zwg ['d] 'e wxt :zea` iwxt June '15 OU Israel Center 22 Keren HaYesod POB Jerusalem (02)

Transcription

1 into our 24th year Wednesday's 14th 1142 zwg ['d] 'e wxt :zea` iwxt d"ryz'd fenz 'i June '15 OU Israel Center 22 Keren HaYesod POB Jerusalem (02) The CHOK-MISHPAT Blur This week's sedra could have been named PARA or PARA ADUMA. Okay, that's a stretch because they are the 21st and 22nd words of the sedra, and no sedra-name is that far from the beginning. K'doshim is the 14th word - that's the most. CHUKAT is the 9th word - within range. But let's cont. page 4 e"dl EARLY SHABBAT MINYAN This week - 6:05pm JERUSALEM in/out times for Shabbat Parshat CHUKAT 4 7:14PM (Plag 6:20PM) %32 8:31PM Rabbeinu Tam 9:01PM

2 ParshaPixExplanations further Those who said Kiddush L'vana this past Motza'ei Shabbat - which was the first opportunity for those who follow Minhag Yerushalayim and say KL after three full days following the molad, and those who looked at the sky in the first part of the night even if they didn't say KL - probably noticed the very neat equilateral triangle made by the crescent moon and the planets Venus and Jupiter. Last op for KL this month is Wednesday, July 1st until 10:06pm. This time should be adjusted for your locale.

3 Candles Plag CHUKAT Havdala Balak 7:14 6:20 Yerushalayim / Maale Adumim 8:31 7:14 6:20 8:31 7:30 6:22 Aza area (Netivot, S'deirot, et al) 8:33 7:30 6:22 8:32 7:28 6:20 Gush Etzion 8:31 7:28 6:20 8:31 7:30 6:22 Raanana / Tel Mond / Herzliya 8:34 7:31 6:23 8:34 7:29 6:21 Beit Shemesh / RBS 8:32 7:29 6:21 8:32 7:31 6:23 Netanya 8:34 7:31 6:23 8:34 7:29 6:21 Modi'in / Chashmona'im 8:32 7:29 6:21 8:32 7:30 6:22 Rehovot 8:33 7:30 6:22 8:33 7:26 6:21 Be'er Sheva / Otniel 8:31 7:27 6:21 8:31 7:14 6:22 Petach Tikva 8:34 7:14 6:22 8:33 7:29 6:21 Ginot Shomron 8:33 7:30 6:22 8:33 7:28 6:20 Gush Shiloh 8:32 7:29 6:21 8:31 7:22 6:23 Haifa / Zichron 8:35 7:22 6:23 8:35 7:28 6:20 Chevron / Kiryat Arba 8:31 7:28 6:20 8:31 7:28 6:20 Giv'at Ze'ev 8:32 7:29 6:21 8:31 7:30 6:22 Ashkelon 8:33 7:30 6:23 8:33 7:20 6:21 Tzfat 8:34 7:20 6:22 8:34 7:30 6:22 Yad Binyamin 8:33 7:30 6:22 8:33 7:31 6:22 Tel Aviv 8:34 7:31 6:23 8:34 R' Tam (Jerusalem) - 9:01pm next week: 9:01pm Ranges are 11 days, Wed-Shab Tammuz June 24 - July 4 Earliest Talit & T'filin Sunrise Sof Z'man K' Sh'ma (Magen Avraham: 8:24-8:27) 4:35-4:39am 5:35-5:38¼am 9:08-9:10am Sof Z'man T'fila 10:19-10:21am (Magen Avraham: 9:42-9:44) Chatzot (halachic noon) Mincha Gedola (earliest Mincha) Plag Mincha Sunset (based on sea level) 12:41½ -12:43½pm 1:17-1:19pm 6:19½-6:20pm 7:53½-7:54pm 7:48-7:48½pm OU Israel and Torah Tidbits do not endorse the political or halachic positions of its editor, columnists, or advertisers, nor guarantee the quality of advertised services or products. Nor do we endorse the kashrut of hotels, restaurants, caterers or food products that are advertised in TT (except, of course, those under OU-Israel hashgacha). Any "promises" made in ads are the sole responsibility of the advertisers and not that of OU Israel, the Israel Center or Torah Tidbits Adam, Asher, LaOlah, L'chol Good week to start gal PAZ KEY SKY OAK One of our greatest errors is to regard something as "questionable" merely because it has been called into question. We confuse "filled" with "fulfilled". from "A Candle by Day" by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein z"l

4 pretend or imagine that CHUKAT and PARA were both candidates for the sedra-name. CHUKAT wins - not only because it is closer to the beginning, but because it is more general, less specific, than PARA. Even though the word ZOT is referring to PARA ADUMA, we can still generalize it by one of Rabbi Yishmael's 13 Talmudic Principles. A word of caution. We cannot make up our own applications of the Principles (except Kal VaChomer), but we can use other principles on a HASHKAFA level. Rabbi Yishmael's Interpretive Principle #8 states: When a particular case, though included in the general statement, is expressly mentioned to teach something new, that special provision applies to all other cases included in the general statement. Sorry about that. Unless you are familiar with Rabbi Yishmael Omeir, that sentence is probably difficult to understand. But follow the point we are trying to make... The Torah states that Para Aduma is THE (quintessential) CHOK OF THE TORAH. Rashi's comment, based on the Midrash, is that identifying Para Aduma as THE CHOK, gives us an answer to the 'satan' and to the nations of the world who mock us for observing mitzvot that (in their eyes) don't make sense and are not logical - we answer that G-d's commanding us to do a mitzva is reason enough for us to comply. It is a Divine order of the King. continued from Front Page Just Para Aduma? Definitely not. First of all, there is another mitzva that is introduced with the same words - ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH. So Rashi's statement would go for Kashering Keilim as well. And it would apply to all CHUKIM. Whatever the satan or the other nations can mock us concerning Para Aduma, they can mock us for the prohibition of Shaatnez, wearing of T'fillin, and many other mitzvot (CHUKIM) that are not easy to apply common sense and logic to. And, in fact, there isn't a single mitzva in the Torah that we should not say first and foremost to anyone who asks, We do this mitzva because it is commanded to us by G-d. We circumcise males at 8 days of age because G-d commanded it. Not because of any health benefits. Those would be like fringe benefits. Furthermore, even the most reasonable, sensible, logical of mitzvot have some element, some detail, that challenges to sense and logic. So why do we do them? Because G-d commanded it. Every MISHPAT has a CHOK-like component. ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH singles out Para Aduma from the group of mitzvot in the Torah, to which it also belongs. So what applies to it applies to all Taryag (613) mitzvot. And the opposite is also true. Even the most enigmatic CHOK has a rhyme and reason for keeping it. Might be harder to find, but it's there and Chazal have done a good job at teaching us both aspects. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 4 CHUKAT 5775

5 CHUKAT 39th of 54 sedras; 6th of 10 in Bamidbar Written on lines (rank: 39) 10 Parshiyot; 6 open, 4 closed 87 p'sukim; rank: words; rank: letters; rank 41 Smallest in Bamidbar in all 3 categories Fewer p'sukim than Sh'mini, more words, same number of letters. Chukat is a bit longer. 3 mitzvot of 613; all positive. Only 6 sedras have only positive mitzvot: B'reishit and Lech Lecha with 1 each, Metzora with 11, Chukat with 3, Pinchas with 6, and Vayeilech with 2. 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. 17 sedras have no mitzvot. The top 17 have 530. Numbers in [square brackets] are the Mitzva-count of Sefer HaChinuch AND Rambam s Sefer HaMitzvot. A=ASEI (positive mitzva); L=LAV (prohibition). X:Y is the perek and pasuk from which the mitzva comes. Kohen - First Aliya 17 p'sukim 19:1-17 [P> 19:1 (22)] This whole Aliya plus the following 5 p'sukim deal with the topic of the PARA ADUMA. (The 22 p'sukim of ch.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 Ha- Bayit, 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.) Elazar b. Aharon was in charge of the preparation of this first Para Aduma. [P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] 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. "And G-d spoke to Moshe and Aharon saying... DABEIR (you Moshe, not both of you, 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 OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 5 CHUKAT 5775

6 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 perhaps a bit of the opposite as well, since Aharon IS included in the command to prepare the Para Aduma. 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 somewhat 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. Today, (temporarily) without a Beit HaMikdash, the are (at least) three ramifications of the rules of ritual impurity to the dead. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 6 CHUKAT 5775

7 [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. [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 Kohen potential 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 - and only 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. [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. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 7 CHUKAT 5775

8 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 couple of 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 can do. (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 OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 8 CHUKAT 5775

9 G-d and against Moshe, BEILOKIM UVMOSHE. These are the only two times the word UVMOSHE (and in Moshe) appears in all of Tanach. 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). 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 (as well as 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". This increases the benefit to the innkeeper and is a proper thing for a patron to do. 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. 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 OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 9 CHUKAT 5775

10 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 or another, 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. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 10 CHUKAT 5775

11 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. Og, king of Bashan, also falls, as G-d promised. 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 have to always keep this in mind. 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 facilitate 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 OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 11 CHUKAT 5775

12 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. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 12 CHUKAT 5775

13 mgpn ixac Divrei Menachem In this week's parsha we read of the people complaining about the Manna in the desert, which tasted like any food one desired. For their testiness, the people were punished by a plague of snakes. And only by contemplating a copper serpent, mounted on high and fashioned by Moshe at G-d's command, were the smitten people saved. Our rabbis rightly commented, "Does a snake kill and does a snake bring to life?" No, they, responded, only when the sinners looked heavenward and understood that Hashem is the healer, were they actually cured. We know today that the venom of the snake can heal and that the serpent is not all bad. In Jewish literature, however, the snake is the incarnation of evil. From the days of Adam and Chava in the Garden of Eden the serpent has represented Satan or the Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination that draws us to the other side. Nevertheless, following Chabad thought, we might say that even the bad in the world has a redeeming side: it challenges us to overcome, to purify ourselves through fire, as it were. The people complained of food with possible multiple flavors. In contrast, the primeval snake that also spoke badly of G-d was forced to eat the dust of the earth with but one grimy taste. The people's punishment through the snake was thus very symbolic. However, it did not stop them from venerating this slimy reptile for generations. Only when Chizkiyahu HaMelech destroyed Moshe's copper serpent hundreds of years later was snake worship finally put to rest. VEBBE REBBE Sharing Surprising Grounds for Leniency Question: A couple of times recently, I have been troubled by your columns, in which you entertain leniencies that I view as dangerous or against the spirit of halacha. Although you acknowledge that such leniency is only for great need, since those cases are rare, isn't it wrong to share this with a broad readership, which includes people who might misunderstand or abuse the grounds for leniency? In one such column, you discussed the possibility of serving food in a non-kosher establishment, which is at least pas nisht (inappropriate). Answer: The good point you make is one we do take into account. You have prompted us to highlight for our readership the background and goals of this column. The OU Ask the Rabbi service, in which Eretz Hemdah plays a major role, provides an address to a wide variety of people throughout the world to ask questions that, for whatever reason, they are not asking to a local rabbi. Some questions are "cookiecutter" questions, with one answer that fits all, irrespective of venue, circumstances, level of need, or halachic orientation. Other questions have different legitimate answers and are apt to be affected by circumstances. We have several goals in sharing OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 13 CHUKAT 5775

14 some of our answers with the public. One is to inform the masses how to act when they encounter the same circumstances addressed. However, there are other important goals. We treasure teaching Torah lishmah, including regarding issues and cases that few are likely to encounter. We also strive to expose our readership to a multi-faceted and, we pray, balanced approach to rendering halachic decisions. We aim for an approach that is traditional on one hand, but with an openness for innovative problem solving. We aim for high halachic standards, but with a realization that an objective or even a subjective need often plays an important role even according to these high standards. We view implementation of this balance as one of the most exciting and important elements of p'sak halacha. One case-in-point is a set of teshuvot (Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah II: 4, 5), in which Rav Moshe, in the course of a week, wrote ostensibly "contradictory" rulings to the same rabbi on the same case (a shochet who publicly did something that was chilul Shabbat according to almost all rabbanim). The rulings are not contradictory because Rav Moshe begins the second responsum: "if we will forbid him it will negate all that you have fixed with toil in the kashrut and the peace in the city." He follows with a novel leniency to allow the shochet to continue with certain provisions. It is fascinating that Rav Moshe was willing to publish (in 1973) the two responsa back-to-back without hiding his change of mind due to the circumstances. The first responsum remains the basic one. The second one demonstrates how he could "stretch" to be lenient when needed. It also teaches that when Rav Moshe ruled stringently even in the face of great need, it is not out of lack of effort. We estimate that a clear majority of this column's readers are solidly Orthodox English-speaking olim. As a rule, we would not consider (or allow our child) to be a waiter in an Israeli non-kosher restaurant. But Rav Ovadia allowed someone in great financial distress to be a cook in a non-kosher restaurant, until he could find another job, and published it (Yabia Omer, YD 6). Rav Moshe (ibid. YD I:51) allowed a delivery man in Europe (1929) to deliver pork. The Tzitz Eliezer (XVII:33) allowed a hospital nurse to freely serve/feed non-jewish patients. Parallel circumstances that require analysis of the same issues/sources arise all around us. We want our readership to enjoy the Torah's richness and hone their halachic sophistication to know what to ask and how. We want them to know that while pas nisht should often preclude things, we subscribe to the approach of the many rabbis, from a variety of traditions, who search for solutions to "non-cookie cutter" cases. Sometimes such rulings should be kept quiet; sometimes they should be OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 14 CHUKAT 5775

15 publicized. May Hashem protect us from mistakes. Rav Daniel Mann, Eretz Hemdah Institute Rabbi Weinreb's Weekly Column: Chukat Discovering our Mortality It was at a house of mourning, and she was saying something that I had heard many times before. In fact, I had said it myself when I was sitting shiva for my own mother. She is a friend of long-standing, and a member of my former congregation. I hope that I am not being unchivalrous by describing her as late middle-aged. She had just lost her own mother, having lost her father several years ago. "It is not just that I feel orphaned", she said. "It is that I feel vulnerable. As long as even one of my parents was alive, it was as if there was a kind of buffer between me and death. Now that they are both gone, it begins to feel that it is my turn. No one to protect me. I face the malach hamavet (angel of death) directly, face to face, head on." We all deny our mortality, and as long as the older generation is around we feel that they, and not we, are the ones on death's frontlines. We are insulated from death's claws by them. It is their turn and not yet ours. But once we lose our own parents, we can no longer deny our mortality. It is our turn. There is an excellent book by my esteemed colleague, Rabbi Marc Angel, entitled The Orphaned Adult. I often recommend this book to mourners, particularly those who are fortunate to have entered adulthood, even late middle age, with both parents alive, and experience their deaths only after having long ago reached adulthood. Their feelings are unique and very different from those who experienced the trauma of a parent's death at an earlier stage of life. Rabbi Angel also describes this sudden sense of mortality, of vulnerability. With the death of parents, these older people finally must surrender their comfortable denial of their own inevitable demise. In this week's portion, Chukat, we read of the death of two beloved leaders of the Jewish people, Miriam and Aharon. Both of them were parent figures, albeit not actual parents, of the Jews in the years of their wandering in the wilderness. Instructively, a period of vulnerability ensues immediately upon their respective deaths. We read first of Miriam's death. "The Israelites arrived at the wilderness of Zin... Miriam died there and was buried there." And then, immediately, "The community was without water." (Bamidbar 20:1-2) As long as Miriam was alive, she was a source of water, a source of life. While she was alive, the Be'er OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 15 CHUKAT 5775

16 Miriam (well of Miriam) provided water for the people. With her death, and in her case, the well immediately dried up, the water ceased, and the people were vulnerable. Without "mother" Miriam, death by thirst threatened the people. Soon afterwards, we read, "...and Aharon died there on the summit of the mountain." And then, this time not immediately but after thirty days of mourning, "When the Canaanite king of Arad heard... he engaged Israel in battle and took some of them captive..." (20:28-29 and 21:1) "Father" Aharon died, and peace and security were shattered. War and that worst of fates, captivity, reared their ugly heads. It seems that it is more than mere psychological reality that with the passing of its leaders, a nation faces calamity. With the death of ones parents, one's own well being is threatened. No wonder that when the young sister-in-law of the 18th century sage Rabbi Yonasan Eybeshitz lost her husband, the Rabbi cautioned her, in a letter which has come down to us, to take special care of her own physical well-being and the health of her young children. As our sages put it in the Talmud, "When one member of a group perishes, the entire group needs to be anxious." How apt are the words of the Psalmist, "When my father and mother abandon me, the Lord will take me in" (T'hilim 27:10). When our parents "abandon" us and leave this world, we are bereft in many ways, and our positions in life become precarious. We need God at those moments, and turn to Him, confident that He will "take us in." The following is from Sapphire from the Land of Israel A New Light on the Weekly Portion from the Writings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook by Rabbi Chanan Morrison website: ravkooktorah.org Speak to the Rock Adapted from Shemona Kevatzim, VII:28 What is the meaning of God s instruction to Moses to speak to the rock? Can rocks hear us? The short answer is - yes! Nature and all of its laws are listening. They listen for the call of redemption. They yearn for the redemptive light that preceded the creation of the universe. When this unifying light is revealed, the world s divided factions become linked and bound to their underlying foundation. [ Those who rule over themselves and cleave to their Creator, utilizing the world only to aid them in serving the Creator - they uplift themselves and the universe with them It is like the statement of the Sages, that the rocks united together [to form a pillow for Yaakov], each one saying: Let the tzaddik rest his head on me (Chulin 91) (Mesillat Yesharim 1).] As Moshe approached to speak to the rock, all of creation was listen- OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 16 CHUKAT 5775

17 ing. Tragically, instead of speaking, Moses hit the rock. The waters, meant to revive and nourish the people, instead became Mei Meriva - Waters of Dispute, bringing conflict and discord into the world. With his impatience and anger, Moshe introduced a framework of coercion and force into the world, thus debasing the universe. The world was no longer ready to listen in attentive quietude to the inner voice of the Infinite. The paradigm shifted from speaking to striking, from receptive listening to coercive force. A World That Listens This tragic discord will be healed through the Divine spirit that flows within the wisdom of Israel. The flowing waters of Israel s wellspring - the Torah - will heal the discord of Mei Meriva. Every Jewish soul has a part in revealing this wisdom. It will arise powerfully, enabling the living word of God to penetrate all hearts. The return to patient communication will awaken the world s latent state of listening in all its splendor. You have opened my ears Then I said, Behold, I have come, with a scroll of a book written for me (T'hilim 40:7-8). We yearn for a world that listens with open ears, ears that are able to hear the inner call. We aspire for a world where our inner truth, the light of the Life of the worlds, is expressed, not through force and coercion, but through words and literature. Behold, I have come, with a scroll of a book written for me. The Tikunei Zohar identifies the staff which Moshe used to redeem the Jewish people as a pen. The staff of God - that is the pen. Moshe's staff, used to strike the rock, will be transformed into a tool of communication and dialogue. And the art of literature will flourish, redeemed from its waywardness. Should I Make a Minyan on a Plane? by Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher Dean of Students, Diaspora Yeshiva I will be flying to New York in August to attend my niece's wedding and to teach Torah. Those are valid reasons to leave the Holy Land on a temporary basis. Should I organize a Minyan on the plane? The Rosh in Tractate B'rachot and Shulchan Aruch HaRav Orach Chayim 90 both rule that saying Kaddish and Kedusha in a Minyan is a fulfillment of the Mitzva, found in the verse in Vayikra 22, V'NIKDASHTI B'TOCH BNEI YISRAEL, "And I, G-d, shall be publicly sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel." Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim 2, ruled that Yeshiva students must arrange their Torah study to insure praying with a Minyan, even if they feel more inspired praying alone. However, making a Minyan on a OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 17 CHUKAT 5775

18 plane involves many difficulties. For example, the Minyan may inconvenience other passengers, interrupt the flight attendants and may endanger the Minyan members during sudden turbulence. Therefore, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Halichot Shlomo and Rabbi Shmuel Vosner both ruled that one should not form a Minyan on a flight. The reason is found in Midrash Vayikra Rabbi 9, "DERECH ERETZ KODMA LATORAH" (Common courtesy and consideration for others PRECEDES the Torah). Therefore, mourners who need to say Kaddish on a plane can fulfill their obligation B'SHAAT HADCHAK (in times of great need) with a single daily Kaddish, recited with a Minyan, before or after the flight. Rabbi Chaim Scheinberg ruled that a Minyan on a plane remains permissible only when the flight attendants allow it. The Shemoneh Esrei should be recited standing, but the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 94 rules that one should remain seated if standing is a danger. This ruling can be applied to plane travel if one will be standing during sudden turbulence. If so, should I organize a Minyan on a plane? My answer is to utilize the so called Fifth (!) section of the Shulchan Aruch which is COMMON SENSE AND COMMON COURTESY! GLARING example of a not uncommon mistake We've done this before; we're doing it again - because the mistake is alive and well... mf I ae i ² Wi l X d mfī A F ºaÎ`Ḧ g z i `E d mfī A ` ¹Ḧ g z i `Ÿ lîm ` e x d h i i ri a X d :x«d h i ` Ÿl i ri a X d mf I ae i² Wi l X d This pasuk, Bamidbar 19:12, is talking about the purification process of someone who is T'MEI MEIT (ritually defiled from contact with a dead body) who needs to be sprinkled with the Para Aduma Potion on the third day and on the seventh day of his period of Tum'a. Here's a WRONG translation: He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. That translation says that if one receives the sprinkling on the 3rd day, then he becomes TAHOR on the 7th day. Wrong on two accounts. (1) Two sprinklings are necessary for purification. (2) With the two sprinklings (and Mikveh), the person becomes TAHOR on OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 18 CHUKAT 5775

19 the 8th day, not the 7th. The second half of the verse is also incorrect. He is a CORRECT translation... The same shall purify himself therewith on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean; but if he purify not himself the third day and the seventh day, he shall not be clean. The incorrect translation is a result of a misreading of the pasuk. More specifically, a result of not reading the pasuk with the correct pauses. Look at this phrase: BAYOM [no pause] HASH'LISHI [pause 1] UVAYOM [no pause] HASH'VI'I [pause 2] YIT-HOR [etnachta] The T'VIR under the word HA- SH'LISHI is followed by a short pause. The TIPCHA under HASH'- VI'I calls for a longer pause after it. Pausing correctly will join the third and seventh days, followed by the word YIT-HOR. The wrong translation above is from the King James version of the Bible, but it sadly occurs in some Jewish translations, as well. purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean. If a BK (Baal Korei or Baal K'ri'a) pauses in the wrong places, the meaning of the pasuk changes and he should be told (without embarrassing him) to reread the pasuk. At the beginning of last week's sedra, there is another example of the same potential mistake, but with less serious distortion is one pauses incorrectly. z l RÎo A of ` e a `i l ² ` i p A m xi a ¹ `«e o z c e :o«ae` x i p A Datan and Aviram sons of Eliav AND On ben Pelet were all B'NEI REUVEN. All three of them. Not just On b. Pelet. This works with a short pause after ELIAV and a longer pause after PELET. Interesting to note that in the New King James version of the Bible, the verse's translation was corrected. It now reads: He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 19 CHUKAT 5775

20 Maharal on the Sedra The Para Aduma and the Four Kingdoms Bamidbar 19:2 - and you shall take a perfectly red heifer which has no defect, which has not borne a yoke. Ner Mitzva 67a: Midrash [Yalkut Shimoni 1:759] notes that "heifer" is Egypt, as it says, "Egypt is a beautiful calf" [Yirmiyahu 46:20]. Red is Babel, as it says "You are a head of gold" [Daniel 2:38] [gold is "red"]. Perfect is Medea, as Rabbi Chiya says that the kings of Medea were perfect and Hashem found no fault with them except the idolatry they received from their fathers. "Which has no defect" is Greece. When Alexander the Great met Shimon HaTzadik, he got off his chariot and bowed to him, saying when he rested in preparation for war, he saw Shimon's image and succeeded in battle. "Which had not borne a yoke" refers to the fourth kingdom, Edom, who did not accept Hashem's yoke. Pirkei d'rebbe Eliezer interprets the messengers of God rising and descending the ladder of Yaakov's dream to be the ministers appointed over the nations. [Ramban, B'reishit 28:12]. Bavel rises 70 rungs and descends, Persia 180 rungs and descends, Edom rises but Yaakov does not see its descent, foretelling a very long exile. It is quite curious that the four kingdoms are related to the red heifer. Both are riddles whose solution lies beyond the comprehension of man. The commandment of the red heifer comes from a supernal sphere. Likewise the placement of the four kingdoms and Israel's four exiles and their subsequent removal from the world comes from a most high level beyond human comprehension. Specifically, the fourth kingdom and the enormous length of its exile attest to the immense power of Edom and eventually the even greater power of Israel and Moshiach, may he come speedily in our time. There are those who ask, where is the hint of the kingdom of Yishmael? Rabeinu Saadia Gaon in the 8th century noted the ascendancy of Islam and commented [Daniel 2:39]: "Some of the commentators say the Fourth Kingdom is Edom but I do not agree, for how do we account for Yishmael?" Ibn Ezra [ad loc.] says since Daniel saw four kingdoms, not five, the 4th kingdom of steel must be Yishmael, who has expanded in the world. Ramban, who lived under Christanity, disagrees [Bamidbar 24:20]. Zohar [2:17] said that there is no exile as tough on Israel as galut Yishmael. However, the House of David passed the holy power of kingship to Bavel, and Bavel to Persia, and Persia to Greece and Greece to Rome. Yishmael received its power separately from Hashem in response to Avraham's plea, as it is written, "And as to Yishmael, I have heard you" [B'reishit 17:20]. The kingdom who received its power from Israel will return it to Israel. Yishmael may be included in the second kingdom, Persia, the bear. But Israel will rise when Edom falls. Column prepared by Dr. Moshe Kuhr OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 20 CHUKAT 5775

21 OzTorah How the Sidra Gets Its Name A sidra is named after its first important Hebrew word, not necessarily because of its content. In this week s sidra, however, we find both at once. CHUKAT ( statute ) is both the name and the subject: the strange rule of the red heifer, the Para Aduma. Ancient man, like the modern generation, puzzled over this command. Why obey a rule for which no obvious reason can be offered? There is ingenuity behind various explanations, but in the end such laws must be obeyed not because of our logic but because of the will of God. Does this mean a Jew sometimes has to go on blind faith? The answer is yes. If I knew all about everything, if I could master all the secrets of the universe, I would no longer be man - I would be God. The fact that some things are beyond me makes me humble: I am both little lower than the angels (T'hilim 8), and not as high as the angels. Realism tells me to discover who I am, but also what I am not and never can be. Parsha Points to Ponder by Rabbi Dov Lipman CHUKAT 1) Why do the Jews complain about not being in a land of CROPS, FIGS, GRAPES AND POMEGRAN- ATES (20:5), clearly referring to the fact that they have not yet entered the land of Israel which has the seven species, but neglect to mention the last two - olives and honey? 2) Why does the king of Edom say that Jews should not pass through his land LEST (PEN) he will come and fight against them (20:18)? Shouldn't he say BECAUSE we will come and fight against you? 3) Why does G-D instruct Moshe to make a serpent FOR YOU (LECHA) when the goal was to help the entire nation (21:8)? Suggested answers 1) The Meshech Chochma answers that they deliberately omitted olives and honey because these were not lacking, as the Torah teaches in describing the taste of the manna as being that of oil and honey. 2) The Sfat Emet teaches that the king was not saying we will attack you now. He was saying I cannot let you go through my country because LEST we end up fighting against you one day and you will have learned about all the roads and pathways and have an advantage because I let you cross our land. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 21 CHUKAT 5775

22 3) Rabbeinu Bechaya explains that the Jewish people were punished for speaking badly against G-D and Moshe. G-D was telling Moshe that following his prayers He forgives the nation for speaking against Him but the punishment came because they spoke against him (Moshe) and, thus, the making of the serpent was FOR YOU.... dxfy ½ d z T ªg z`ÿµf Rashi: Because the 'satan' and the nations of the world mock Israel saying, What is this mitzva and what is its reason? Therefore the Torah identifies it as a CHOK, a decree by G-d and we have no permission (nor need) to challenge it. We do mitzvot because G-d commanded us to. Period. That's it. (Then we search for reasons, messages, symbolisms, rationales...) T'hilim 49:2 - :c l«g i a W iîl M EpiÀ f `«Œ d mi O r«dîl M z`ÿ fîer n W Hear this all you peoples; give ear, all you inhabitants of the world. Hear ZOT (this). We can apply this pasuk to what Rashi said. This pasuk and the partial pasuk above have the same gimatriya (1532). CHIZUK! IDUD Divrei Torah from the weekly sedra with a focus on living in Eretz Yisrael - Chizuk for Olim & Idud for not-yet-olim While our nation's long journey through the desert is rife with drama, there is perhaps no more poignant a scene than that found in our Parsha. Moshe Rabeinu's seemingly insignificant infraction at Mei Meriva denies our beloved leaders the right to enter into the land they yearned for so dearly. The scene begins to unfold with the death of Miriam, her burial and the subsequent lack of water. With Miriam's death, her miraculous well, which had faithfully served as the source of the people s water supply ceased to give forth water (Midrash Rabba, Bamidbar 1:2). The people immediately start complaining to Moshe and Aharon who fall on their faces in supplication. The Almighty directs them to take a rod and speak to the rock, but as we all know too well, things don t go as planned. Instead of speaking Moshe strikes the rock, and is consequently notified that: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of the people, therefore, you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them, Bamidbar 20:12). Rashi explains that it was the striking of the rock which had caused these two illustrious leaders not to be allowed to enter Israel. The Torah wants us to know that if not for this OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 22 CHUKAT 5775

23 sin they would have entered the Land, seeing as they were not guilty of the same sin as the rest of their generation - the sin of the spies. The riddle of Mei Meriva is unsettling: Why would the act of hitting an inanimate object bear such striking ramifications? The purpose of these few words is not to present a solution to all of the difficulties inherent in the text. Suffice it to say that the Abarbanel lists ten different authorities each of whom offers a different explanation as to why Moshe was barred entry into the holy Land. Abarbanel s own theory is directly at odds with Rashi's explanation mentioned above. He posits that Aharon's death in the desert resulted from his involvement in building the golden calf. Though he acted out of positive intentions, the result was disastrous. So too, he claims, Moshe was held responsible for the unintentional role he played in the sin of the spies. When the people had come forth their request was rudimentary: 'Let us send men before us, that they may search the land for us, and bring us back word of the way by which we must go up, and the cities unto which we shall come.' (D'varim 1:22). With the best of intentions at heart, Moshe played along, amplifying the spies' mission and responsibility, directing them to gather a great deal of additional information pertaining to both the nature of the People (strong or weak), as well as the nature of the Land, etc. These added tasks inadvertently caused the spies to lose their confidence and return to spread a heightened sense of fear amongst the people. Thus each one of these glorious leaders was indirectly held responsible for the greatest of our people's sins, the sin of the golden calf and that of the spies. Per Abarbanel, just as the Torah details the people's sins, it focuses on the shortcomings of the leadership as well. While referring even to the most beloved and revered of our leaders, the Torah does not shy away from acknowledging their mistakes. This discussion of Biblical leadership leads me to consider our contemporary leadership. For some time now I have utilized this modest soapbox L'chazek Ul-oded, to strengthen and encourage both those who have made Aliyah and those who while contemplating the move have still not decided to take the plunge. Having made Aliyah over thirty years ago, and having maintained constant contact with Olim ever since, I have often wondered why so many of our fellow Jews stay away? Is it the personal failure of each individual or is this the collective responsibility of leaders who have not done enough to prepare and embolden the people to take the challenge? Thinking back to the time my wife and I made our own decision, I remember a conversation I had with a OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 23 CHUKAT 5775

24 prominent Orthodox Rabbi. Notifying him of our plan to make Aliyah, I was amazed by his reply: Why would you want to do that? he asked. Somewhat startled by his reply, I quickly responded: Why would you not want to? We need you here! was his claim. Although I respected his view, I personally believed that if I could be effective in the USA then with G-d's help I could do no less in Israel. Thirty years later, as I prepare my speech for the 30th reunion of olim who met at a mercaz klita, absorption center, upon arriving here in Israel, and thinking of the place they have each carved out for themselves, I feel all the more confident that this is indeed true for everyone! Come home we need you here! Rabbi Yerachmiel Roness, Ramat Shiloh, Beit Shemesh Reprinted (with permission) from Shabbat Shalom Parsha Booklet (3) by Rabbi Berel Wein Life is certainly nothing but mystery. The unknown and the uncertain far outweigh what we believe we understand and base our life's activities and plans upon. Events that are unforeseen and sometimes less than fortuitous occur to us all of the time, jarring our sense of security and serenity. Though this week's parsha dwells upon one of the laws of the Torah called a CHOK - a law without understanding or rational explanation - it really informs us about human life. The Torah states explicitly ZOT CHUKAT HATORAH - this is the law of the Torah regarding all matters of life. Really what we think we understand is still not fully understood by humans. Every layer of scientific discovery and advance unpeels for us the specter of untold new mysteries of which we were previously completely unaware. The nature of all life is therefore CHOK. So the Torah, though concentrating on the commandment and mystery of the PARA ADUMA in all of its particularities really addresses itself to life generally. In the Torah viewpoint, humans have limitations in their abilities to understand and rationalize our existence and purpose. "No living creature can see Me" is interpreted in Jewish tradition to mean "No living creature can ever understand fully the world, nature and logic of the Creator of us all. Man is doomed to be a wanderer in a desert of doubt and uncertainty, without ever being able to find one's way clearly on his own. All of the frustrations and disappointments of human life stem from this hard fact of life. Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto in his immortal work, Mesilat Yesharim, compares life to a gigantic maze in which without directions or guidance one can never emerge. I remember that once when I visited one of the royal palaces and its grounds in Europe, I tried my luck OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 24 CHUKAT 5775

25 at entering the maze of tall hedges that existed there. There were many other people with me in the maze. Suffice it to say that after forty minutes none of us had found our way out of the maze. There were people who were bemused by the situation. Others were visibly frustrated and almost angry in their inability to escape. And then there were those who were visibly panicked by being lost in the maze. After a while a guard entered the maze and guided all of us safely out. Rabbi Luzatto had made the point that if one stands on a high platform that overlooks the maze and maps it out in one's mind then negotiating the maze becomes possible, even simple. The Torah is that high platform that allows to deal with the maze of life. That is the ultimate lesson of this week's parsha. Life is a CHOK - a confusing maze of events, personalities and forces. Why the maze is constructed as it is, or even to appreciate why the necessity for a maze itself is CHOK - beyond our level of comprehension. But how to negotiate the maze, how to stand on the high platform overlooking and informing the maze, that is within our grasp and abilities. And that is really the CHUKAT HATORAH that is granted to us. TtRiDdLeS Previous (KORACH) TTriddles: [1] Swallows wizard-sticks and sprouts MATEI AHARON, the staff of Aharon. We are first intoduced to it when he threw it down before Par'o and it turned into a TANIN (crocodile or snake - depends on which opinion you accept). Par'o's chartumim (wizards) did the same with their staffs. The Torah tells us that Aharon's staff swallowed their staffs (not that his Tanin swallowed theirs). In Korach, Aharon's staff sprouted (not that it swallowed sprouts). [2] Bald ice Bald in Hebrew is KEIREI'ACH. Ice is KERACH. Both words are spelled the same as KORACH. [3] 18 times, good meaning; twice defiled ERETZ ZAVAT CHALAV UDVASH, or variations on that exact wording, occur 18 times in Tanach in reference to Eretz Yisrael. The expression is defiled twice by Datan and Aviram - once when theyreferred to Egypt with that expression and once when they taunted Moshe by saying that he didn't take the people to a land of milk and honey as he said he would. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 25 CHUKAT 5775

26 [4] Aharon had one and so did his staff Among the 8 garments of the Kohein Gadol was a TZITZ (a gold forehead plate held in place by T'CHEILET ribbons).aharon's staff sprouted, budded, and blossomed. TZITZ is the term for the bud. [5] mirrors and fire-pans The two copper items that were used - at different times - to plate the Mizbei'ach. [6] Hold-over: 27 up, 27 down If a pitcher in baseball faces 27 batters and gets them all out - no hits, no walks, no bases on errors, just 27 up and 27 outs, he has pitched a perfect game. There have been only 23 perfect games in MLB history. Someone submitted this fact in answering the baseball cap in the 23rd anniversary challenge. [7] Middle of three triliterals Should have been: Second of a triliteral quartet. Triliteral means made up of three letters. SH'LACH, KORACH, CHU- KAT, and BALAK are four sedras in a row whose names have three letters each. Other triliteral sedras are MIKEITZ, EMOR, B'HAR, NASO, EIKEV, and R'EI. (MM/Bklyn got it anyway.) [8] FPTL: Manna Shabbat violation Sh'mot 16:27 - And it came to pass, that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, and they found none. That was the Manna Shabbat violation. The gimatriya of the whole pasuk is [9] Old business In the report on the 23rd anniversary challenge, answer 13, we said that using a picture of Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd US president was too easy. We should have used Hayes, FDR, Bush Sr. and/or Clinton. And we asked why? Although none of those presidents is the 23rd, each of their full names is composed of 23 letters. [10] Two Unexplaineds from the ParshaPix of TT 1141 Airlines and airports around the word have codes - usually a 3-letter code by the IATA (Int'l Air Transport Association) and a 4-letter code by the ICAO (Int'l Civil Aviation Organization). The ICAO code for the airport in Kokoro, Papau New Guinea, is AYRO. LSZR is the code for an airport in Altenrheim, Switzerland. The codes for those airports by the IATA are KOR and ACH, which spell KORACH when put together. 2.98% is the part of the produce that a kohein receives - including T'ruma from the farmer and the T'rumat Maaseir he would receive from a Levi who received Maaseir from the same yield. 8.82% is the Levi's share, and the remaining 88.2% is what the owner has after giving T'ruma and Maaseir. He then has to take care of Maaseir Sheni or Maaseir Ani depending upon what year of the Sh'mita cycle we are dealing with. OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 26 CHUKAT 5775

27 70 PERSPECTIVES BUT ONLY ONE TORAH by Dr. Meir Tamari In response to the people's demand for water, Moshe is told, "take the staff and speak to the rock so that it shall give forth water" (Bamidbar 20:8). Uncharacteristically, however, Moshe instead lifted up his hand and smote the rock. Notwithstanding, abundant water came out; "the rock was converted into a pool and flint into welling water" (Tehillim 114). Abarbanel argues that Aharon's punishment was for his role in Chet HaEigel; he had to be punished just as Israel had been. Moshe's punishment was for his advice to send meraglim; justice demanded that because of that advice, he be denied entry into Eretz Yisrael, just like that whole generation. In consideration of their honor, Hashem ascribed their punishments to Mei Meriva, rather than to the real reasons. Some commentators hear sudden weakness in Moshe's question to Israel, as causing his uncharacteristic behavior: "Hear now, you rebels, shall I bring forth water for you out of this rock?" For the Rambam, this showed needless anger, a bad trait, inappropriate for that great man. Moshe's anger resulted in various actions, all of which led to his error. "His anger severed the connection with Hashem that produced miracles. When the first striking of the rock brought only a few drops of water he had to strike it a second time" (Ran). To Chazal, his angry words were insulting of Bnei Yisrael and for that he was punished. "Moshe and Aharon asked, 'shall we draw water' whereas they should have said, 'G-d will draw'. By appearing to make the miracle their creation, they did nothing to sanctify His Name" (Ramban). "Surrounded by rocks, Bnei Yisrael asked Moshe what difference it made from which one he brought the water. Moshe, searching for the designated rock, was afraid to change for another one, a change which would have been a greater Kiddush Hashem" (Ibn Ezra). For many modern Mussar commentators, his anger has remained the source of Moshe's failure. Other scholars sought to rather show the connection between Moshe's "error" and his punishment in not being able to enter Eretz Yisrael: In view of the great emphasis placed in Chassidut on the role and personality of the 'Rebbe-Master', it is not surprising to find there that the problem of leadership was the reason for denying Moshe's entry to the land. Forty years earlier when he was instructed to smite the rock, the text used TZUR a hard, unyielding and granite-like form of stone. Now, when told to speak to the rock, SELA, a yielding and soft form of stone is used. That generation had been stubborn, stiff necked and quarrelsome so they needed a strict and unyielding leader. However, this was OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 27 CHUKAT 5775

28 a new generation requiring a soft hand and an understanding heart. When Moshe still struck the rock, he showed that he could not give this new leadership and so could not take them into the land. For 40 years Israel had witnessed open miracles wrought by Moshe's staff. With their entry into the Land, however, such miracles would cease, and their existence would be through miracles hidden in the seemingly natural things, so that the staff seemed superfluous. The people had reproached Moshe and Aharon with betraying their mission by leading them into a waterless place, but also G-d for taking them out of the fertile Egypt. "The mere presence of the staff would have shown that Hashem is a benevolent G-d and that Moshe, His shaliach, desired only their welfare" (S'forno). "Unlike all the previous times, now, the staff was not for miracles but solely designated to show that in everything, Moshe was sent by G-d. When Moshe saw that he still did not have their confidence, he used it incorrectly to smite the rock. On account of such small easily understood momentary weakness in their emunah, the leaders had to suffer the same fate meted out to Israel for their continuous lack of faith" (S.R. Hirsch). Water is basic to all existence and so it is naturally a subject of human prayer; on Pesach we pray for dew to preserve things during the long hot summer months and on Sukkot for rain for growth and wealth. "In Egypt there is no rain; all is watered by the Nile. There men walk with their eyes downcast to see if the water will rise and so there is no connection between them and Hashem. However, Eretz Yisrael is watered only by rain so men's eyes are always turned to Heaven in prayer for rain and sustenance So there is always a connection between them and Hashem whose eyes are eternally on that Land (Shem MiShmuel). Prior to their imminent entry into that land, Israel had to be taught that there they would receive rain only through prayer, which is a great miracle. Speaking to the rock was a example of such prayer and by failing to teach them this power to be used in their Promised Land, Moshe forfeited his rights to enter it" (Netziv - HaAmeik Davar). OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 28 CHUKAT 5775

29 MACHON PUAH Cosmetic Surgery Last time we stated that the Rabbis who we asked were not willing to permit a couple to undergo treatment if there was no chance of success. Since there are halachic questions involved in the treatment and there is no real possibility that they would have a child, it is not warranted to undergo this treatment and so cannot be permitted according to halacha. It is interesting to see that this same question was recently discussed at the Ethics Committee of the Israel Fertility Association and presented at their recent Annual General Meeting in Tel Aviv. They were not interested in the halachic ramifications but did discuss whether doctors should be involved in performing treatments that have no chance of success. When they polled Israeli doctors, 98% replied that they had performed a treatment that they knew would not work and that they did not want to perform. The couples requested the treatment and despite the doctor's recommendation they urged the doctor to perform the treatment and eventually the doctor agreed. Members of the Ethics Committee asked what is the distinction between performing such a treatment and between performing cosmetic surgery? A woman comes to the doctor complaining about the shape of her nose. She is not happy with it and wants the doctor to perform surgery to correct it. The doctor looks at her and she looks perfectly fine and normal. Her nose does not need to be corrected as it is OK as is. But the woman demands the surgery and the doctor agrees, performs the procedure, pockets the fee and the woman is happy. Most people will permit cosmetic surgery, albeit not always encourage it, yet when it comes to fertility treatments the doctors are not happy to comply with the patient's wishes. Why should there be a difference between the two? If we do not listen to the patient's wishes in one case then we should always only follow medical protocol. However there is a difference; in the case of cosmetic, the need for the surgery is subjective. The woman feels that she cannot live with this nose and it adversely affects her life. The doctor cannot determine what is an esthetically pleasing look; even though he may think that the surgery is unnecessary if they would perform the surgery it does not go against an ethical medical code. The woman feels the treatment is necessary and in cosmetic surgery her subjective reality is what is important. But in the case of a fertility treatment the doctor who performs a hopeless treatment goes against his own objective medical knowledge and therefore the doctor should refuse to offer the treatment. More on this next week. Rabbi Gideon Weitzman, Director, Puah Institute OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 29 CHUKAT 5775

30 Portion Running After Peace In this week's portion two leaders of the Jewish people during their sojourn in the desert, die. First we hear about Miriam's death, which took place on the 1st or tenth of Nissan in the 40th year (20:1). Immediately after her death we are told that the people did not have water. Rashi tells us that from here we learn that the whole 40 years in the desert, the nation had a well, and therefore water, because of the merits of Miriam. Later on in the portion the Torah relates the step-by-step process of Aharon's death (20:22-29). Moshe is instructed to take Aharon, and his son Elazar up the Hor Mountain in the presence of the whole nation. Then Aharon was to take off his special priestly garments and place them one by one on his son. Then Aharon died, on the first of Av at the age of 123. When only Moshe and Elazar descened the mountain, without Aharon, the nation realized that Aharon had died. Then the entire family of Israel mourned Aharon for thirty days. Rashi notes that the verse says that "the entire family of Israel" mourned Aharon. The Torah doesn't mention this fact for Miriam and when Moshe dies later (D'varim 34:8), it says that "the Israelites mourned" but doesn't say that the "entire family of Israel" mourned. What was special about Aharon that everyone, men and women, were saddened by his passing? Rashi explains that Aharon would run after peace and would bring love between people who were fighting, including husbands and wives. As a kohen, Aharon would bless the people with peace. He himself was the perfect example of the man of peace; he didn't complain about Moshe being more important than he was, and he made peace with himself and with God even when challenged by the personal loss of the death of two of his sons. But that was not enough for him. He would run to find more ways to make more peace, as we learn in Pirke Avot (1:12): "Hillel used to say: Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving your fellow creatures and bringing them close to Torah." Aharon is sorely missing amongst us today. How many machlokot - disputes are there between different factions of our nation? What especially saddens me is the breakup of the Jewish family. I hear of so many young couples who don't even make it to their first anniversary, and other couples who have been married for decades who decide to divorce. We should all be mourning Aharon's death - if he were here maybe the situation would be better. And yet, we don't have to become depressed by the current situation, rather we can learn from Aharon's OU Israel Center TT 1142 page 30 CHUKAT 5775

31 ways - and "run after peace - RODEF SHALOM". We must make it a priority to bring peace between our fellow Jews. This past Shabbat I heard of an example of just such an idea, a program that is run by Aish Hatorah where Israeli pilots have a chance to learn together with Torah students from the Mir Yeshiva. Both groups are brought closer and taught to concentrate on their similarities and not on what their differences might be. Both groups come to realize that they have more in common than they would have thought. The same is true of married couples. We as a nation must make it a priority to strengthen the loving bond between husband and wife. Maybe there should be more premarriage workshops to teach young couples communication skills that will strengthen their bonds. Maybe there should be more mentoring programs so young couples could have someone to consult with. I know that as a young wife I met a woman in shul who was celebrating her 50th anniversary. We started talking (not during davening, of course) and she told me that there were numerous times in her married life that she thought they would never make it to the 50th milestone. For a young wife who might be having a "fight' with her husband about something that at the time seems earth shattering, hearing a comment like that from a wiser woman helps one put things in the right perspective. We all know how to continue a dispute and make it grow and fester - but we all need reminders how to smooth things out and continue in harmony. I'm sure there are people who know more about this area than I do, who know what exactly must be done to remedy the situation. But we all must realize that it is an important issue that needs our help. Each one of us can be an Aharon in their own area, if we set our minds to it. LOVE KNOTS 6 eggs 7 Tbsp oil 6 Tbsp sugar 6 tsp baking powder Rind of a lemon or orange 1 tsp vanilla 1 tsp anise 3½ cups flour Mix all ingredients. Once dough is thoroughly mixed, roll pieces into pencil thin tubes about 10 cm. long and make a knot. If dough is too sticky, rub your hands in a bit of oil. (Don't add more flour.) Bake at 180 C until golden brown. Ice with powdered sugar.

32 Be'ohalei Ha'Avos on Pirkei Avos (6:4) by Rabbi Y. Dov Krakowski Pirkei Avos has five perakim. In most printed editions there is a sixth perek that really consists of beraisos and is an appendage to Pirkei Avos. Various reasons are given as to why. It is included in the weekly cycle of Pirkei Avos that is learned throughout the summer Shabbosos. Beraisos are teachings from the mishnaic era. The following is an explanation of the fourth beraisa in this perek. The tanna tells us that the "Torah lifestyle" is a simple and enduring one. The tanna says that it is a regimen of eating and drinking moderately, of minimal and simple sustenance, coupled with sleeping in modest conditions (such as on the floor for lack of having a proper bed) and enduring pain. The beraisa then tells us that one who follows this "Torah lifestyle" is admirable in this world and fortunate in the world to come. While this may well be an appropriate ending for a beraisa, it doesn't stop there. It adds that one should not seek recognition and honor for oneself. In what seems something of a digression, the tanna then says that one should invest more effort in fulfilling Mitzvos than in being a scholar. He then further adds that one should not covet the table of noblemen because a Torah scholar's is greater than theirs and the crown of a Torah scholar is greater than that of a nobleman. The beraisa finishes by saying that Hashem is trustworthy to compensate the Torah scholars adequately. This beraisa raises several questions: 1) Is Torah really supposed to be a harrowing experience? 2) The first and last parts of the beraisa form a continuous flow. Why does Reb Meir interject after saying that Torah is arduous, that it is admirable and eventually worthwhile, before telling us not to seek glory through Torah? 3) Why does he again interrupt his train of thought by saying that we should put more effort into being Torah observers than in becoming Torah scholars? The beraisa would flow more smoothly without these two interruptions. In the Vilna Shas, this perek is printed with a commentary that is attributed to Rashi. This commentary points out that one should not interpret the beraisa as saying that one should not eat the food that one has in order to acquire Torah. It is rather telling us that one who wishes to acquire Torah should anticipate such a lifestyle. With this in mind let us try to better analyze the beraisa. The beraisa tells us that Torah study entails being prepared to endure unpleasantness. It then tells us that if we accept the Torah lifestyle we are admirable in this world and fortunate in the world to come. If a Torah lifestyle is replete with suffering, then even if one who subscribes to it will be fortunate in the world to come, they certainly aren't "fortunate" in this world. The tanna seemingly acknowledges this very point. He is therefore faced with a challenge to make a Torah lifestyle appealing, or at least to rationalize it. He does so in two steps. He first offers comfort by saying that it is admirable even while enduring

33 deprivation. He then not only lessens the imminent fear of such an unpleasant way of life but offers encouragement. He explains that there is eventual compensation for it in the world to come. It is this ultimate compensation that seems to be what makes the Torah way of life worth living. It is clear from the commentaries that one does not need to adopt such a lifestyle in order to live a vibrant Torah life. Rather, one must be ready to embrace a lifestyle of devotion. No one would willingly take upon oneself even the possibility of being destitute as a way of life. However, if one understands that there is more to life than immediate gratification, one may then be willing to endure temporarily some deprivation for the sake of eternal enjoyment. This is precisely the point of the beraisa. It is telling us that one can be ultimately more prosperous by living the "Torah way" than by seeking instant gratification. One who is willing to live a life of utter devotion is certainly laudable. It is at this point that the beraisa warns against getting lost in one's own piety by expecting recognition. This too is something temporary and it blinds one from focusing on the Torah. It is likely to lead one instead to concentrate on the accessories to Torah rather than on the Torah itself. Likewise the beraisa is advising us to focus more on practicing Mitzvos than on the intellectual stimulation involved in Torah study. This is because one who gets caught up in the cerebral aspects of Torah can accidentally turn Torah into a mere intellectual exercise. As a conclusion to this perspective the beraisa tells us not to covet even the nobility of a nobleman because even the glory of the highest aristocrat pales in comparison to the glory that Hashem will bestow upon the Torah scholar. This perek of beraisos started with extremely encouraging words regarding Torah learning. The idea of this particular beraisa is clear. Talmud Torah is amazing and abounds with good. Nonetheless, a life of Torah is a long term commitment. A "Torah lifestyle" is one that can only be appreciated by one who is willing to devote oneself to it. There is one more fundamental point that can be gained after learning this beraisa. The tanna is essentially telling us that in a "Torah lifestyle" there is nothing else one can find or seek other than Torah. It would seem this is the reason that one must be willing to embrace an enduring way of life in order to live a "Torah lifestyle". One may end up rich but if one wishes or pursues wealth they will not end up a Torah scholar. To become a full fledged Torah scholar it must be someone's only focus. There isn't anything contradictory between monetary fortune and Torah greatness, nonetheless the pursuit of one is mutually exclusive of the pursuit of the other. Upper-left is a photo of a real possible Para Aduma (subject to careful examination, and then if it is found pure red, has to stay that way, remain unblemished, and never be worked) After Miriam's death, the Well