.

I cannot claim to be able to solve every single divergence. Still, my general observation, about the lameness of many of the purported divergences, holds true.

Here is how I might begin to approach this divergence:

#1, the Samaritans are right. Not that they have the original text -- of course they falsified their Torah text in order to harmonize. But that the author of Devarim was looking to Masei and pulling in selections of that text. And that even though when read literally and uncompromisingly, the text in Devarim says Aharon died in Moserah while in Bemidbar (20 and 33) the text says he died on Hor HaHar -- that is not what the author of Devarim intended.

Further, Devarim is pulling from both Bemidbar 20 and Bemidbar 33, because Bnei Yaakan is only mentioned in Bemidbar 33 and Eliezer replacing is only mentioned in Bemidbar 20.

#2, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam are right about the agenda of the author of Devarim. In the previous perek, Devarim 9, Hashem was wroth with both the Israelites and Aharon:

יט  כִּי יָגֹרְתִּי, מִפְּנֵי הָאַף וְהַחֵמָה, אֲשֶׁר קָצַף ה עֲלֵיכֶם, לְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם; וַיִּשְׁמַע ה אֵלַי, גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַהִוא.	19 For I was in dread of the anger and hot displeasure, wherewith the LORD was wroth against you to destroy you. But the LORD hearkened unto me that time also.
כ  וּבְאַהֲרֹן, הִתְאַנַּף ה מְאֹד--לְהַשְׁמִידוֹ; וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל גַּם-בְּעַד אַהֲרֹן, בָּעֵת הַהִוא.	20 Moreover the LORD was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him; and I prayed for Aaron also the same time.

Yet Moshe interceded, and both were spared. And Moshe continues in that perek with other times he interceded on behalf of the Israelites. Perek 10 returns us to Har Sinai, "at that time", and the chance of a do-over.

And so, the point in bringing in that Aharon died is that he died later, not just there at Har Sinai.

#3, As to Shadal's objection -- why not just say "and Aharon died in the 40th year"?

Recall that this is not a parallel first-telling, but rather a re-telling. The audience is already familiar with the Biblical text, and by channeling parshat Masei, it is effectively quoting to them parashat Masei. This sounds more Biblical, and is along the lines of "as you well know". Thus also the parallel of שם Aharon died.

#4, If so, one could imagine that there is a "Yada Yada Yada" in play, to introduce that they traveled on to other encampments.


With Aharon's death, and the transition of power to Eleazar being the priority, and the death being specifically in הר ההר not really being relevant. This is then mentioned after the first movement in the chain, and is followed by others in the chain to show the movement continued.

After writing this, I looked at Ibn Caspi, who says it is a sort of yada yada yada. Perhaps I will present him

#5, בעת ההיא in Devarim 10:7 means at Har Sinai, not Yatva, just as it does in the first pasuk of the perekm Devarim 10:1. See Bemidbar 3.

#6, Many times, making too much of divergences does not lead us to peshat but to derash. I don't know that it applies here, but maybe.

At the end of the day, I am not entirely happy with this, but I do think that it may form the beginning of an answer.

YUTorah on parashat Chukas

Audio Shiurim on Chukat Rabbi Avi Billet: Don't Be A Snake in the Grass Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun: Hanhagat Hanes as Opposed to Hanhagat Hadibbur Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Snake Worship? Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Maaminim Bnei Maaminim Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Self Discovery Rabbi Barry Gelman: Is Blind Obedience Good or, Are We Smarter Than God Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Make a Calculation and Gain Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Israel's Physical and Spiritual Army Rabbi Jesse Horn: Why Hashem gives us Chukim Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: Hashem's Concern For Our Money Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The View From Eternity Rabbi Yoni Levin: A New Generation, A New Leadership Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch: Zos Chukas HaTorah Rabbi Judah Mischel: What to Take Back With You Rabbi Philip Moskowitz: All in the Family: Making Sense of the Parasha Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Accepting Authority Rabbi Zev Reichman: Connecting Parah Adumah with Moshes Sin Rabbi Dovid Rosman: Moshe Rabeinu's Sin: The Root of Anger Mrs Ilana Saks: Good Intentions Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Chukat and the Burning of the Talmud Rabbi Baruch Simon: Latent Kedusha Mrs. Shira Smiles: Fountain Farewell Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Adam Ki Yamus Ba'ohel Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Death with Dignity Rabbi Moshe Stav: אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Mystery Wrapped in Enigma Rabbi Michael Taubes: Long hair and tefillin Rabbi Ya'akov Trump: Exodus and Creation Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Ultimate חק: Accepting and Living with the Gezeiros of Hashem Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Understanding a Chok Articles on Chukat Rabbi Asher Brander: Of Wonder and (Divine) Will Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Holy Cow Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Hakaras Hatov Rabbi Ozer Glickman: The Fast of Chukas Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Importance of Dibbur Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Being Touched by Infinity Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Independance Day Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Of Red Cows & Golden Calves Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: ויקרא שם המקום חרמה Rabbi Josh Hoffman: The Thirst Rabbi David Horwitz: The Sin of Moshe Rabbenu Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Come and make a Cheshbon Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: לראש ולקצין Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: Para Aduma - Why do we need it? YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Kollel: Toronto Torah Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Chukat See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Chukat

New This Week A Year of Mussar in Review Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein What Does the Right Perspective Mean? Rabbi Meir Goldwicht Special Delivery: The Status of Newspapers and Mail Arriving on Shabbat Rabbi Beni Krohn Neither Truth nor the Whole Truth: When are you Permitted to Lie Rabbi Uri Orlian Who/What Could/Should be Buried in a Jewish Cemetery? Rabbi Yonah Gross Empowering Ourselves During June Zman and Bein Hazmanim Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger Introduction to the Halachot of Tzedaka: What’s so bad if I don’t give any? Rabbi Ezra Schwartz The Halachik Definition of Death Rabbi Baruch Simon Mitzvos For the Future Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky Choosing a Profession Rabbi Reuven Taragin Business Ethics: Reneging on a deal Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner

Posts so far for parshat Chukat

2013

1. Whoever says Moshe sinned is only making a mistake -- Or, in Hebrew, כל האומר משה חטא אינו אלא טועה. Moshe Rabbeinu did not sin. He merely failed as a leader.

2012

1. Chukas sources

2. Running commentary on Chukas, part i.

3. YUTorah on parshas Chukas

4. Rav Mordechai Gifter on how to understand וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו

2011

1. Chukat sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Chukat.
   .
3. Minchat Shai on Chukat:
1. The fricative feh in פרה, and more Minchas Shai on Chukat
   .
2. A tevir in each shlishi, and other Minchas Shais on Chukas -- Continuing now from pasuk 19:7
   .
4. The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees -- An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?
   .
5. Should Onkelos on הֲבֵאתֶם read אֲתִיתוֹן or אעילתון?  Shadal vs. Maamar. In the end, I side with Shadal.
   .
6. Should Onkelos read דהא or ארי מית אהרון?  Revisiting a topic from last year, about Rashi's emendation of Onkelos.
   .
7. Did Moshe lose out Eretz Yisrael due to the chet hameraglim?!  Why does Moshe relate Hashem's anger, his losing out on entering the Land, and Yehoshua leading them in, as early as the chet hameraglim? Ibn Caspi answers based on essential and incidental causes, as well as free will coexisting with Divine foreknowledge. But I suggest ain mukdam, or that in fact Mei Merivah did occur much earlier.

Not from me. From Dvarman:

 1) Complaining on false pretenses

2) "Killing" yourself to acquire Torah

Perhaps an analysis later, in a separate post

2010

1. Chukas sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi about וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ? The standard meforshei Rashi discuss what is bothering Rashi about the words וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ regarding the parah adumah and why the same words did not bother him regarding the shemen zayis. I explain why I differ from the methodologically, but then explain why indeed the instance by shemen zayis is irrelevant, in a way that I think provides the key to the entire derasha.
   a
3. Rashi's emendation of Onkelos on כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן -- Rashi might suggest an emendation of Onkelos' translation of ki gava Aharon. And if so, Shadal takes issue with his reasoning, and establishes the unemended text as correct.
   a
4. Correct peshat in Rashi on Moshe's Sin -- I present what I think is a novel, consistent reading of Rashi on Moshe's sin in striking the rock. It seems at first glance that Rashi contradicts himself, but I believe he actually has a consistent reading.
   
   
   
   That reading is: Moshe was instructed to speak to the rock that formed Miriam's well. But when Miriam passed away, it disappeared amidst other rocks. Moshe began to search for that particular rock, the same one that had provided water in the past. The Bnei Yisrael pointed out that as it was a miracle -- perhaps, if it was a miracle -- then any rock should do. At this point, Moshe should have agreed with the Bnei Yisrael, that any rock would do. He should have chosen any rock, or accepted a rock of their choosing, spoken to it, and trusted that Hashem would have brought about the miracle. That would have created a tremendous kiddush Hashem. Instead, he castigated the Israelites and told them that not any rock would do, but only the one he had been instructed to hit, since that would be fulfilling Hashem's comment. The way he told them this was with שמעו נא המורים -- "you obstinate people who think you will teach the teachers". He told them that what they proposed was not possible, and thus missed out on an opportunity for kiddush Hashem, and that was the catastrophic sin. Then, he flubbed the followup. He thought he had the correct rock, and spoke to it, but nothing happened. Then, he hit another rock, and lucked into the correct, original rock which formed the well of Miriam in the past. But he had to hit it twice. The first time, only a few drops came out, because though it was the correct rock, he had not been commanded to hit it. But with persistence, and a second strike, the water flowed.
   a
5. Why does Rashi deviate from halacha in explaining וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו? He explains it as that a zar, that is a non-kohen, slaughtering it before Eleazar, but this is like Shmuel, while we pasken like Rav! I suggest a few reasons for this deviation.

2009

1. Chukat sources - links to an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and aliyah; plus many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. New sections for Rashi and his supercommenters, Ibn Ezra and his; and Targum and Midrash.
   a
2. How do the ashes of the parah adumah work? And why should the kohanim interacting with it become tamei until evening?

2008

1. What does temimah mean?
   a
2. What was Moshe's sin? According to Shadal; according to David Hamelech (and Meiri); according to Radak on Tehillim; according to Ibn Ezra on Tehillim; according to Abarbanel (pt i, pt ii, pt iii, pt iv, pt v)
   a
3. The identity of the Sefer Milchamot Hashem.
   a
4. Does Homeopathy have a basis in authentic Jewish mysticism and thought? Or, how people with an agenda are misinterpreting a Ramban to mean the exact opposite of what he is truly saying.
   a
5. Cross-listed from Masei: Did Yehoshua add the section about Arad and Chormah? And what did the king of Arad hear?

2007

1. Moshe as Progenitor of Rabbi Eliezer -- a midrash I take figuratively! and which I think was intended figuratively.
   a
2. Buying water on the road -- comparing the approaches of the marchers at Jena with the deal Moshe tried to strike with Edom. 

2006

1. Blog roundup -- philology, straightforward dvars, and homiletics on parshas Chukas

2005

1. For the Border of Ammon Was Strong? how so? Does this not contradict Devarim that they did not because of Divine decree? I suggest it means that the border was firm. Or another answer, variant text (LXX) that has יעזר rather than עז for the border, such that it is a border town by the name of עז or יעזר. And a parallel to referencing a border town in the haftara. Then I discovered Targum gives my first explanation.
   a
2. Who Caused the Children of Ammon To Inherit? Hashem, or Chemosh? or both, in Yiftach's mind? Or is it diplomacy?
   a
3. Making Sense of Parah Adumah -- that tumah is a construct, by fiat

2004

1. For What Sin Was Moshe Punished? perhaps not for striking the rock, but for his words. and suggesting that this was the exact same event as earlier.
   a
2. Yiftach BeDoro KeShmuel BeDoro (cross-listed from Shoftim) -- since Yiftach appears in the haftarah, it pays to note that he was not a total am haAretz.

to be continued...

Whoever says Moshe sinned is only making a mistake

Or, in Hebrew, כל האומר משה חטא אינו אלא טועה.

Moshe Rabbeinu did not sin. He merely failed as a leader.

Different commentators offer suggestions as to Moshe's sin, in the (second) incident in which he he hit the rock and brought forth water. And Shadal says about these efforts:

"Moshe Rabbenu only sinned one sin, but the commentators burdened upon him 13 sins and more, for each one invented of his own heart a new sin."

Even Shadal assumes that Moshe sinned. But that is not what the pasuk says. Rather, the pasuk in Bemidbar 20:12 states:

יב וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, יַעַן לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי, לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לָכֵן, לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת-הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי לָהֶם.

12 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: 'Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.'

Translate הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם as he'emantam, since you did not cause them to trust in Me. And this was the failure of leadership, that he did not imbue in the Israelites an attitude of trust in God.

At one wondrous point, the ideal, the people had trust in Hashem. Shemot 14:31:

לא  וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה בְּמִצְרַיִם, וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם, אֶת-יְהוָה; וַיַּאֲמִינוּ, בַּה, וּבְמֹשֶׁה, עַבְדּוֹ.  {ר}  {ש}

31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD, and in His servant Moses. {P}

However, quite early on, the people manifested a profound lack of trust. At the evil report of the spies, the people cried, and did not trust that Hashem could bring them into the land. Bemidbar 14:

יא  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, עַד-אָנָה יְנַאֲצֻנִי הָעָם הַזֶּה; וְעַד-אָנָה, לֹא-יַאֲמִינוּ בִי, בְּכֹל הָאֹתוֹת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ.

11 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'How long will this people despise Me? and how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have wrought among them?

The result of this was that that generation of Israelites could not enter the land. Only Calev and Yehoshua could enter. And quite possibly Moshe could not enter either.

The next 40 years in the wilderness was a change for Moshe to instill in them this trust in God. That is the point of his mussar shmuez in sefer Devarim.

The striking of the stone and bringing out water occurred twice in the midbar. (Unless you say, as in my conspiracy theory, that this is actually a single event occuring at the start of their sojourn in the wilderness. But for the sake of this, assume this is the second instance.) Once at the beginning, and once at the end. For it to even be a question at this stage that God could provide them with water shows a profound lack of trust in Hashem. The Israelites complain

ב  וְלֹא-הָיָה מַיִם, לָעֵדָה; וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ, עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן.	2 And there was no water for the congregation; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.
ג  וַיָּרֶב הָעָם, עִם-מֹשֶׁה; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר, וְלוּ גָוַעְנוּ בִּגְוַע אַחֵינוּ לִפְנֵי ה.	3 And the people strove with Moses, and spoke, saying: 'Would that we had perished when our brethren perished before the LORD!
ד  וְלָמָה הֲבֵאתֶם אֶת-קְהַל ה, אֶל-הַמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה, לָמוּת שָׁם, אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעִירֵנוּ.	4 And why have ye brought the assembly of the LORD into this wilderness, to die there, we and our cattle?
ה  וְלָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ, מִמִּצְרַיִם, לְהָבִיא אֹתָנוּ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הָרָע הַזֶּה:  לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע, וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן, וּמַיִם אַיִן, לִשְׁתּוֹת.	5 And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.'

This is the generation about to enter the land! And they are repeating the very error of their fathers, and indeed using the same language as their fathers. Why have you brought us out of Egypt?!

Perhaps Moshe and Aharon could have taken other steps throughout the 40 year journey to instill a trust in Hashem, via words or actions. Specifically what, we have no idea. But apparently, they could have.

If so, Moshe has failed as a leader, and it is time for Yehoshua to lead. Perhaps Yehoshua can elicit this faith, and trust, in Hashem.

Primary and secondary laws

I've recently been reading up on Chinese history, and I encountered the following passage regarding laws in the Tang dynasty. From A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations,

This got me thinking about chukim and mishpatim. Yes, we know the traditional (midrashic?) explanation that chukim are decrees with no explanation while mishpatim are laws to which we might know the reason.

But how about this for a distinction? A chok is something that is eternal, for all time. Thus:
שמות פרק ל

• פסוק כ"א: וְרָחֲצוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְרַגְלֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ; וְהָיְתָה לָהֶם חָק-עוֹלָם לוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ, לְדֹרֹתָם.  {פ}

A chok-olam is an everlasting portion. And similarly, chukat olam which occurs 16 times, including:

שמות פרק יב

• פסוק י"ד: וְהָיָה הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה לָכֶם לְזִכָּרוֹן, וְחַגֹּתֶם אֹתוֹ חַג לַה':  לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם, חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תְּחָגֻּהוּ. 

How shall we account for mishpat as a changing law? Isn't there a prohibition of bal tigra and bal tosif? We could answer that the Torah itself accounts for different circumstances. There are halachot which hold during the time of heter bamos and during the issur bamos, when Yovel is practiced and when it is not, when people are willing to lend close to shmita and when they are not.

Of course, this would require a cataloging of chukim and mishpatim and see whether this distinction holds true...

Posts so far for parshat Chukat

2012

1. Chukas sources

2. Running commentary on Chukas, part i.

3. YUTorah on parshas Chukas

4. Rav Mordechai Gifter on how to understand וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיוץ



2011

1. Chukat sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Chukat.
   .
3. Minchat Shai on Chukat:
1. The fricative feh in פרה, and more Minchas Shai on Chukat
   .
2. A tevir in each shlishi, and other Minchas Shais on Chukas -- Continuing now from pasuk 19:7
   .
4. The well of Miriam, miraculously growing acacia trees -- An interpretation from Baal HaTurim, of trees growing wherever they went, conflicts with a midrash that Yaakov needed to plant acacia (or rather, cedar) trees for the mishkan. Can we resolve the contradiction?
   .
5. Should Onkelos on הֲבֵאתֶם read אֲתִיתוֹן or אעילתון?  Shadal vs. Maamar. In the end, I side with Shadal.
   .
6. Should Onkelos read דהא or ארי מית אהרון?  Revisiting a topic from last year, about Rashi's emendation of Onkelos.
   .
7. Did Moshe lose out Eretz Yisrael due to the chet hameraglim?!  Why does Moshe relate Hashem's anger, his losing out on entering the Land, and Yehoshua leading them in, as early as the chet hameraglim? Ibn Caspi answers based on essential and incidental causes, as well as free will coexisting with Divine foreknowledge. But I suggest ain mukdam, or that in fact Mei Merivah did occur much earlier.

Not from me. From Dvarman:

 1) Complaining on false pretenses

2) "Killing" yourself to acquire Torah

Perhaps an analysis later, in a separate post

2010

1. Chukas sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftorah.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi about וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ? The standard meforshei Rashi discuss what is bothering Rashi about the words וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ regarding the parah adumah and why the same words did not bother him regarding the shemen zayis. I explain why I differ from the methodologically, but then explain why indeed the instance by shemen zayis is irrelevant, in a way that I think provides the key to the entire derasha.
   a
3. Rashi's emendation of Onkelos on כִּי גָוַע אַהֲרֹן -- Rashi might suggest an emendation of Onkelos' translation of ki gava Aharon. And if so, Shadal takes issue with his reasoning, and establishes the unemended text as correct.
   a
4. Correct peshat in Rashi on Moshe's Sin -- I present what I think is a novel, consistent reading of Rashi on Moshe's sin in striking the rock. It seems at first glance that Rashi contradicts himself, but I believe he actually has a consistent reading.
   
   
   
   That reading is: Moshe was instructed to speak to the rock that formed Miriam's well. But when Miriam passed away, it disappeared amidst other rocks. Moshe began to search for that particular rock, the same one that had provided water in the past. The Bnei Yisrael pointed out that as it was a miracle -- perhaps, if it was a miracle -- then any rock should do. At this point, Moshe should have agreed with the Bnei Yisrael, that any rock would do. He should have chosen any rock, or accepted a rock of their choosing, spoken to it, and trusted that Hashem would have brought about the miracle. That would have created a tremendous kiddush Hashem. Instead, he castigated the Israelites and told them that not any rock would do, but only the one he had been instructed to hit, since that would be fulfilling Hashem's comment. The way he told them this was with שמעו נא המורים -- "you obstinate people who think you will teach the teachers". He told them that what they proposed was not possible, and thus missed out on an opportunity for kiddush Hashem, and that was the catastrophic sin. Then, he flubbed the followup. He thought he had the correct rock, and spoke to it, but nothing happened. Then, he hit another rock, and lucked into the correct, original rock which formed the well of Miriam in the past. But he had to hit it twice. The first time, only a few drops came out, because though it was the correct rock, he had not been commanded to hit it. But with persistence, and a second strike, the water flowed.
   a
5. Why does Rashi deviate from halacha in explaining וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְפָנָיו? He explains it as that a zar, that is a non-kohen, slaughtering it before Eleazar, but this is like Shmuel, while we pasken like Rav! I suggest a few reasons for this deviation.

2009

1. Chukat sources - links to an online Mikraos Gedolos by perek and aliyah; plus many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. New sections for Rashi and his supercommenters, Ibn Ezra and his; and Targum and Midrash.
   a
2. How do the ashes of the parah adumah work? And why should the kohanim interacting with it become tamei until evening?

2008

1. What does temimah mean?
   a
2. What was Moshe's sin? According to Shadal; according to David Hamelech (and Meiri); according to Radak on Tehillim; according to Ibn Ezra on Tehillim; according to Abarbanel (pt i, pt ii, pt iii, pt iv, pt v)
   a
3. The identity of the Sefer Milchamot Hashem.
   a
4. Does Homeopathy have a basis in authentic Jewish mysticism and thought? Or, how people with an agenda are misinterpreting a Ramban to mean the exact opposite of what he is truly saying.
   a
5. Cross-listed from Masei: Did Yehoshua add the section about Arad and Chormah? And what did the king of Arad hear?

2007

1. Moshe as Progenitor of Rabbi Eliezer -- a midrash I take figuratively! and which I think was intended figuratively.
   a
2. Buying water on the road -- comparing the approaches of the marchers at Jena with the deal Moshe tried to strike with Edom. 

2006

1. Blog roundup -- philology, straightforward dvars, and homiletics on parshas Chukas

2005

1. For the Border of Ammon Was Strong? how so? Does this not contradict Devarim that they did not because of Divine decree? I suggest it means that the border was firm. Or another answer, variant text (LXX) that has יעזר rather than עז for the border, such that it is a border town by the name of עז or יעזר. And a parallel to referencing a border town in the haftara. Then I discovered Targum gives my first explanation.
   a
2. Who Caused the Children of Ammon To Inherit? Hashem, or Chemosh? or both, in Yiftach's mind? Or is it diplomacy?
   a
3. Making Sense of Parah Adumah -- that tumah is a construct, by fiat

2004

1. For What Sin Was Moshe Punished? perhaps not for striking the rock, but for his words. and suggesting that this was the exact same event as earlier.
   a
2. Yiftach BeDoro KeShmuel BeDoro (cross-listed from Shoftim) -- since Yiftach appears in the haftarah, it pays to note that he was not a total am haAretz.

to be continued...

YUTorah on parshas Chukas

Audio Shiurim on Chukat Rabbi Avi Billet: Don't Be A Snake in the Grass Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Moshe's Sin Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Rav Kook on How To Fix Everything Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Self Discovery Rabbi Barry Gelman: Is Blind Obedience Good or, Are We Smarter Than God Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: The Rav's approach to Parah Adumah Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Speak to the Rock (and the generation) Rabbi Jesse Horn: Why Hashem gives us Chukim Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Chukas Hatorah and Chukas Hachaim Rabbi Yoni Levin: A New Generation, A New Leadership Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch: Zos Chukas HaTorah Rabbi Judah Mischel: What to Take Back With You Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Accepting Authority Rabbi Zev Reichman: Connecting Parah Adumah with Moshes Sin Mrs Ilana Saks: Good Intentions Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Chukat and the Burning of the Talmud Rabbi Baruch Simon: Latent Kedusha Mrs. Shira Smiles: Amalek, Attack and Awakening Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Rock of Og Rabbi Moshe Taragin: The Calculus of Meaning  Rabbi Michael Taubes: Chillul Shabbos and Yom Tov  Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Accepting and Living with the Gezeiros of Hashem Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Understanding a Chok Articles on Chukat Rabbi Asher Brander: Of Wonder and (Divine) Will Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Holy Cow Rabbi Ozer Glickman: The Fast of Chukas Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Importance of Dibbur Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Life's Ultimate Paradox Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Independance Day Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Of Red Cows & Golden Calves Rabbi Josh Hoffman: The Thirst Rabbi David Horwitz: The Sin of Moshe Rabbenu Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Come and make a Cheshbon Rabbi Eli Baruch Shulman: The Mystery of the Para Aduma - Why do we need it? Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin: Symbols in Scripture and the Targum Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Chukat See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Chukat

New This Week Jewish History Crash Course: Framing the Talmud Rabbi Reuven Brand While the Letters Soar Heavenward: Burned books in Jewish History Rabbi Zvi Engel How long must one wait for dairy after eating meat Rabbi Jesse Horn Can Destiny be Reimagined in Tanach: The Saga of Shevet Levi Professor Smadar Rosensweig The Unique Derech Halimud of Chief Rabbi Pinchas Hirshprung zt”l  Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Five Minute Halacha - Starting Chazaras Hashatz Without Nine Answering Rabbi Michael Siev Yayin Nesech and Stam Yaynam Rabbi Baruch Simon The nature of the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael Rabbi Eliav Silverman Pru Urevu or Talmud Torah Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky Agunos from the Israeli Submarine Dakar  Rabbi Mordechai Willig