Just Yell

What caused the immediate change in Klal Yisroel to decide that they could go into Eretz Yisroel after they originally accepted the report of the meraglim?

From Tanya Ch. 29 [with elucidation from Shiurim B'sefer HaTanya (taken from here.)]

וכמו שמצינו דבר זה מפורש בתורה גבי מרגלים, שמתחלה אמרו: כי חזק הוא ממנו, אל תקרי ממנו כו׳, שלא האמינו ביכולת ה׳, ואחר כך חזרו ואמרו: הננו ועלינו וגו׳

Indeed, we find this explicitly stated in the Torah in connection with the Spies sent by Moses to scout out the Holy Land. At the outset they declared:  “For he (the enemy) is stronger than we,” and, interpreting the word ממנו , the Sages say:

“Read not 'than we,' but 'than He,'” meaning that they had no faith in G‑d’s ability to lead them into the Holy Land. But afterwards they reversed themselves and announced:  “We will readily go up [to conquer the Land].”

ומאין חזרה ובאה אליהם האמונה ביכולת ה׳, הרי לא הראה להם משה רבנו עליו השלום שום אות ומופת על זה בנתיים, רק שאמר להם איך שקצף ה׳ עליהם ונשבע שלא להביאם אל הארץ

Whence did their faith in G‑d’s ability return to them? Our teacher Moses, peace unto him, had not shown them in the interim any sign or miracle concerning this, which would restore their faith. He had merely told them that G‑d was angry with them and had sworn not to allow them to enter the Land.

ומה הועיל זה להם אם לא היו מאמינים ביכולת ה׳, חס ושלום, לכבוש ל״א מלכים, ומפני זה לא רצו כלל ליכנס לארץ

What value did this Divine anger and oath have to them, if in any case they did not believe in G‑d’s ability to subdue the thirty-one kings who reigned in the Land at that time, for which reason they had had no desire whatever to enter the Land?

אלא ודאי מפני שישראל עצמן הם מאמינים בני מאמינים, רק שהסטרא אחרא המלובשת בגופם הגביה עצמה על אור קדושת נפשם האלקית, בגסות רוחה וגבהותה בחוצפה בלי טעם ודעת

Surely, then, the explanation is as follows: Israelites themselves are “believers, [being] the descendants of believers.” Even while they stated, “The enemy is stronger than He,” their divine soul still believed in G‑d. They professed a lack of faith in His ability only because the sitra achra clothed in their body in the person of their animal soul had risen against the light of the holiness of the divine soul, with its characteristic impudent arrogance and haughtiness, without sense or reason.

ולכן מיד שקצף ה׳ עליהם והרעים בקול רעש ורוגז: עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת וגו׳ במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם וגו׳ אני ה׳ דברתי אם לא זאת אעשה לכל העדה הרעה הזאת וגו׳, וכששמעו דברים קשים אלו, נכנע ונשבר לבם בקרבם, כדכתיב: ויתאבלו העם מאד, וממילא נפלה הסטרא אחרא מממשלתה וגבהותה וגסות רוחה

Therefore as soon as G‑d became angry with them, and thundered angrily:  “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation…,Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness…I, G‑d, have spoken: I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation...,” — their heart was humbled and broken within them when they heard these stern words, as it is written,  “And the people mourned greatly.” Consequently, the sitra achra toppled from its dominion, from its haughtiness and arrogance.

וישראל עצמן הם מאמינים

But the Israelites themselves i.e., as far as their divine soul was concerned had believed in G‑d all along.

Therefore, as soon as they were released from the dominion of the sitra achra, they proclaimed, “We will readily go up...” There was no need of a miracle to convince them of G‑d’s ability. All that was necessary was to divest the sitra achra of its arrogance, and this was accomplished by G‑d’s “raging” at them.

Similarly with every Jew: When the light of his soul does not penetrate his heart, it is merely due to the arrogance of the sitra achra, which will vanish as soon as he rages at it.

ומזה יכול ללמוד כל אדם שנופלים לו במחשבתו ספיקות על אמונה כי הם דברי רוח הסטרא אחרא לבדה, המגביה עצמה על נפשו, אבל ישראל עצמן הם מאמינים כו׳

Every person in whose mind there occur doubts concerning faith in G‑d can deduce from this episode of the Spies that these doubts are nothing but the empty words of the sitra achra which raises itself against his divine soul. But Israelites themselves are believers...

וגם הסטרא אחרא עצמה אין לה ספיקות כלל באמונה, רק שניתן לה רשות לבלבל האדם בדברי שקר ומרמה להרבות שכרו

Furthermore, the sitra achra itself entertains no doubts at all concerning faith. As explained in ch. 22, the kelipah in its spiritual state (i.e., when not clothed in the human body) does not deny G‑d’s sovereignty. It has merely been granted permission to confuse man with false and deceitful words, in order that he may be more richly rewarded for mastering it.

כפיתויי הזונה לבן המלך בשקר ומרמה ברשות המלך, כמו שכתוב בזהר הקדוש

In this it is similar to the harlot who attempts to seduce the king’s son through falsehood and deceit, with the king’s approval, as in the parable narrated in the holy Zohar.

The parable: A king hires a harlot to seduce his son, so that the prince will reveal his wisdom in resisting her wiles. The harlot herself, knowing the king’s intention, does not want the prince to submit to temptation. Similarly with the sitra achra: it is merely fulfilling its G‑d-given task in attempting to lure man away from G‑d, but actually desires that man resist it, thereby earning a greater reward.

However, this is true only of the spiritual kelipah which is the source of the animal soul. The animal soul and evil impulse as clothed within man, on the other hand, are truly evil, and their unequivocal aim is to entice man to do evil.

In the context of the parable, this may be described as follows: The harlot originally commissioned by the king subcontracts a second harlot, and the second a third, and so on. As the actual executor of the mission becomes successively further removed from the king, the original intention is lost, and finally the prince is approached by a harlot who has her own intentions in mind, not those of the king, as she attempts to seduce the prince.

In any event, we see that any doubts one may have concerning faith in G‑d, are merely the empty words of the sitra achra. The soul within every Jew, however, believes in G‑d with a perfect faith.

Tzitzis: Stamp Of Slavery

The Rambam Krias Shema 1:2 says  : שמע והיה אם שמוע ויאמר ומה הוא קורא שלשה פרשיות אלו הן.  It sounds from this Rambam that the mitzvah of krias shema is to read all 3 parshiot.  We understand the first two parshiot it says בשכבך ובקומך, but how do we know that the third parsha of ויאמר is included in the mitzvah? 

The Rambam doesn’t count the mitzvah of remembering יציאת מצרים as a mitzvah.  The question is why not?  Rav Chayim suggested that the Rambam holds its part of the mitzvah of the קבלת עול מלכות שמים in krias shema.  The Gemorah in Rosh Hashana 32: understands that the words אני ה' אלוקיכם refer to the malchut of Hashem.  We see that this parsha includes accepting the מלכות שמים.  Therefore, the Rambam holds remembering יציאת מצרים isn’t an independent mitzvah; its part of the mitzvah of krias shema.  Therefore, the Rambam understands that the parsha of ויאמר is also part of the mitzvah of krias shema (Reshimot Shiurim Berachos 12b.)  We still need to understand that we see the קבלת עול at the end of the parsha, but how does the main theme of ציצית reflect this idea?

The Or Hachaim says: והיה לכם לציצית – אין ידוע מכוון מאמר זה שיהיה לציצית, ולדברי התוספות שכתבו במסכת מנחות דף מ״ג בדברי רבי מאיר שאמר שם וזה לשונו גדול עונשו של לבן מעונשו של תכלת, משל למלך שאמר לב׳ עבדיו לאחד אמר הביא לי חותם של טיט ולאחד אמר הביא לי חותם של זהב ופשעו שניהם ולא הביאו איזה מהם עונשו מרובה וכו׳, כתבו התוספות מה שמדמה חותם של טיט לציצית שכך עושים לעבדים והציצית מעיד על ישראל שהם עבדי ה׳ כדאיתא במסכת שבת (נז:) כבלא דעבדא תנן עד כאן, ירצה במאמר והיה לכם לציצית לצד שהם עבדים לה׳ והעבד עושה כבלא יהיה לכם סימן זה לכבלא דעבדא.
ואמר וראיתם אותו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ פירוש כשיביטו בסימן עבדותם יתנו לב שאינם בני חורין לעשות כחפצם במאכלם במלבושם בדיבורם ובכל מעשיהם כעבד שאימת רבו עליו ולעמוד בשעה שהאדון מצוה לעמוד ולעשות כל מלאכות אשר צוה ה׳ לעשות. 

The Ketav V'kabbalah adds: ומזה יתבאר לנו לשון. להתעטף בציצית. שתקנו לנו מתקני הברכות אף שאין צריכה עטיפה באמת, כמו שהעיר ב״י באו״ח סי׳ ח׳, ואפילו בטלית קטן שאין בו עטוף, עיקר נוסח הברכה להתעטף בציצית, וכל מה שאמרו בזה אין הדעת מתישבת בו, למה שנו מתקני הברכות ממה שכתוב בתורה בפרשת ציצית לשון כסוי אל לשון עטיפה, אמנם לפי המבואר לכוונה הפנימית תקנו לשון מתעטף, לבאר בו התכלית האמתי המכוון במצות ציצית, כי מצינו לשון עטיפה על ההכנעה, כי אחר שאמר (ישעיהו נ״ז) שהוא ית׳ שוכן את דכה ושפל רוח להחיות רוח שפלים ולב נדכאים אמר, כי רוח מלפני יעטוף, שפירושו כשרוח האדם נעטפת ונכנע לפני כמ״ש רש״י שם, ולכן ישמשו הכתובים לשון עטוף גם על השרוי בצער, כמו בהתעטף עלי רוחי (תהלים קמ״ב), כי האדם בצערו הוא נכנע ודעתו כפופה בו כאלו מעוטף קצת הגוף בקצתו, ורוחו בקרבו גם הוא כאלו מתעטף וכפוף עד שאין לו מקום להתרחב, ולזה בחרו מתקני הברכות לשון להתעטף, שכולל שתי ענינים, כסוי הגוף, כמו ועמקים יעטפו בר (תהלים ס״ה), שמכוסים בתבואה שתרגומו ומישריא יתחפון עבורא, וכלל ג״כ הכנעת האדם בקרבו כעבד לפני אדון כל הארץ.

The tzitzis themselves are the greatest reflection of one's עבדות to Hashem.

(Wo)men Spies

In the second possuk, שְׁלַח־לְךָ֣ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים, the word אֲנָשִׁ֗ים seems extra, what is it qualifying?  The Kli Yakar gives a few interpretations.  In one interpretation he says: ומטעם זה פרט כאן אנשים לפי שנאמר (במדבר י״ב:א׳) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה. והיה לו לומר וידברו כי ותדבר חוזר אל מרים, ועוד שלא מצינו עונש לאהרן, אלא שהגיד לך הכתוב שלה״ר מצוי בנשים יותר מבאנשים כי עשרה קבין שיחה ירדו לעולם ט׳ נטלו נשים כו׳, (קידושין מט:) ולפי שסתם נשים פטפטניות דברניות ע״כ תלה הדבור במרים כי היא התחילה בקלקלה זו ואהרן היה טפל לה, לכך אמר שלח לך אנשים שאין להם דרך נשים ולא יהיו כמרים שספרה לה״ר אלא אנשים ממש שאין מדרכן לספר לה״ר.  This peshat gives a negative view on women.  However he follows this with a positive view of women: ד״א לכך פרט אנשים, לפי שארז״ל (ילקוט שמעוני פנחס תשעג) האנשים היו שונאים את הארץ ואמרו נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה (במדבר י״ד:ד׳) והנשים היו מחבבות הארץ ואמרו תנה לנו אחזה (שם כ״ז:ד׳) וע״כ אמר הקב״ה לפי דעתי שאני רואה בעתיד היה יותר טוב לשלוח נשים המחבבות את הארץ כי לא יספרו בגנותה, אבל לך לדעתך שאתה סבור שכשרים המה ואתה סבור שהארץ חביבה עליהם תשלח אנשים וזהו שלח לך לדעתך אנשים, אבל לדעתי היה יותר טוב לשלוח נשים כאמור .  (See more on this view here.)

We can also glean from here that everyone has pluses and minuses.It is our job to attempt to focus on the positive.

Shlach And Korach: Thought And Deed

The midrash cited in Tosfos Babba Bathra (119a) says that the mikkoshas had noble intentions. After the nation was told they wouldn’t enter Eretz Yisroel they thought they were exempt from mitzvot.  Therefore, the mikkoshas desecrated Shabbos in order to show if one violates the mitzvot s/he will be punished.  The Maharsha asks that if the mikkoshas had such intent he shouldn’t have been killed for his action would be a melacha sh’ain korech le’guvah for he didn’t do the melacha for it’s own sake, just to prove a point?  We also need to understand why the people would have thought that they were exempt from the mitzvot? Why is the parsha of the mikkoshas preceded by the parsha of making a mistake and serving avodah zarah, what is the connection?

Why did the meraglim not want to enter Eretz Yisroel?  There are many explanations.  In the Torah of Chabad, it explains that the meraglim wanted to remain in the angelic, miraculous state of existence that they enjoyed in the midbar.  They didn’t want to go into Eretz Yisroel and have to live bederech hateva plowing the fields, building houses etc.  Why go through the everyday hardships of live when one can stay in a frame of a miraculous life and such serve Hashem 24/7.  Chazal call the generation of the midbar the dor da’ah.  They understood how to serve Hashem through the intellect serving Hashem through study and meditation.  They didn’t appreciate how to serve Hashem in the world of action.  They failed to comprehend how can someone serve Hashem having to go through all the actions of everyday life. They failed to appreciate the value in serving hashem through difficulties and serving Hashem through fulfilling physical maaseh mitvot, not just via learning Torah.

After the meraglim the people thought if were not entering Eretz Yisroel then our mission is merely to serve Hashem via our brains and not through actions. They figured we aren’t entering a state where our actions matter and therefore what matters is to serve Hashem through learning and thought, not through actions.  The mikkoshas came to prove that this was wrong and therefore he desecrated Shabbos.  In answer to the Maharsha’s question see the Maharsha and Gelyonai Hashas (Rav Yosef Engel) who explain that Beis Din judge based upon the action that they see.  They don’t judge based upon a person’s intent.  Therefore, even though the mikkoshas had noble intentions this didn’t exempt him for his intent couldn’t be seen.   That’s why the Torah precedes this episode of the mikkoshas with the parsha of avodah zarah for when it comes to avodah zarah as well e person is obligated if he worships the avodah zarah even if he has no intent of accepting it as a deity.  (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 28.)

Based upon this theme we can understand why the next parsha, Korach follows the meraglim.  Once it became apparent that Hashem desires actions therefore Korach had a claim that in regard to maaseh mitzvot we are all equal.  One person’s fulfillment of a mitzvah isn’t greater that another’s, it’s only in regard to the intent and kavanah that there are different levels.  So, if we see that what Hashem wants is the fulfillment of physical acts of mitzvot why should Moshe and Aharon be greater, we are all equal? That was Korach’s complaint.  However, he was wrong because there has to be a balance of physical fulfillment of mitzvot and kaavanah of a person.  The kaavanah enhances the act and therefore Moshe and Aharon are greater.

Who's And What's נסכים

We learn in this weeks parsha when one offers a korban, besides being obligated to bring the animal, there is an obligation to bring libations together with it.  There are two ways to understand this obligation.  One way is that it is included in the obligation of the גברא, it is as if the person took an obligation to bring both a korban and libations.  Or it can be viewed as an obligation of the korban, it is a din in the korban that libations must accompany it just as there are other dinim of the korban.  The Rambam in מעשה קרבנות (16:17) says שאין הנסכים באין לעולם אלא מן החולין כמו שביארנו לפי שנאמר בהן והקריב המקריב קרבנו עד שיהיו משלו ולא יהיה בהן צד לגבוה כלל.  Why does the Rambam need a possuk, this should fit under the general rule that דבר שבחובה אינו בא אלא מו החולין?  We see from the Rambam that the obligation of the נסכים isn’t part of the נדר, it is part of the dinim of the korban and therefore there is a need to learn from an additional possuk that they can only be brought from חולין.  (Toras Hakodesh volume 2 #35, see further discussion there and in Maseh Yad volume 1 on this weeks parsha.)

The Gemorah in Temurah 2b and Menachos 73b has a derasha from the words in possuk 13  כׇּל־הָאֶזְרָ֥ח יַעֲשֶׂה־כָּ֖כָה אֶת־אֵ֑לֶּה, אזרח comes to  exclude a gentile.  Rashi understands the derasha to mean that a gentile can’t volunteer to bring נסכים but they can bring נסכים together with their korban if they want.  This is supported by the Mishna in Shekalim (7:6) that if a gentile sends נסכים we accept it.  The Rambam however, understands that a gentile is completely exempt from bringing נסכים as he says in מעשב קרבנות (3:5) עולות העכו"ם אין מביאין עמהן נסכים שנאמר כל האזרח יעשה ככה אבל נסכיהם קריבין משל צבור שנאמר ככה תעשו לאחד כמספרם.  So how does the Rambam understand the Mishna in Shekalim, furthermore, the Rambam himself cites it in the Laws of Shekalim (4:3,) seemingly a contradiction in the Rambam himself (see Lechem Mishne)? 

The Briskor Rav explains that the derasha excludes the gentile as the owner of the korban for bringing the libations but there still remains an obligation in the cheftza of the korban.  The Rambam in מעשה קרבנות is addressing the obligation on the owner of the korban and explains a gentile is exempt from his obligation as the owner of the korban.  The Rambam in the Laws of Shekalim is discussing a separate issue, the obligation of the cheftzh of the korban and he rules that the gentile may send in the נסכים to be offered for the obligation that exists on the korban.  These two dinim of the Briskor Rav seem to reflect the previous chakirah.  The obligation on the individual is part of the vow of the person, the obligation on the cheftzah of the korban is the obligation of the korban to have נסכים because its part of the dinim of the korban.   

The Sforno explains that the din and need for נסכים only came about after the meraglim.  In his words:הנה עד העגל היה הקרבן ״ריח ניחח״ בזולת מנחה ונסכים, כענין בהבל ובנח ובאברהם, וכענין ״וישלח את נערי בני ישראל, ויעלו עלת ויזבחו זבחים שלמים לה׳ פרים״ (שמות כ״ד:ה׳), לא זולת זה. ובחטאם בעגל הצריך מנחה ונסכים לעולת התמיד שהיא קרבן צבור. ומאז שחטאו במרגלים הצריך מנחה ונסכים להכשיר גם קרבן יחיד.  After the sins of Klal Yisroel, a person has to do more work in order to achieve the connection to Hashem.

Is Wine A Mincha?

In this week’s parsha we learn about the obligation to bring libations together with a korban.  The libation offering consists of bringing a mincha of oil and flour combined plus wine which was poured through the holes on the mizbaoch.  One has the ability to offer a nedavah of the מנחת נסכים as well.  Rashi in Menachos 104b explains in such a situation the one offering the korban brings the oil, flour and wine of a מנחת נסכים.  The Rambam in מעשה קרבנות beginning of ch. 2 says היין והסולת שמביאין עם הקרבן הם הנקראין נסכים והסולת לבדה נקראת מנחת נסכים.  The Rambam in Ch. 14 Law 1 says ומתנדב או נודר מנחה ממנחת נסכים לבדה מאי זה מין משלשה מיני מנחות נסכים כמו שביארנו (meaning one can bring the libation mincha of either the sheep, goat or cow that have different amounts.)  If one does the math and adds 1+1 together, it comes out that according to the Rambam when one volunteers a מנחת נסכים  they bring the flour and oil (the meforshim say סולת  includes the oil as well,) not the wine for the wine is called נסכים but not מנחת נסכים.  It comes out according to Rashi we view the obligation of the wine that accompanies the mincha as part of the mincha, but according to the Rambam its viewed as an independent obligation. (See more about this in the Briskor Rav Menachos 44b, Nitziv in footnote to Sifri, Mikdash Dovid siman 10.)

All In The Giving

The Mishna puts Tractate Challah after Maaser Sheni following the order of when the gifts are given to the kohan.  The Rambam introduces the laws of challah in Ch. 5 of the Laws of Bikkurim and other priestly gifts.  Why does the Rambam change from the order of the Mishna?

Rashi (15:20) ד"ה כתרומת גרן says שלא נאמר בה שיעור.  Rashi on the following possuk on the words תתנו לה' תרומה says לפי שלא שמענו שיעור לחלה נאמר תתנו שיהא בה כדי נתינה.  The two Rashi’s seem to be a contradiction, is there a שיעור or not?  The Nodeh B’yehudah volume 2, Yoreh Deah #201 explains that in regard to being matir the bread to be eaten there is no שיעור, but there is another din, a mitzvah to give the challah to the kohan and for that there is a שיעור.  He suggests that the שיעור of a 24^th that the mIshna says for challah is דאור'.  Most assume that is only Rabbinic (see also Malbim on the Rashi and Minchas Asher,) however the point is that we see besides functioning to allow the bread to be eaten, giving the challah to the kohan plays an essential role in the mitzvah.  See more about this by my father shlita here (and links there.)

Based upon this we understand why the Rambam brings the laws of challah together with the other priestly presents.  He is coming to tell us that challah isn’t like teruma where the purpose of the mitzvah is to permit the grain, the giving to the kohan is critical to the mitzvah.  This is reflected in his sefer Hamitzvot as well.  In the mitzvah of Challeh #133 he says: הוא שצונו להפריש חלה מעריסותינו וליתנה לכהן וכו.  He mentions the giving to the kohan as part of the mitzvah.  However, when he brings the mitzvah of terumah #126 he says: הוא שצונו להוציא תרומה גדולה, he makes no mentioning of giving to the kohan (based upon Binyan Av volume 5 #49.)

The Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 331:19 says nowadays when terumah is burnt because of tumah, one need separate only כל שהוא.  The Gra (#35) asks so then why does he rule in 322:4 that one should separate for challah a 48^th even though its going to be burnt, it should be enough with a כל שהוא?  Furthermore, the Rema in 322:5 that rules one need only separate a כל שהוא says the common practice is to separate a כזית.  What is the reasoning for this practice?  Based upon the aforementioned, it is understood that the שיעור of challah is built into the mitzvah.  Its not a separate din merely to satisfy the kohan, but the שיעור נתינה in ingrained into the mitzvah itself.  The Nitziv comments that תתנו לה' תרומה may allude to the amount of a כזית for it implies a minimalistic amount of חשיבות (see also Moadim U’zmanin volume 3 #268 and Tshuvot V’hanhagot volume 1 #672.)

Renewal

The midrash at the beginning of Berashis (1:4) says:

Why are these 3 ראשית the זכות to create the world?  The simple peshat is by giving the beginning to Hashem we show that everything in the world is for the sake of Hashem.

I will take some poetic derush license and suggest that בזכות doesn’t mean in the merit of, but it comes from the terminology of זכה, to purify.  The world is purified by these three things of ראשית.  What does this mean?

As demonstrated in this clip here (please listen from the 2 minute and 50 second mark,) Hashem put into this world the power to renew one’s self even after a major collapse.

The midrash (3:7) says before Hashem created this world; Hashem was בונה עולמות ומחריבין .  What are Chazal teaching us here?  (for the Kabbalists this has great significance, but that is for a different time.)  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz explains Chazal are teaching us that Hashem put into the world this power to arise even after things have gone south.  That is the aforementioned idea, to purify the world, so that people can maintain sanity amongst confusion, Hashem gave us mitzvot of ראשית.  The crops come and go in the season, but next season they crop up again.  There is a new beginning.  We acknowledge this by taking note of the ראשית and earmarking it for kedusha.

Man Made Kedusha

Most of the מתנות כהונה are enumerated and elaborated on in Parshas Korach.  A notable exception is challah which is spelled out in our parsha, והדבר אומר דרשוני?  In the intro. to the שיעורי הרב על חלה ועניני מצוות התלויות בארץ he says that there is a great distinction between the other מצוות התלויות בארץ and חלה.  Regarding terumot, maaserot etc. the obligation starts from when the grain is still attached to the ground, when it’s a third grown.  That is because the obligation stems from the innate kedusha of the land.  The obligation of terumot etc. is an outgrowth of the kedusha of the land, the kedusha ruchoniot has an affect on the grain that grows from the land.  The obligation of challah on the other hand starts when a person does an action of rolling the dough.  The chiuv is because of the holiness that is an outgrowth from the persons work on the land.  It demonstrates the persons work on the land of Eretz Yisroel is also a work that brings about kedusha.

What was wrong with the report of the meraglim, they were sent to give a report of the land and they did their job?  The Ramban says the error lies in the word אפס (13:28) אפס כי אז העם: אבל רשעם במלת: אפס (במדבר י״ג:כ״ח) שהיא מורה על דבר אפס ונמנע מן האדם שאי אפשר בשום ענין, כלשון: האפס לנצח חסדו (תהלים ע״ז:ט׳), ואין עוד אפס אלהים (ישעיהו מ״ה:י״ד). והנה אמרו לו: הארץ שמנה וגם זבת חלב ודבש והפרי טוב, אבל אי אפשר לבא אליהם כי עז העם, והערים בצורות גדולות מאד, וגם ילידי הענק ראינו שם.  The meraglim didn’t doubt the greatness of the land, they doubted the ability of man to live up to the standards of kedusha that were required to live in it.  They questioned their ability to bring out the kedusha of the land. 

According to the Sforno and Targum Yonason the command of Moshe (13:20) וְהִ֨תְחַזַּקְתֶּ֔ם וּלְקַחְתֶּ֖ם מִפְּרִ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ was to make a קנין חזקה on the land of Eretz Yisroel, to start the process of conquest themselves.  It was this command that the meraglim balked at.  They cut down the fruit yes, but not for the sake of making a chazakah, rather to bolster their claims that conquest of such large fruit is impossible.  

Based upon what the previous post about the kedusha of the second Temple and the first Temple, we can understand this idea.  The meraglim understood the kedusha of the second Temple, a God given kedusha that comes about because of the presence of Hashem.  However, they didn’t feel ready for the task of conquering the land, of bringing about kedusha through man’s actions, of the kedusha of the first Temple. However, they were wrong, it was their job to conquer the land.  (See what my uncle wrote about the importance of conquest here.)  Hashem wants kedusha not just to be imposed upon the world from above, but for man to bring out the container for kedusha as well.  When man makes the container, then God will fill it with kedusha from above.  The Third Beis Hamikdash will ultimately be a combination of both the kedusha from the presence of the Shechina combined wich will fill the vessels we made through the years of work in the exile (see Machshavos Hachassidus volume 1 by Rav Yoel Kahn pg. 135-127.)

Conquering vs. Settling

We read in the haftorah on Shabbos in Zecharyeh Ch. 4 verses the following (translation from https://www.chabad.org) :

(verses 1-7)

And the angel who spoke with me returned, and he awakened me as a man who wakes up from his sleep.

And he said to me, "What do you see?" And I said, "I saw, and behold [there was] a candelabrum all of gold, with its oil-bowl on top of it, and its seven lamps thereon; seven tubes each to the lamps that were on top of it.

And [there were] two olive trees near it; one on the right of the bowl, and one on its left.

So I answered and spoke to the angel who talked with me, saying, "What are these, my lord?"

And the angel who spoke with me answered, and he said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord."

And he answered and spoke to me, saying, "This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, saying: 'Not by military force and not by physical strength, but by My spirit,' says the Lord of Hosts.

(skip to verse 11 – 14.)

And I raised my voice and said to him, "What are these two olive trees on the right of the candelabrum and on its left?"

And I raised my voice a second time and said to him, "What are the two olive branches beside the two golden vats that empty out the gold[en oil] from themselves?"

And he spoke to me, saying, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord."

And he said, "These are the two anointed ones who stand before the Lord of all the earth."

As is quite evident this seems to be a broken conversation, what is Zecharyeh asking what are they and what is the response?  Rav Solevetchik explains the two olives represent the kehunah gedolah and the king from malchus Dovid that were both anointed with oil (from Rashi end of Ch. there.)  The oil was oozing out by itself (verse 11) to indicate the service in the second Temple would be so great its as if it happened by itself.  That is what Zecharyeh didn’t understand for the service in the second Temple palled in comparison to that of the first Temple.  The malach responded that it’s a prophesy about the third Temple which is merely an extension of the second Temple.  Why and how?  That is what the malach responded in verse 7 that the kedusha of the second Beis Hamikdash came about via the רוח of Hashem.  What does this mean? 

The Rambam in the end of Ch. 6 of Beis Habechirah:

ולמה אני אומר במקדש וירושלים קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבוא ובקדושת שאר א"י לענין שביעית ומעשרות וכיוצא בהן לא קדשה לעתיד לבוא לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה והרי הוא אומר והשמותי את מקדשיכם ואמרו חכמים אע"פ ששמומין בקדושתן הן עומדים אבל חיוב הארץ בשביעית ובמעשרות אינו אלא מפני שהוא כבוש רבים וכיון שנלקחה הארץ מידיהם בטל הכבוש ונפטרה מן התורה ממעשרות ומשביעית שהרי אינה מן ארץ ישראל וכיון שעלה עזרא וקדשה לא קדשה בכיבוש אלא בחזקה שהחזיקו בה ולפיכך כל מקום שהחזיקו בה עולי בבל ונתקדש בקדושת עזרא השנייה הוא מקודש היום ואף על פי שנלקח הארץ ממנו וחייב בשביעית ובמעשרות על הדרך שביארנו בהלכות תרומה

The Kesef Mishne says he doesn’t understand how is חזקה any better than כיבוש, why should it not be nullified as well?  Reb Chaim said (see בריסקר רב על תנ"ך סטנסל) that this was the response of the malach.  The first kedusha was accomplished via an act of conquering the entire land and that can be nullified.  In the second kedusha there was no conquest, Klal Yisroel went back with the permission of the gentiles and not all of the land was settled.  The kedusha of the land was an extension of the kedushas hamikdash, of the presence of the Shechinah and that can never be nullified (from Pnenie Harav pg. 76.)

Rav Shechter shtelz tzu another idea of Rav Solevitchik that is along the same lines.  The Mishna in the beginning of Kelim (1:6)  lists 10 kedushot and one of them is Eretz Yisroel for one may bring the omer and shtei halechem only from grain that grew there.  Why does the Mishna not mention that only in Eretz Yisroel there is an obligation of terumot, challah etc.?  Rav Solevetchik explained that the Mishna only is listing the kedusha that is an extension of the mikdash, not the laws that are relevant because of the kedusha of the land itself.  One can bring omer and shtei halechem from Eretz Yisroel because its an extension of the Mikdash.  The other dinim are because of the kedusha of the land itself, not as an extension of the Mikdash.  See more about this by my father shlita here, here (and the links there) if bikkurim is in the Mishna  here.  The entire kedusha of the second Temple comes about because of an extension of the kedushat hamikdash, not because of kedusha in the land.   

At the end of Soleveitchik On Repentance he extends this idea to teshuvah.  The verse in Nitzavim (30:3) says: וְשָׁ֨ב י״י֧ אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ֖ וְרִחֲמֶ֑ךָ וְשָׁ֗ב וְקִבֶּצְךָ֙ מִכׇּל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֧ר הֱפִֽיצְךָ֛ י״י֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ שָֽׁמָּה.  The verse is repetitive, it says ושב twice?  Of couse the verse is referring to the ingathering of the exile of the nation but it also referring to the ingathering of the personal soul from its exile.  He explains the first one is וְשָׁ֨ב י״י֧ אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ֖, it’s a quick arousing from Hashem.  The person just has to take that awakening and move forward with it, wherever the person goes, the Shechinah comes along with him.  It is a relatively easy process of teshuvah sparked by a jumpstart from Hashem.  It is a conquest of the soul that comes about via the presence of the Shechinah.  This is patterened after the kedusha of Ezra in the second Temple.  The second half of the verse וְשָׁ֗ב וְקִבֶּצְךָ֙ וכו is referring to the slow arduous process of conquering one’s own soul.  There requires a slow process of gathering ones scattered fragments of the soul that have become absorbed and lost in exile.  This is akin to the conquest of Yehoshua which took time and military prowess to be able to conquer the land.    

Don't Talk

                                           From the Daas Torah of Rav Yeruchem.

I don't understand how is this practical, how do you know when the leader is above questioning and when one is allowed to have a legal, halachik debate?  Or can one question only if there in the same league but Moshe was in a league by himself, head and shoulders above any one else and therefore no one could question?

How To Get Up

מה הקשר בין הענינים בריש הפרשה מענין הדלקת הנרות לפסח שני ונסיעות של המחנה?  רש"י אומר שפרשת פסח שני נכתב שלא עפ"י סדר זמני וצריכין להבין למה באמת נכתב שלא בסדר הזמני?  עוד למה דוקא אות נ' הפוכה נבחר להיות סימן של פרשה חדשה?  ולמה בא דוקא פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון להפסיק בין הפרעניות (עיין שבת קטז)?

בלקו"ת אדמו"ר הזקן מסביר הפמיניות של הדלקת שבעת קני המנורה ע"י אהרן הכהן הוא שאהרן ידליק כל הנשמות (שנקראין נר.)  המספר שבעה מסמל כל מיני הנשמות שיש, ששבעה הוא תכלית כל המדות.

אדמו"ר הזקן כותב כמה פעמים (עיין לקו"ת ריש נשא, מסעי ועוד מקומות) שענין במסעות במדבר היה כדי להכניע כחות הקליפה שיש אפי' במדבר שאינו מגדל כלום בגלל כח הישות וקליפה שלו.  בתחילת הפרשה לומדין איך להעיר הלב וממשיך הפרשה בענין המסעות שמבאר הכח שיש להעיר העולם.  וכל הכח הזה בא ע"י התורה ויש רמז לדבר שמדבר שהלכו בו ישראל הוא אותיות מדבר, לדבר דברי תורה.  

וכ"ז הוא אם דברים הולכין כפי סדרם אבל לפעמים יש נפילה, יש פרעניות, איך קמים מזה?  לכן ניתן לנו פסח שני שמלמד שלעולם יש הזדמנות שניה לתקן מה שעבר.  הפרשה נכתב שלא עפ"י סדר לרמז שתשובה עולה מעל גבי סדר הרגיל.  מי שעושה תשובה יכול לעלות במדרגות שלא לפי הסדר.  זהו הנ' הפוך.  כמו שביארנו במק"א, נ' זה דרגה למעלה מהשגת בני אדם.  והתורה בא לרמז שאפי' אחרי נפילה אתה יכול להופכו ע"י תשובה  שמגעת עד שער נ'. (וי"ל שמרומז בההפיכה שהנ' שמסמל מפלתן של ישראל (עיין ברכות ד:,) יכול להופכו ע"י תשובה להיפוף ממש שיהיה בזה עילוי גדול. עיין מהרש"א במס' שבת.  ובאמת זה אותו יסוד שבגלל שהוא גבוה כל כך ישנו זו מקום פתח לנפילה אבל מי שמגיע בו בהכנה כראוי יכול לעלות למדרגה הכי גדולה ולהפוף חושך לאור.)  (עפ"י תורת מנחם תשמ"ט, רץ כצבי על חדשים חודש חשון.)

Trumpets

        A few points on the trumpets.

 1.    In chapter 10 verses 9-10 the Torah tells us two-timeframes when we are commanded to blow trumpets.  One time is when it is a time of distress, and the other time is when the community offers a korban. The Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvot mitzvah #59 counts these two events as one mitzvah.  The Magid Mishna at the beginning of the Laws of Taanis wonders why it’s not counted as two separate mitzvot if they are two different times and two separate pessukim for it?  Possibly we can suggest that this fits in the pattern of how the Rambam defines mitzvot.  If there is one object, then it will be counted as one mitzvah even if there are different aspects to it.  We see the Rambam counts the mitzvah of krias shma or tzitzits and techales as one mitzvah.  However, tefillin of the hand and the head are two mitzvot.  Rav Sheinberg (Mishmeres Chaim) explains the principle is that krias shma is one parsha, the tzitzits strings become part of one garment and therefore are counted as one mitzvah.  Tefillin have two objects and therefore are two mitzvot.  So too here there is one trumpet and therefore it is counted as one mitzvah despite having many rolls.  However, if this is correct why does the Rambam count the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana and Yovel as two distinct mitzvot? (See Minchas Chinuch) and Parashas Derachim.)  However, if one looks carefully at the Rambam he will see why those are two mitzvot.  The Rambam distinguishes between Rosh Hashana where the mitzvah is to hear the shofar and yovel where the mitzvah is to blow.  Therefore, its two mitzvot for the commandment on Rosh Hashana is to hear the shofar but on yovel its to blow, so on Rosh Hashana the mitzvah is on the ears as opposed to yovel where its on the shofer horn itself.  (See also the Taz 575:2.) 

2.       We can say על פי דרוש that there is a רמז  in that the  two kinds of blowing are one mitzvah.  Even though externally they appear to be complete opposites, one a call of distress, another a call of happiness, in essence they are one.  Both cries stem from the same source, it is the neshama crying out; sometimes the cry is brought out via pressure and sometimes through joy.  However, ultimately, they are the mitzvah, it is the same צוותא and connection to Hashem.  The Maggid (Torah Or) says that the two trumpets represent Hashem and us.  There is a dual closeness, when we come desire, כסף from the language of כיסופים, to close to Hashem, He comes close to us.  Hashem may send us a wakeup call that causes distress but it is to a means of coming to the call of the trumpets of simcha.   

3.        The Gemorah in Arachin 11b questions if a נדבת עולת ציבור requires shirah or its only an obligation for korbanot that are obligatory.  Does the possuk (10:10) when it says עולותיכם in the plural mean to refer to bothעולות  that are obligatory and those that are a נדבה or does it mean עולות ציבור but only korbanot that are obligatory?  This possuk is referring to the obligation of blowing the trumpets at the time of offering a korban, not the obligation of song, yet the Gemorah wants to derive the din of singing from this verse.  How?  Rashi explains that blowing the trumpets is shirah.  We see from here that the mitzvah of blowing the trumpets becomes part of the shira.

Humble Prophets

At the end of the parsha, the Torah tells us that Moshe was the greatest ענו as an introduction to describing how Moshe was the greatest navi.  It sounds from the juxtaposition that this is why Moshe was the greatest navi.  How is humbleness connected to nevuah?  In Mishlai (31:26) it says תורת חסד על לשונה.  What is תורת חסד?  The Gemorah Sukkah 47b (according to one interpretation) says it means who learns תורה לשמה.  Why is learning Torah leshmah considered doing a chesed? 

Accepting prophesy is to leave one one’s state of being and tap into a higher realm of existence.  This ability to be able to lift one’s self out of the physical boundaries of the body to be able to connect with God requires one to be able to be completely given over to the will of God. It is impossible to receive nevuah in a state of self-concern.  It is only through complete humbleness, where there is no feeling of self that there is a possibility of accepting nevuah.  Therefore, since Moshe was completely nullified before Hashem without any feelings of self, he was able to accept nevuah at all times. 

Learning Torah leshmah is a means of connecting to the Wisdom of God.  One surrenders their own mind, their own human logic, and attempts to tap into His Infinite Wisdom.  This is akin to an act of chesed where one gives over themselves to help out someone else.  That is why learning Torah leshmah is considered a kindness for one gives himself over to Hashem (Mictav M’Eliyahu volume 4.)

The Magan Avrohom siman 60 says that during certain words in ahavah rabba/ahavas olam one should remember the six remembrances.  The words to remember the story of Miriam are the words להודות לך to remember that the mouth is created to praise Hashem and not to speak evil of others.  How are the words להודות לך supposed to remind someone of the episode of Miriam, how does a lack of praise equal lashon harah?  The explanation is that if one doesn’t feel that he is deserving of the that s/he has, then s/he won’t speak loshon harah.  Loshon Harah comes from a lack of thanking, a feeling of self-entitlement, and therefore there is an ability to judge others.  If one feels content with themselves then there is no need to complain about others.  With the feeling of hodayah then one feels a sense of humility and will not fall into the trap of loshan harah.

Turn On The Light

Here we mentioned the chiddush of the Briskor Rav that the avodah of the ketores is different from that of the korbanot tzibbur.  When it comes to korbanot, the mitzvah is to achieve kapparah.  However, regarding the ketores the mitzvah is merely to do the act of offering the ketores.  He supports this from the terminology of the Rambam is the Sefer Hamitzvot who says the mitzvah of the korbanot is one the tzibbur and fulfilled by the kohanim.  Regarding the ketores, he says the mitzvah is one the kohanim to offer the ketores.  The need for communal atonement is not an integral part of the mitzvah.  The Achronim point out that regarding the mitzvah of lighting the menorah the Rambam also says the mitzvah is on the kohanim to light it (asseh #25.)

The Daas Zekanim in Terumah (25:6) says that the Torah mentions the שמן למאור within the parsha of the building of the mishkan because it’s also part of the building of the mishkan because a house without light isn’t a house.  Based upon this it could shed light on the aforementioned Rambam.  The need for a menorah isn’t for atonement, its to complete the building of the mishkan. 

Now we understand why Aharon is comforted with the lighting of the menorah and not with another one of the mikdash activities (see Rashi, Ramban.)  In order to inaugurate the mishkan, it had to be an avodah that would consecrate the mikdash and that is accomplished through lighting the menorah.