Create Your Destination

Why does it say אלה מסעי בני ישראל in the present tense in they happened already?  Many of the chaddisic seforim say that journeys of Klal Yisrael enumerated in Massey were not just journeys that took place them but are representative of all of the journeys that Klal Yisrael is going through and the journeys of every private person's life.  Who cares about the journey, all that matters is the destination?

Normally, when one travels the beginning and end points already exist and the journey in the middle is just a means of joining the two points.  This travel, a spiritual travel is not a travel to reach the end point rather the travel creates the endpoint.  The Or Hachaim says that all of the travels were מברר ניצוצות in any place they went through.  One's final level of kedusha depends on how much kedusha the person generated through their travels.  The Sfas Emes (5656) says that the Torah writes the parsha of the travels to teach us even when one falls, they can get up.  " כי כך הוא המדה להיות עולה ויורד. ומכל מנוחה שהשיגו אחר איזה מלחמה התחיל מלחמה אחרת. וכן לעולם ויסעו ויחנו ויסעו ויחנו כמ"ש ילכו מחיל אל חיל שאין להם מנוחה לעובדי ה' שע"ז נבראו ללחום מלחמות ה'."  One has spiritual highs and then falls, gets up and advances further etc.  One pushes their ceiling further by continuing to move further.  It is the constant climb that allows one to push the destination further.  Along the same lines, the Shem M'Shmuel (5677) says  ולפי גודל מעלת א"י אז, הוא גודל המירוק ואורך הזמן, ... עאכו"כ גלות זה אריכת הזמן והצרות והגירושין והטלטולים שכל זה הוא הכנה לא"י, מה מאד תגדל מעלתה אז עד שאין הפה יכול לדבר והלב לחשוב, ה' יזכינו לראותה בבנינה מהרה.  It is the struggle of the journey that creates the end. 

The possuk says that one must put of signposts pointing the direction to the ערי מקלט.  The Midrash (23:13) says עוֹד אָמַר לוֹ, הֵיאַךְ, אָמַר לוֹ הַעֲמֵד לָהֶם אִיסְטְלָיוֹת מְכֻוָּנוֹת לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, שֶׁיְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לֵילֵךְ שָׁם, וּבְכָל אִיסְטְלָיוֹת רְשֹׁם עָלֶיהָ רוֹצֵחַ לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ. לְכָךְ אָמַר דָּוִד: טוֹב וְיָשָׁר ה' עַל כֵּן יוֹרֶה חַטָּאִים בַּדָּרֶךְ.  Every pitstop has pointers guiding one as to how to continue to go forward.  One just needs to pause and read the sign.

Give Thanks

Hashem commands Moshe to kill the Midyanim but Moshe gives the job over to Pinchas.  How could Moshe give the job over to Pinchas if he had a direct command to kill the Midyanim himself?  The Midrash (22:4) says וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם משֶׁה (במדבר לא, ו), אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה: נְקֹם נִקְמַת, אַתָּה בְּעַצְמְךָ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְיָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵצֵר לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּי טוֹבָה.  But Hashem still gave over the command to Moshe, so how could he give the command of the war to someone else?  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz says that hakarat hatov is such a self-understood principal that Moshe understood that built into the command of Hashem was this obligation of hakarat hatov and he should put someone else in charge of the war. 

The Gemarah Berachot (48b) says that Chazal enacted to say the beracha of הטוב והמטיב for the fact that those killed in Betar did not emit a foul stench and that they got to be buried.  Why was this the inspiration for this beracha?  The Meshech Chachma Ekev explains that the first blessing of ברכת המזון were established when Yisrael was well established in their own land, seeing the daily miracles of the Mikdash.  After that life was destroyed, it appeared that Yisrael may be lost in the exile especially after their revolt was squashed.  The ability to give proper dignity to the dead was an indication that even as the nation appeared to be lying dormant, G-d was still watching over His people.  The fact that we are sustained even as we are pushed to the curb is itself reason to give thanks.  The Gemarah Berachot (20b) says that because Klal Yisrael says ברכת המזון even when they are not satiated, not ושבעת, therefore Hashem is נושא פנים to them.  Why is it this detail more than any additional stringency or hanhaga that Klal Yisrael has adopted which causes נושא פנים?  Because of the fact that we give thanks to Hashem even when one does not have the ability to eat until satiated, we merit that Hashem acknowledges our thanks.  It is easy to be cognitive of the good in one's life when all is good but to see the good in the destruction is a tall order which Klal Yisrael adapted.   

Facilitators Of Crime

The Rambam (איסורי ביאה 12:10) says that a yisrael who has relations with a gentile woman, the gentile woman gets killed הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה. וְדָבָר זֶה מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לא טז) ".הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם" (במדבר לא יז) "וְכָל אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ  Why does the Rambam need to jump to this verse in this week's parsha and not cite the fact that Pinchas killed Kazbi?  The Or Hachayim in fact, at the end of Balak ask why was Kuzbi killed and suggests along the lines of the Rambam that the woman gets killed because she caused a תקלה for Zimri.  So, why does the Rambam not cite that possuk?  Rav Moshe Feinstein says that the rule of the Rambam is a greater chiddush than the killing of Kuzbi and therefore he can't prove his law from there.  Kuzbi was killed in the middle of the act, she was caught red handed, there it is understood she gets killed for being a participant in the averah.  The Rambam is telling us a din that the woman gets killed even if the act is over, it could even be years later, if she is tracked down, she is killed because she caused the sin.  For that the Rambam has to cite our parsha, that there was a command to kill the Midyanite women.  This is why Moshe got angry at the army for not killing the woman, for they aren't being killed because of the din of מלמחה, in which they may be spared, they are being killed for causing an averah.  

The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 35) suggests that when a gentile is killed because they caused a sin, they are not killed according to the rules of a gentile violating one of the 7 mitzvot with one witness and judge, rather they are killed according to the rules of an animal engaged in bestiality which is also killed for causing a sin, which requires two witnesses and 23 judges.  If that is correct, where were the 23 judges at the time of Kuzbi's killing?  It's the same idea.  That requirement is only when the woman is being killed later on due to her action.  However, during the act she is killed as a partner in crime just as the Jewish man.  

The Maggid Mishne asks how can the Rambam prove from this parsha the din that the woman gets killed because she caused a sin, all the woman were killed in the war, not only those that did a sin, so it was a gezerat hakatuv to kill all of them?  Rav Chayim Feinstein explains that the Rambam understands the woman in totality were wiped out because there was a national plot to cause Yisrael to sin.  In that situation, we no longer look at each specific woman to determine if they sinned, but rather the entire nation gets wiped out.  However, we see the reason for their death penalty is because of the women that cause Yisrael to sin.

Be Big

The Gemarah Bava Kammah (59b) says אליעזר זעירא הוה סיים מסאני אוכמי, וקאי בשוקא דנהרדעא, אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא וא"ל, מאי שנא הני מסאני? אמר להו דקא מאבילנא אירושלים, אמרו ליה, את חשיבת לאיתאבולי אירושלים? סבור יוהרא הוה, אתיוה וחבשוה, אמר להו גברא רבה אנא,

Eliezer Ze’eira was wearing black shoes, unlike the Jewish custom of that time, and standing in the market of Neharde’a. Officials of the house of the Exilarch found him and said to him: What is different about you that causes you to wear these shoes? He said to them: I am wearing them because I am in mourning over the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and so I wear black shoes, as is the custom of mourners. They said to him: Are you a man of such importance to publicly mourn over Jerusalem? They thought that it was simply presumptuousness on his part. Since he was acting against the prevalent Jewish custom, they brought him to the prison and incarcerated him. Eliezer Ze’eira said to them: I am a great man, a scholar, and it is fitting for me to mourn publicly over the destruction of Jerusalem.

It is clear from the Gemarah that only one who is a גברא רבה has a right to keep minhagim of avelus for the loos of Yerushalayim.  So how are there laws and customs prescribing aspects of avelut on Yerushalayim for everyone during this time of year?  The Sifsay Chayim says that there is a special force in the world during this time of year that allows everyone to have a true feeling of loss over the destruction of Yerushalayim.  

Why is it fitting only for a גברה רבה to be in avelut for Yerushalayim?  Only a גברא רבה can truly appreciate the great loss.  See the Sifsay Chayim who elaborates on the explanation.  This may be hinted to in the words גברא רבה themselves.  The Gemarah Megillah says קם רבה ושחטה לרב זעירא.  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 31) explains that Rabbah was raising up the smallness, the זעירא to רבה, to great levels.  רבה was expounding on such lofty, great Torah ideals that רב זעירא's body could not contain the great energy.  Similarly, the Gemarah is saying only a גברה רבה, one has a broad vision, a deep connection to Hashem can truly feel the great loss.  Maybe that is why these are days of בין המצרים, golut restrictes our רבה, it confines us an restricts us from seeing our full glory.  It is noteworthy the paradox that it is ר"א זעירא who is able to declare גברא רבה אנא.  Only one who is humble can make such a declaration and act in a manner befitting a גברא ברא. 

The Yaarot Devash derush 11 (cited here,) asks why was the avelut ר"א demonstrated expressed specifically through the shoes?  Along the lines of what he answers we can add the following idea.  The Navi (Amos 2:6) says Yosef was sold by his brothers for shoes.  Why did the brothers buy shoes with the money acquired for Yosef?  Rav Goldvicht (here,) explains that shoes serve as a boundary to separate between man and the earthly matter that drags him down.  Yosef believed in bringing light even to places tugged down by the earth's gravitational pull downward.  The brothers believed להבדיל בין הקודש ובין הטמא.  That is reflected in the sale of Yosef for shoes.  The brothers were saying, Yosef, you need shoes, you need boundaries.  In holy places, where there is no separation, one does not wear shoes.  Hence, in the Mikdash the kohanim walk barefoot.  ר"א was wearing the shoes to reflect the state of separation caused by the destruction of the Mikdash.  Now, we are immersed in tumah and must wear shoes for protection.  That may be why the Gemarah doesn't mention avelut on the Mikdash, it says on Yerushalayim.  Why not Mikdash?  Because the kedusha of the Mikdash radiated throughout the entire city.  The kedusha enveloped even one's ארציות, one's landy activities. 

Two Roles Of Yehoshua

Rashi (27:23) says that Moshe was commanded to put only one hand on Yehosua's head but Moshe put two hands on his head.  What is the nature of the distinction between one hand or two? The Maharsha Bava Kammah (92b) explains that one hand symbolizes appointing Yehoshua to lead the people into battle as we find Moshe used one hand to ensure victory in battle, stretching ידו on the ym suf, כאשר ירים ידו.  However, Torah he accepted with two hands, שני לוחות הברית על שתי ידיו.  When Moshe put two hands on Yehoshua's head, he also gave him wisdom in Torah.  The Maharsha understands the original instruction is to make Yehoshua the war chief but Moshe gives him wisdom as well. 

The Megallah Amukot comments on the double terminology אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵ֣א לִפְנֵיהֶ֗ם וַאֲשֶׁ֤ר יָבֹא֙ לִפְנֵיהֶ֔ם וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹצִיאֵ֖ם וַאֲשֶׁ֣ר יְבִיאֵ֑ם that Moshe asked for two leaders, one to lead the nation in battle and another to lead them in Torah.  Then it is understood why Moshe thought his sons could take over the job, for even though they were not qualified to be the Torah leaders, they could lead in battle.  However, the response was that Yehoshua would wear both hats for the victory in battle stems from the sucess in Torah (see Likutay Sichos volume 23.)  Either way, there is a הו"א that Moshe will appoint Yehoshua to lead the nation in battle but not occupy the role of the Torah leader and the conclusion is he had both roles.  What is the הו"א and what is the מסקנה?  

The Netziv in his introduction to Bamidbar explains how in this sefer there is a transition from the generation of open miracles to the generation which follows the rules of nature as they are on the cusp of entering Eretz Yisroel.  He says this is reflected in the counting of the people with which the sefer opens and the counting in this week's parsha. In the first count Epraim comes before Menashe because Efraim has more potential in learning (which is why Yaakov put his right hand on his head.)  However, in this week's parsha Menashe comes first because he has more potential for sucess in the rules of nature and everyday life.  That is why there is reason to say that in the Midbar, where things were governed by miracles, the leader of the nation had to be the Torah master.  However, when entering Eretz Yisroel when things run under the rubric of nature, one may say there is one leader who excels in knowing how to run a nation and a country and there is someone else to be the Torah leader.  However, the conclusion was that Yehoshua was able to have both roles.  (It is noteworthy that most of the times the roles were distinct, there was a אב ב"ד and a מלך/נשיא.  Mashiach will seem to have both roles like Moshe and Yehoshua, see Likutay Sichos ibid.)  [There are different ways to explain why the roles should be linked (depending on your view of Zionism, so I leave that to the reader to decide.]

Two Types Of Leaders

Why is Yehoshua given over the reins to lead Klal Yisroel and not Pinchas?  Why does the parsha of the mussafim follow the appointment of Yehoshua?

The parsha describes two types of leaders.  There are different times that demand different forms of leadership.  The beginning of the parsha describes a time of crisis, a time of confusion where a quick, decisive decision was necessary.  For that role, Pinchas was best suited.  However, during normal times, it is best to operate with deliberation, patience, and a developed plan instead of a rash descision.  For this role Yehoshua was more apt.  That is why the parsha of the korbanot followed the appointment of Yehoshua.  There is a precise seder to be followed.  Yes, the korbanot vary based upon the time but there is in place an exact order to be followed.  The עין יעקב cites in the name of the Midrash that the yesod for the entire parsha lies in a possuk in the parsha of korbanot in our parsha, את הכבש האחד תעשה בבקר ואת הגבש השנה תעשה בין הערבים, the daily schedule is key to sucess.  The Torah is explaining that Yehoshua is appointed the leader because he followed Moshe Rabbenu arround.  He saw the daily ins and outs of leadership.  He was witness to Moshe's daily job in the office.  Such a man is one to lead the nation.  Pinchas is called to the helm in stormy weather but is not one to captain during smooth sailing, that is Yehoshua's role.  

Enjoy It

The Gemarah explains the possuk in Yermiyahu (9:12) על עזבם את תורתי אשר נתתי לפניהם ולא שמעו בקולי ולא הלכו בה that the reason for the churban Habait was שלא ברכו בתורה תחילה.  Where do we see that in the words of the possuk?  The Levush (beginning of siman 47) says ונראה שפירושו "הלכו" מלשון טיול ושעשוע, כמו "והתהלכתי בתוככם", כלומר שלא חשבו לימודה לטיול והנאה, רק לאומנות ושלא לשמה.  The words הלכו indicates a joyous stroll.  The issue wasn't that Torah wasn't being learnt but that it wasn't being enjoyed.  With this approach we understand that when it says בחוקותי תלכו which Rashi says means עמילם בתורה that amelut b'Torah means learning with enjoyment.  Normally עמילות means hard work, the opposite of enjoyment, even in ruchniut לפום צערא אגרא, however, in Torah it is a paradox that עמילות leads to enjoyment, the amelut does not make things harder but adds to the enjoyment.  The Or Hachayim in Balak (23:21) says that it the interpretation of the words in the possuk ולא ראה עמל בישראל that the amelut does not feel like amelut, "עוד נתכוון באומרו ולא ראה עמל בישראל כי הצדיקים כל צפצופם עושים בו נחת רוח לה׳ ואינם מיגעים אותו כביכול על דרך אומרו (מלאכי ב) הוגעתם ה׳ בדבריכם, ולזה אמר ולא ראה עמל בישראל."

This has נ"מ also regarding halacha, R' Avraham min hahar Nedarim (48a) and Taz Yoreh Deah (221:43) hold that we don't apply the rule of מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו to talmud Torah because the mitzvah is to have enjoyment from Torah. (Based upon a shmuzz from Rav Refael Shmulevitz zt"l printed in the Mir parsha sheet.)

That is why the Baal Shem Tov said (cited in Degel Beshalach,) the beracha that was not said was the beracha of והערב נא because what was missing was the enjoyment of Torah.  In the same vein we can understand what the Toldot (Vaerah) cites in the name of the Baal Shem Tov who said Mashiach said he has not come because people do not have intent in the beracha of אהבה רבה.  Why is that a reason why Mashiach has not come?  It is in the same vein.  אהבה רבה is the beracha where we express the love Hahem has for us in giving us the Torah.  It serves to awaken the same feelings in us, כמים הפנים לפנים, to love Hashem for and appreciation of the Torah.  The lack of כונה in the beracha is an expression of the lack of appreciation of the Torah, a continuation of the same issue which placed us in the golut.;

Shabbat Remains Intact

The Magan Avraham (551:42) rules vis-à-vis the rule of not saying shechiyanu during the three weeks that if Shabbat falls out on 17 Tammuz it does not have the status of the three weeks.  In other words the three weeks do not begin until Sunday.  Why is that the case, the fast day is pushed off but why is it not yet considered the three weeks if it is 17 Tammuz?  

The sefer Orach Latzaddik, by R’ Eliezer Lipa, the son of the Noam Elimelech of Lizhensk, says (in parshat Yisro,) that when the luchos were broken on Shivah Asar Tammuz, all the letters flew in the air, except the dibrah of Shabbos, which remained. He says this is alluded to in what we say in Shabbat davining ושני לוחות אבנים הוריד בידו וכתוב בהם שמירת שבת, both sets of luchot have the mitvah of Shabbat written in them.  In light of this we can understand when 17 Tammuz falls out on Shabbat we are at a point of time which is unaffected by the shverat haluchot  which is the first event and the catalyst for all of the other events that occurred on 17 Tammuz which lead to the destruction which occurred during the three weeks.  When 17 Tammuz is on Shabbat we get a glimpse of when the day will be transformed into a day of rejoicing and the sadness of the three weeks gets delayed (based upon Rav Moshe Aharon Friedman shlita in the Mir parsha sheet.)

The Middah Is Still Present

The Midrash (20:23) says the seeds of the actions of the Benot Moav were already planted in them from the beginning of their nation when the daughter of Lot had illicit relations with her father which led to the birth of the Moabites.  Why is the daughter of Lot viewed as having an illicit relation if she thought this was necessary to save the world?   Furthermore, the Gemarah in Nazir (23a) calls what she did a מצוה and she was rewarded for it?  Rav Chayim Shmulevetz explains that even though in the situation she was in her actions were praiseworthy, since the action itself was one of זנות אישא middah became implanted into the DNA of the nation she created.  He cites the Or Hachayim Devarim (13:18) says that the Torah says about those who killed the individuals of a עיר הנידחת that  וְנָֽתַן־לְךָ֤ רַחֲמִים֙ because nature would have it that after carrying out such a punishment one would become cruel and therefore the Torah has to give a special beracha that one will not lose their natural trait of compassion.  Again we see even though one is carrying a punishment prescribed by Hashem the natural middah of cruelness still would settle in the person. 

The possuk in Berashis (34:1) says ותצא דינה בת לאה.  Chazal ask why does it say בת לאה and not בת יעקב?  Chazal (cited in Rashi) say since לאה went out to greet Yaakov after she sold the דודאים, therefore this middah of leaving one's confines is attributed to Leah.  Chazal elsewhere praise Leah for her actions and attribute that led to meriting to give berth to Yissocher, so why is is viewed in a negative light?  The Shiuray Daas says the same idea at above.  Even though consequently it is a good action, since it involved a middah which can be negative, that middah can set root and come out in a negative form later. 

Possibly this idea can be used to explain the contradiction between the Zohar and Midrash if Yaakov's gifts that he sent to Esav were to be viewed in a positive light for this is helping to subdue the powers of Esav or is it negative for there is no reason to start up with Esav.  The two may go hand in hand.  It was in the situation the right thing to do but the actions themselves, showing favor to Esav still lead to negative consequences down the road. 

This is what Moshe warns about in Netzavim, פֶּן־יֵ֣שׁ בָּכֶ֗ם שֹׁ֛רֶשׁ פֹּרֶ֥ה רֹ֖אשׁ וְלַעֲנָֽה.  Maybe there is the root of evil within you.  One must uproot even middot raot which may have taken root in doing positive actions.

Everything Must Add Up

"The Torah tells us that upon reaching Hor HaHar, on the boundaries of the land of Edom, Hashem told Moshe to prepare Aharon for death, "al asher m'risen es pi l'mei meriva," (20: 24) because of their failure to obey Hashem at Mei Meriva. 

Why does the Torah need to give us the geographical detail that Hor HaHar is on the border of Edom?  Rashi explains that it was the fact that Bnei Yisrael came under the influence of Edom which diminished their merits and caused this great tzadik Aharon to be taken from them.  The obvious question: the Torah itself tells us why Aharon died -- "Al asher m'risen es pi l'mei meriva" -- because of episode of Mei Meriva, the hitting of the rock.  Why do we need another explanation involving the influence of Edom to account for his death?

I think the simplest answer is that Aharon died for the sin of Mei Meriva, but why here and why now?  Rashi comes to answer that second question.

Sefas Emes (cited in Mayanah shel Torah) offers another answer that touches on a yesod I thought I wrote about before, but can't find where, so it's good to visit or revisit it.  "HaTzur tamim pa'alo" -- G-d's judgment is perfect.  If a person commits a crime and is thrown into jail, it's not only they who suffer, but it's also their wife, their children, etc. who suffer as well.  There is "collateral damage," if you will, caused by the punishment meted out.  Not so G-d's judgment.  If a person is guilty of sin and needs to be punished, then Hashem does so in such a way that avoids causing pain to the person's wife, children, etc. who don't deserve it.  Everything is precisely measured out and meted out.  Aharon had to die because of the sin committed at Mei Meriva, but what did Klal Yisrael do to deserve to suffer the loss of such a tzadik?  Why should they have to deal with a tragedy like that?  The Torah therefore tells us that Aharon died on the border of Edom, where we fell under foreign influence -- our merits did not measure up, so we deserved to suffer as well." (source:http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2019/07/hatzur-tamim-paalo-aharons-death.html.)  (Not sure if this fits with the Or Hachaim Shelach (14:38) that Hashem may mete out punishment in form of collaterol punishment.) 

When Moshe Rabbenu sums up the journey of Klal Yisroel from Egypt to where they were standing about to enter Eretz Yisroel in the beginning of Devarim, he recounts the episode of the meraglim and says that he was also punished due to the failure, גַּם־בִּי֙ הִתְאַנַּ֣ף י״י֔ בִּגְלַלְכֶ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר גַּם־אַתָּ֖ה לֹא־תָבֹ֥א שָֽׁם.  The question is that Moshe died because for the sin of Mei Meriva in this week's parsha, not because of the meraglim?  In addition, where does it mention in Shleach that Hashem was angry with Moshe?  (See Ramban, Or Hachaim.)  In light of this idea we can understand.  The personal sin of Moshe was that of Mei Meriva for which Hashem determined he should die before entering Eretz Yisroel.  However, Moshe could not be taken for he was the leader of Klal Yisroel.  How could Klal Yisroel lose their leader?  However, the seeds of that loss were already planted at the time of the sin of the mereglim.  Moshe was the leader for the time of the open miracles.  If Klal Yisroel was able to maintain an existence of open Hashgacha, then Moshe could be their leader.  However, once they decided to send meraglim, they wanted to go through the conquest of the land through normal means of teva, they rejected the ways of Moshe Rabbenu and were no longer worthy of Moshe's leadership. 

In Devarim, Moshe is addressing the source of his loss of leadership.  Hashem wasn't angry at Moshe's behavior through the episode of the meraglim, the התאנף is that Moshe was no longer the proper leader for the nation and therefore Klal Yisroel lost him as a leader.  It is the Mei Meriva which caused that Moshe himself lost his opportunity to enter the land.

Wise Woman

The Gemarah (Sanhedrin 110a) says that חכמת נשים בנתה ביתה זו אשתו של און בן פלת for she told her husband either way you lose, you are either under Moshe's leadership or under Korach's leadership.  What is the great חכמה exhibited in On's wife's statement, it seems like a simple argument?  I would like to share two approaches.

One approach is that her statement itself is not one of earth shattering wisdom but it was the timing which made it wise.  At a time of great upheaval, when the regular order is disturbed, people tend to lose sense of simple logic and do thinks based upon impulse.  Her ability not to lose her cool and ability to think in a time when the public was being stirred up was her wisdom.  Her ability to maintain equilibrium despite the challenges is her wisdom.  

A second approach is that her ability to discern Korach's intent was her great wisdom.  Korach put forth an ideological challenge to Mosh's leadership and many were swayed by his argument.  The wife of On realized that although Korach puts forth a noble argument, his intent is not based upon holy intentions but he is motivated by greed.  The Mishna in Avot (5:17) refers to the rebellion of Korach as a מחלוקת שלא לשם שמים.  The Alter Of Kelm points out that we see from the Mishna the issue with Korach is not that he was blatantly wrong, but that his motivation was not לשם שמים.  He put forth a good argument which swayed many but On's wife was able to see the motivation behind Korach was his own ego and that would not be successful.