Hamaayan/The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Parashat Chukat Volume VI/Number 39 (273) 10 Tamuz 5752/July 11, 1992 "Bayamim Hahem, Bazman Hazeh" 16 Tamuz 2448 On this day, Chur, son of Miriam, was murdered. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 71) explains that Chur was killed for his opposition to Bnei Yisrael's demand that Aharon make them a Golden Calf. Seeing this, Aharon feared for his life and acceded to Bnei Yisrael's request, relying prophetically on the verse (Eichah 2:20), "... If a Kohen and a prophet be killed in Hashem's sanctuary." The camp at Har Sinai was such a sanctuary, Chur - a prophet, and Aharon - a Kohen, and this Pasuk (in context) suggests that there is no repentance from such a sin (unlike the sin the Golden Calf, for which Bnei Yisrael could be forgiven). The above Pasuk may also be seen as an instruction. When there is a "Kiddush Hashem" - sanctification of G-d's name - to be made, the Kohanim and prophets should stand in the forefront, even at the risk of losing their lives. Our Torah sages, who because of their Torah study are likened to Kohanim (Menachot 110a) and prophets (Baba Batra 12b), have never sent their congregants to their deaths while claiming that they (the sages) themselves were too valuable to be lost. Rather, if it is necessary for someone "to be killed in Hashem's sanctuary," the Kohanim, the prophets, and the Torah sages have always led the way. [So too, Aharon sacrificed his good name in order that Bnei Yisrael would be able to be forgiven.] (R' Yosef Chaim of Baghdad: Nechamat Tzion) ************************************ Parasha Overview This Parasha begins with the laws of "Parah Adumah" and continues with the death of Miriam and the events leading up to and surrounding the death of Aharon. Chazal comment, "Just as the red heifer atones for sins, so the death of a Tzaddik atones for sins." Paraah Adumah is a "Chok" - a law beyond human comprehension. R' Yaakov of Lissa notes that the death of Tzaddik is also difficult for us to understand. We often associate death with punishment for sins, yet we cannot imagine what a Tzaddik might have done to deserve that fate. This is another connection between Parah Adumah and the deaths of Miriam and Aharon. Chazal teach, however, that Tzaddikim sometimes die because they had the power to rebuke others and prevent them from committing a grave sin, but failed to do so. In such a case, the Tzaddik's death can atone for the others' sin (Nachalat Yaakov). Moshe and Aharon's "sin" in this week's Parasha (striking the rock) may be such a case, for they died (indirectly) because of Bnei Yisrael's repeated complaints against Hashem. ************************************ Pirkei Avot Ten things were created on Friday, just before dark... Some say, "Also the first pair tongs." (ch.5) R' Ovadiah of Bartenura explains: The process of making tongs requires tongs in order to lift the iron out of the fire. Obviously then, the first pair of tongs must have been created by Hashem. R' Yaakov Kaminecki suggests that each of the items listed in our Mishnah reminds us that Hashem created the world. Hashem therefore created them at the last minute, so-to-speak, because it was then that He prepared to transfer the world to man's control. The tongs which Hashem created symbolized all future technological developments. Let man not think that his own strength and wisdom brought about the industrial revolution. It would not have been possible without those tongs. (Emet L'Yaakov, Korach) ************************************ The "Chafetz Chaim" (approximately 1838-1933) reportedly said: The rapid pace of development in the last 200 years is a sure sign that the Final Redemption is nearing. All future inventions were contemplated by Hashem's plan for the world, and as the fulfillment of that plan rapidly nears, the inventors of the world must (so-to- speak) speed up the pace of their work in order to complete it on time. ************************************ The Sefer Hachinuch, an encyclopedia of the 613 Mitzvot, writes (section 397): Even though I have suggested reasons for the other Mitzvot, for Chazal have told us that even Shlomo Hamelech could not fathom this Mitzvah. R' Yaakov Kaminecki asks: Would it have been so terrible if the Sefer Hachinuch had offered a reason? In any case, we know that the reasons which we offer for the Mitzvot are only possibilities, and in no way our performance of a Mitzva affected by the fact that the reason we have suggested appears not to apply sometimes! Every Mitzvah has an ethical lesson for us, and when we attempt to find reasons for a Mitzvah, we are in fact searching for that lesson. However, Parah Adumah is a "Chok" - a Mitzvah beyond our comprehension - a Mitzvah about which the "Yetzer Hara" and the gentiles tease us. That is this Mitzvah's very purpose. The ethical lesson of Parah Adumah is that we do not need a reason in order to perform a Mitzvah; we do it because of Hashem's command. (Emet L'Yaakov) ************************************ "And Hashem said to Moshe and to Aharon, 'Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me...'" (20:12) Rashi explains: Hashem's name was not sanctified because if Moshe had spoken to the rock and it had given forth water, Bnei Yisrael would have concluded, "If a lifeless rock listens to G-d, how much more so must we!" In Tefilat Geshem, the prayer for rain recited on Shemini Atzeret, we ask Hashem to answer us in the merit of the one who hit the rock (Moshe). How can we pray in the merit of such ha "sin"? R' Shlomo Sobol explains that Moshe was aware of the lesson that Bnei Yisrael were intended to learn from his speaking to the rock (as explained by Rashi), and he feared lest Bnei Yisrael fail and be considered inferior to a rock as servants of Hashem. Moshe therefore sacrificed his own future in order that Bnei Yisrael should not be condemned. It is in the merit of that sacrifice which we ask Hashem to answer us and send rain. (Shai Latorah) ************************************ The History of Torah Study: Conclusion For nearly two years, we have presented biographies, anecdotes, and examples to illustrate how Torah was studied in different times and places. Last week we offered a brief description of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary of Rabbi Dr. Hildesheimer. This week we conclude this series by using two essays of R' Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan, one of the heads of that Yeshiva, to summarize the major themes of our presentation: "P'shat" and "Pilpul". Throughout our history there were scholars who condemned the "Pilpul" method of being unreliable in achieving Torah study's ultimate goal: clarifying the Halacha. ["Halacha" in this context may refer to more than "law"; Sefer Ha'aruch explains that the word comes the root meaning "to go," and refers to the path that we should follow.] However, the word "Pilpul" is sometimes used to refer to any brilliant analysis of a topic. What then is the difference between "good" and "bad" Pilpul? R' Kaplan gives an example: If two apparently unrelated laws appear to parallel each other in many details, it is a sure sign that deep within their foundations there is a common principle. However, assume that in one respect these two laws are diametrically opposed. How can this be explained? One might conclude that one of these laws is made up of two foundations, and that the second basis is the source of the "stray" detail. While this may answer the question, no scholar would accept such an answer unless it can be proven, and this is where the two forms of Pilpul diverge. Some would prove it by posing numerous other questions on the topic under discussion (and on other subjects), and then show that all of the questions disappear if the original assertion is accepted as correct. The problem with this method is that if other answers are found to these mountains of questions, all of the scholar's supports fall away. The alternative is to go beyond the mere assertion that two principles exist and to identify them. Preferably, the very verses from which the various details are derived can be found. This, says R' Kaplan, would indisputably prove the scholar's contention and very simply answer the original question. This brings us to the subject of "P'shat" - the simple meaning. At first glance, the "simple meaning" of the Talmud is merely the understanding which one obtains from translating the text. This is, however, incorrect; for such an activity, neither Yeshivot nor teachers would be needed. Rather than "simple," "P'shat" is better rendered "unfolded." Imagine a folded tablecloth. If one knows something about weaving, he can imagine what the pattern in the cloth looks like, even though he sees only a small portion of it. This is akin to a student who knows Aramaic translating the Gemara's words, for he can approximate their meaning. However, to be certain, one must unfold the tablecloth. Only then can the pattern be seen and understood in all its beauty and complexity. That is P'shat. (based on R' A. Kaplan, B'Ikvot Ha'yir'ah p.131-133) ************************************ The learning schedule for this Shabbat is: Mishnah Yomit: Negaim 8:10-9:1 (Learn two Mishnayot every day) Halacha Yomit: OC/MB 441:1-442:1 (Learn three paragraphs every day) Daf Yomi: Yevamot 13 (Learn two sides of a page every day) Rambam Chapter/Day: Hilchot Sanhedrin Vhaonshin Hamisurin Lahem Ch. 26 3 Chapters/Day: Hilchot Sheluchin Vshutafin - Chapters 8-10 Sefer Hamitzvot Sh:P245; Su:P232,N258,N259,N257,N260; M:P196,N233,P234,P233,N261 Tu:P235,N254,N255; W:P243; Th:P200,N238; F:P201