HaMaayan/The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Parashat Chukat Volume V, Number 35 (221) 10 Tamuz 5751/June 22, 1991 Parasha Overview This week's Parasha begins with the Mitzvah of "Parah Adumah" (the "red heifer"), a commandment whose reasons, Chazal tell us, even King Shlomo ("the wisest of all men") could not fathom completely. The Parasha continues with the death of Miriam, and then, the episode in which Moshe hit the rock to provide water to Bnei Yisrael. The need for water arose at this particular time because G-d had previously provided water to Bnei Yisrael in Miriam's merit. In its description of Moshe's sin in hitting the rock to obtain water, the Torah leaves many questions unanswered: Exactly what was Moshe's failing? Why was Aharon also punished? If G-d intended that Moshe should only talk to the rock, why did He tell Moshe to take along his staff? (Wouldn't this command mislead Moshe?!) Why, after Moshe hit the rock, did G-d accuse him of a lack of faith? R' Yehoshua Heller of Telz answers all of these questions in his explanation of the events in our Parasha. He begins his answer with several introductory points. 1) G-d's relationship with His people can be openly miraculous or can appear to be bound by nature, all depending on how meritorious we are at any given time. 2) Although G-d knows the future, this does not in any way affect our free will to choose good or bad. 3) A person can be a "Tzaddik" (completely righteous) one moment, and a "Rasha" (wicked) the next, or vice-versa. Even a momentary thought of Teshuva can suffice to turn a person into a Tzaddik. 4) Moshe and Aharon each had a unique approach to leading the Jews, Moshe was known as a man of strict judgement; Aharon was a man of peace and kindness. 5) The reasons for the Mitzvot are hidden from every man. Even though Moshe knew some of the reasons, he could never assume that he knew all that was in G-d's mind. When Bnei Yisrael needed water, there were two ways that G-d could have provided it. He could have performed an open miracle, or He could have performed a miracle that appeared to be within nature. Which He would choose depended on Bnei Yisrael's merit, which in turn was the product of Bnei Yisrael's free will. The fact that they had (or lacked) certain merit at the moment when G-d spoke to Moshe would be of no consequence when it was time for Moshe to carry out G-d's miracle several minutes or an hour later. Through their free will, Bnei Yisrael could change their status instantaneously. Hashem therefore gave Moshe two sets of instructions for providing water to Bnei Yisrael. "Take your staff, and speak to the rock." Moshe was told to attempt an open miracle by speaking to the rock. If Bnei Yisrael were deserving, water would appear. However, if no water came out, Moshe would be prepared to hit the rock and draw out water through less openly miraculous means. This is why Moshe had to have his staff with him. G-d said: "You (singular) shall take your staff, and you (plural) should speak to the rock." When it came to gently speaking to the stone, Aharon was included in G-d's command, for such was Aharon's gentle nature. As for taking a staff with which to hit the rock, for this only Moshe, the man of justice, was needed. Moshe thought that he knew what Hashem was "thinking". Moshe thought that what we described above was exactly G-d's intention. However, Moshe was confident that Bnei Yisrael were not worthy of an open miracle (through speaking to the stone), and he feared that if he attempted one, a "Chilul Hashem" (desecration of G-d's name) would be caused when the miracle failed to materialize. He therefore decided to skip the speaking stage and immediately hit the rock. It was at this point that Aharon sinned, for he should have rebuked Moshe. What was Moshe's sin? How did he demonstrate a lack of faith? This occurred when Moshe presumed to know the reasons for G-d's commands. Even Moshe, before whom 49 of the 50 gates of wisdom were opened, could never know all that lay behind Hashem's Mitzvot, and he therefore had no right to deviate from even one of them. (R' Yehoshua Heller, Ohel Yehoshua, D'rush II) The preceding interpretation of events suggest a connection between the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah and the adjacent story of the "search" for water following Miriam's death. The commentaries note that one's inability to understand the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah should suggest to him that he may lack a truly complete understanding of all of the other Mitzvot as well. This idea, writes Bet HaLevi (Parashat Ki Tisah), is derived from King Shlomo's statement (Kohelet 7:23-24): "I said, 'I will become wise,' but it is far from me. What was, is also distant, and so deep, who can fathom it?!" The Midrash explains that Shlomo thought that he could understand the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah, but he later realized, "[I]t is far from me." When Shlomo saw that all of his wisdom did not serve him in understanding this Mitzvah, he began to wonder if he had really understood the reasons for the other Mitzvot. "[Perhaps]," he said, "what was [within my grasp, I see now] is also distant." If, as Heller suggests, Moshe's failing was in assuming that he understood the reasons for G-d's instructions, the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah, and the lesson that Shlomo would learn from it, should have showed him his error. ************************************ What difference did it make if Moshe hit the stone or spoke to it? R' Moshe Feinstein suggests that speaking to the stone would have provided an appropriate lesson for the often stubborn Bnei Yisrael, as well as for Moshe and any future educator who is faced with a difficult group of students: Even a stone can open up if one tries hard enough. (Darash Moshe) ************************************** The Spanish schools of Torah scholarship (which we begin to examine this week) combined, in their long history, all of the study methods which we have seen in past issues. These will not be reviewed here, as they have already been covered in sufficient depth. In coming weeks, we will focus on those aspects of Torah study that were unique to the Spanish schools. According to the Talmud commentator "Meiri", Spanish Torah scholarship begins with R' Shmuel HaNaggid (993-1055). R' Shmuel was in many ways the "prototype" for the Spanish scholar, as his activities included significant involvement with government and secular society, in addition to great scholarship and the authorship of important works. While it is far from true that all Spanish sages were deeply immersed in secular studies and government service, a significant enough number were that we can characterize this as one of the major differences between early Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions. R' Shmuel was an opponent of the academic dialectic methods of study which would be popularized by the "Ba'alei Tosfot" centuries later. As his written works reflect, he stressed the basics of Talmud study and the practical Halacha which derived therefrom. R' Shmuel's best known work, Mavo HaTalmud ("Introduction to the Talmud") is printed in the first volume of our standard Talmud edition. The preface to this work explains its purpose as follows: Being that satisfactory completion of a process requires an understanding of the steps in that process, one who lacks this knowledge cannot perform as needed. Similarly, a student who does not know the rules upon which the Talmud is built cannot arrive at a proper understanding of the Talmud. (Note: This preface was not written by R' Shmuel.) The rules which R' Shmuel sets out range from the very basic (which every student takes for granted) to some which are not universally agreed upon by all commentators. An example of the former is: An unattributed Mishnah reflects the opinion of R' Meir; a "Tosefta", the opinion of R' Nechemiah; the "Sifra" (a Midrash), R' Yehuda. All of these are based on the teachings of R' Akiva. An example of the latter is: In a monetary case which cannot be resolved, the money should be divided. However, some are of the opinion that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and thus the defendant must win. R' Shmuel was a statesman and general in the service of the King of Granada, Spain, but even from the battlefield he continued his Torah correspondence with the sages of his generation and with his children. Many legends tell of R' Shmuel's benevolent wisdom, including the following: Once R' Shmuel was accompanying the king on a stroll through the streets of Granada, when an Arab shopkeeper began hurling epithets and sharp curses at the Jewish statesman. Incensed, the king ordered R' Shmuel to have the man's tongue cut out. Instead, R" Shmuel sent the Arab a gift. Sometime later, the king and R' Shmuel were again strolling past the same Arab's store. This time, the man came out and began showering R' Shmuel with all sorts of blessings and praise. When the king demanded to know why his orders to cut out the man's tongue had not been fulfilled, R' Shmuel replied, "Your majesty's command was fulfilled! I have cut out his evil tongue and replace it with a good one." (Reprinted with permission from Artscroll's Rishonim, p.59) *** Since R' Shmuel's time, many works have been written on the rules of the Talmud. Some of them are: Darchei HaTalmud, written by R' Yitzchak Kantafton, the "Gaon of Castille", (1360-1463) who flourished in the closing century of Spanish scholarship. Among his students were the teachers of men such as R' Yosef Caro, R' Yitzchak Abarbanel, and R' Levi Ibn Chaviv, some of the greatest sages of the post-expulsion period. Kelalei HaTalmud, excerpts from the works of R' Chaim Benveniste, is printed in our standard Talmud editions. Torah She'be'al Peh, by R' Yishaya HaLevi Horowitz of Prague is the final section of the author's magnum opus, Shnei Luchot HaBrit. Derech Tevunot is R' Moshe Chaim Luzzato's (died 1746) exposition on the logical system of the Talmud. "Ramchal" (as the author is usually called) is best known for his work Mesilat Yesharim. The Origin of the Oral Law is a series of articles by R' S.R. Hirsch discussing the "styles" of various sages of the Mishnah. The work was written to demonstrate that "historians" such as Heinrich Graetz and Zacharia Frankel distorted the Talmud in order to justify their rejection of the divine origin of Torah. Yad Malachi by R' Malachi Kohen includes rules for interpreting the Talmud and each of its major commentaries. Yesod HaMishnah V'Arichata and other works by R' Reuven Margaliot (20th century) cover topics including Talmudic methodology and the internal order of the Mishnah and Gemara. ************************************* The learning schedule for this Shabbat is: Daily Mishnah Chulin 12:3-4 (Learn two Mishnayot every day) Daily Halacha Orach Chaim (Mishnah Berura) 279:4-6 (Learn three paragraphs each day) Daf Yomi Pesachim 99 (Learn two sides of a page each day) Pirkei Avot Chapter 5 (Learn one chapter each Shabbat afternoon during the summer) ************************************* The hard copy distribution of this week's HaMaayan is Sponsored by: Mrs. Rochelle Dimont and family in honor of Yocheved's engagement to Jonathan Newman, and on Chayim's return from a year's study in Israel ******************** Posted by Alan Broder, ajb@grebyn.com (uunet!grebyn!ajb), who should be contacted to request back issues of HaMaayan or to get on or off the direct email mailing list. Shlomo Katz can not receive EMAIL, however I will pass on any comment forwarded to me, or alternately, send your comments care of yehuda@gwuvm.bitnet