The Chok Command

וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר י״י֔ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֥ה וְאֶֽל⁠־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹֽר זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה י״י֖ לֵאמֹ֑ר דַּבֵּ֣ר׀ אֶל⁠־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל

Why is parah adumah referred to as chukas hatorah and not chukas haparah?  Why does it וידבר ה and then repeat אשר צוה ה?  Since Hashem is speaking it should say אשר צויתי not אשר צוה ה?

The Or HaChaim says that for all the mitzvot Moshe Rabbenu besides telling Klal Yisrael the mitzvah itself, he also told them the reason for the mitzvah. However, when it came to parah adumah even though Moshe Rabbenu was given reasons for the mitzvah, he was told to tell Klal Yisrael that it is a chok and not to give them any reason for the mitzvah.  That is the opening passuk, וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר י״י֔ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֥ה וְאֶֽל⁠־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹֽר זֹ֚את חֻקַּ֣ת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה, tell Klal Yisrael that it is a chok.  Then the Torah recounts the actual laws of the parah adumah itself, אשר צוה ה, that Hashem had commanded.  It comes out according to the Or HaChaim that parah being a chok is not just a description of the mitzvah but it is its own command that the mitzvah be told as a chok.  Why is such a command given and why it is called chikas hatorah?  The Or Hachaim earlier comments, ובדרך רמז ירצה באומרו חקת התורה שאם יקיימו מצוה זו הגם היותה חוקה בלא טעם מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאלו קיימו התורה אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר, כי קיום המצוה בלא טעם יגיד הצדקת האמונה והסכמת הנפש לקיים כל מצות הבורא וזה לך האות, ואולי כי לטעם זה רצה ה׳ שתתמסר להם המצוה בדרך חקה.  It is not merely chukas haparah but chukas hatorah for it teaches a principle about the entirety of Torah.  Hashem specifically gave a mitzvah as a chok to demonstrate that mitzvot are to be fulfilled not for the reasons given but "צדקת האמונה והסכמת הנפש לקיים כל מצות הבורא."  We don't fulfill mitzvot because of the reasons but rather just to do the ratzon Hashem.  

Oil

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי לָמָּה חָלַק קֹרַח עַל משֶׁה, אָמַר אֲנִי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בֶּן יִצְהָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז, יג): וְתִירשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ. תִּירוֹשׁ, זֶה יַיִן. וְיִצְהָרֶךָ, זֶה הַשֶּׁמֶן. וּבְכָל מַשְׁקִים שֶׁתִּתֵּן אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן הוּא נִמְצָא עֶלְיוֹן,

How does a play on his ancestor's name convince Korach that he is right?  Korach was of the opinion that a leader must be like oil, rise above everyone else.  However, oil has another aspect to it and that it is that it permeates through everything it comes in contact with.  Korach felt he was suited to be the leader for he understood that he was able to be elevated and exalted above everyone else.  However, what he didn't eternalize is that a leader is not meant to detached from everyone else but has to be able to make an impression on everyone.  The leader has to be able to touch everyone and inspire them to be better people.  That was Moshe and Aharon.

Arvus Or Shomea

The Shulchan Aruch (219:4) says אם בירך אחר ואמר בא"י אמ"ה אשר גמלך כל טוב וענה אמן יצא.  Rabbi Akiva Eger asks why does the person have to answer amen to fulfill his obligation if normally שומע כעונה does not require the one listening to answer amen to fulfill his obligation?  He gives a few answers.  One answer is that the principle of שומע כעונה only applies when hearing a statement from a בר חיובא as opposed to here where the one saying the beracha is not obligated to make a beracha.  R.A.E. says based upon this that וא"כ בכל ברכות המצות דקיי"ל אם יצא מוציא מ"מ כיון דאין המברך מחוייב עתה בברכה זו לא יצא בה בלא עניית אמן.  We see from R.A.E. that he holds that the principle of  ערבות works with the principle of שומע כעונה.  Arvus merely extends the principle of שומע כעונה to say that even one who is no longer obligated and normally wouldn't be able to say a beracha for someone else, due to arvus they can.  This is not like Rav Leeb Malin siman 5 who says that the principle of arvus is separate than that of שומע כעונה.  He says שומע כעונה means that when a person says a beracha it's as if the one that needs to say the beracha said it himself.  However, the principle of arvus says that one person can say a beracha for someone else and there is no need for  שומע כעונה.  Nonetheless, he does arrive at the same conclusion as R.A.E. that in order to be yotzeh a beracha through arvus one would need to answer amen in order for the other person's beracha to work for the recipient. 

Giving Thanks

The Rambam Berachot (10:8) אַרְבָּעָה צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדוֹת. חוֹלֶה שֶׁנִּתְרַפֵּא. וְחָבוּשׁ שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים. וְיוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם כְּשֶׁעָלוּ. וְהוֹלְכֵי דְּרָכִים כְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ לַיִּשּׁוּב. וּצְרִיכִין לְהוֹדוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֲשָׂרָה וּשְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים קז לב) ״וִירֹמְמוּהוּ בִּקְהַל עָם וּבְמוֹשַׁב זְקֵנִים יְהַלְלוּהוּ״. וְכֵיצַד מוֹדֶה וְכֵיצַד מְבָרֵךְ. עוֹמֵד בֵּינֵיהֶן וּמְבָרֵךְ. וכו.  The Kesef Mishne asks what is the repetition of כֵיצַד מוֹדֶה וְכֵיצַד מְבָרֵךְ?  The Achronim (see Mishnas Yaavetz siman 19) say we see from the Rambam that the obligation of birchas hagomel is not just a chiuv beracha but is an obligation of הודאה and one fulfills that with the beracha.

The Rambam says עוֹמֵד בֵּינֵיהֶן, the beracha must be said while standing.  The Kesef Mishne wonders what is the source of the Rambam that the beracha must be said while standing?  In light of the above lomdus we can say that the beracha has the status of hallel which is recited when standing.  

The Gemarah Berachot (54b) says one can say hagomel for the fact that someone else was saved andd if the one saved answers amen he discharges his obligation of saying hagomel.  It appears from the Gemarah that those hearing the tidings of one being saved are also indebted to give thanks for the one that was saved and that may be the source for the idea that those that hear a birchas hagomel answer, as the Rambam says, וְכָל הַשּׁוֹמְעִין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁגְּמָלְךָ טוֹב הוּא יִגְמָלְךָ סֶלָה.  A regular beracha does not evoke a response from the listeners so why does hagomel?  Because the listeners also take part of the hodah.  The basis for this may lie in the parsha of korban todah which the Netziv writes is of a large quantity to insure one will share the story of salvation and thanks to Hashem with others.  

Slowly Straying

Rashi says כי תשטה – תט מדרכי צניעות ותחשד בעיניו.  The Shem MiShmuel asks is this the only issue here, that she strayed from the path of tzinuit, she violated an issur by being miyached with another man?

Rashi says למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה, שכל הרואה סוטה בקילקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין, שהוא מביא לידי ניאוף.  Although it is true that יין מביא לידי ניאוף, there are other things involved as well, why is the acceptance of nazir the appropriate response?    

Rashi says about the korban mincha of the sotah, קמח – שלא יהא מסולת.שעורים – ולא חטים, היא עשתה מעשה בהמה וקרבנה מאכל בהמה.לא יצק שמן – שלא יהא קרבנה מהודר, שהשמן קרוי אור והיא עשתה בחשך.ולא יתן עליו לבנה – שהאמהות נקראו לבנה, אל גבעת הלבונה (שיר השירים ד׳:ו׳), והיא פירשה מדרכיהן.  Rav Bloch asks if the point is to recognize that the sotah is disgraced, why make a few small, barely noticeable differences, put up a neon sign sotah here and that would make a greater difference?  

We say in krias shema וסרתם ועבדתם אלהים אחרים.  The word וסרתם indicates a slight deviation, slightly of the derech, how does that mean automatically avodah zarah?  The Baal Shem Tov says we see that a slight difference can snowball and lead one to stray totally to the other side.  Says the S.M., the sotah that sinned due to the רוח שטות didn't immediately fall off a cliff but rather she started with a mere slight deviation from the proper path of tzniut and this led her to be a sotah.  The woman is called a sotah ע"ש the catalyst for the issue, not what it led too.  Says the S.M. if it is that way in a negative sense, ק"ו in a positive sense.  Hence, the appropriate response is to take upon one's self a kabbalah.  Even though the kabbalah of nezirut, to abstain from a few things for a month is not such a tremendous action, but it is the fact that there is a resolution from the person to go in the right path that will lead one to greater and higher heights.  

In a similar vein in a physiological sense, explains Rav Bloch, it is not the big things that leave a lasting impression upon a person but rather the small things.  When big fanfare is made of a event, all of one's energy is expended in the event and it doesn't become absorbed into the psyche of a person.  It is when there are small little things that one hardly notices and doesn't get all involved in the matter that it the event can take time to take root and get properly absorbed into one's mind.  Hence, it is the small differences in the mincha of a sotah that leave a indelible impression, not a neon sign and great fanfare.