Engraved

Why does the Torah introduce the mitzvah of the parah adumah with the phrase זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה, This is the law of the Torah, wouldn’t it have been more fitting to say זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפָּרָה, This is the law of the cow, as it does with other commandments like such as זֹאת חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח, This is the law of the Pesach offering?

The Or HaChaim explains that the Torah isn’t merely presenting the law of the parah adumah—it is revealing a foundational principle for the entire Torah. What is that principle?  The parah adumah is the quintessential chok—a command that defies human logic. By calling it “the law of the Torah,” the Torah is teaching us that this approach applies to all mitzvot: just as we fulfill a chok not because we understand it, but because it is the will of Hashem, so too every mitzvah—whether rational or beyond comprehension—must ultimately be fulfilled because Hashem commanded it. Our commitment is not rooted in intellect but in submission to Divine will.

The word חק shares its root with the word חקיקה, meaning “engraving.”  Written text lies atop the parchment, it is separate and is removable.  However, engraved text  is carved into the stone and becomes one with the surface itself.  So too, when we fulfill a mitzvah only because it makes sense to us, it remains external, superimposed on our identity. But when we perform Hashem’s will because it is His will, the mitzvah becomes engraved into our soul. The mitzvah performed shapes the identity of the person (see Likutay Sichos volume 8.) 

When there is a lack of water Moshe is instructed to speak to the rock.  But earlier, in parshat Beshalach, when the people complained  they were thirsty Moshe is instructed to hit the rock, what is the difference between these two episodes?  The answer lies in viewing the rock not merely as a source of water, but as a metaphor for accessing the inner being of the people. To draw water from the rock is to access the waters of spiritual vibrancy.

In Beshalach, Bnei Yisrael had not yet stood at Har Sinai. They had not yet entered into the covenant of Torah, the eternal bond engraved (chakikah) into their essence. They still required an external impact, a bang, to break open the spiritual barriers that concealed their dormant holiness.  Hence, Moshe was told to strike the rock.  But in Chukas, Klal Yisrael had experienced Matan Torah, they already obtained  "חיי עולם נטע בתוכנו", “eternal life was planted within us.” The Torah was no longer external to them; it was engraved into their souls. The appropriate approach, then, was no longer force, but gentle speech to bring  out the deep inner connection that already existed.  

The meforshim have a struggle to pinpoint exactly what Moshe Rabbenu did wrong at the מי מריבה, but no matter how we explain the sin, why is it deemed so bad that Moshe Rabbenu's opportunity to enter Eretz Yisrael is revoked?  Many of the Chassidic seforim explain each in their own way that the sin was not so bad in its own right to be the סיבה, the cause, for Moshe Rabbenu to lose out but rather was a סימן, a sign that Moshe was no longer fit to be the leader.  Moshe Rabbenu led a people  who required miracles and awe, a generation whose spiritual growth was catalyzed through external force, he had to lead with the stick. so to speak.  But now, a new generation had matured. Their connection to Hashem was deeply rooted; they no longer needed to be struck to awaken. They needed to be spoken to, to merely shake off the dust to reveal that connection. Moshe’s leadership style, perfect for the generation that left Egypt wilderness, was no longer fit for the current generation.  Sometimes while a leader may be a great person, he is no longer able to connect to the next generation, his methods and messaging is old and outdated and there is need for younger leadership, those who speak to the ears of the current generation, to step up.  

This shift is reflected in the contrasting shirot of Bnei Yisrael.  At Yam Suf, it is Moshe who leads, אש ישיר משה and the people follow his lead in song and spirit. They required someone to draw the praise from them.  However, in the song of the Be’ar Miriam, the well of Miriam, Moshe’s name is absent as the Sfas Emes notes.  Why?  Because now the people sang on their own.  It is the same as the difference between a pit and a well.  A pit is reliant on external rain, while a well draws water from deep within. The song of the be'ar was not just for the be'ar of Miriam, it was about their internal well. Klal Yisrael had become a well, they had their own deep spiritual connection to Hashem and could feel the spiritual uplifting expressed in a shira.  They no longer needed Moshe to place the words in their mouths. The song sprung forth from within themselves.  The recognition of Hashem was engraved in their hearts.

Defying Death

Rashi (20:1) says לָמָּה נִסְמְכָה פָרָשַׁת מִיתַת מִרְיָם לְפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה? לוֹמַר לְךָ, מַה קָּרְבָּנוֹת מְכַפְּרִין, אַף מִיתַת צַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת.  Why is the limud that the death of a tzadik atones derived from the juxtaposition to parah adumah and not any other korban?  Furthermore, the para is not even like a regular korban as it is not offered in the Mikdash and there is nothing offered on the mizbaoch?  In addition, it is not even a technical kaparah?  

Rashi (19:2) says וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ: לְעוֹלָם הִיא נִקְרֵאת עַל שִׁמְךָ — פָּרָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר.  Why is it important that the parah is callled the parah of Moshe?  The Midrash says וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה, אֲבָל לְאַחֵר, חֻקָּה.  Why does Moshe specifically merit to understand the reason of the parah?  Rashi says in the name of Moshe Hadarshan that the actions of the parah adumah are a kaparah for the sin of the agel, תבוא האם ותקנח צואת בנה.  How does the parah clean up the agel?

Chazal say that without the sin of the agel then the decree of death would have been nullified by the acceptance of the Torah.  The sin of Adam would have been fixed.  It is the sin of the agel that brought the concept of death back into the world.  The Kli Yakar says it doesn't mean that there would be no death at all, it means that all death would be בנשיקה and there would be no tumas meis (the idea that death via נשיקה doesn't bring about tumah is suggested in the Ramban.)  It is only after the sin of the agel that death brings about tumah.  So, the parah adumah which erases the tumas meis, comes to clean up the effect of the sin of the agel which is tumas meis. 

The Rambam at the end of Ch. 3 of the Laws of Parah says that there were 9 parot adumot that were used to purify from tumah and the 10th will be done by Mashiach.  Why is the Rambam telling us that Mashiach will bring anther parah adumah?  This hints to this idea that the completion of the entire notion of parah adumah to remove death will be accomplished only in the times of Mashiach when death will cease.   

With this background in mind, says the Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 33,) that is why Moshe is needed for the parah.  Since Chazal refer to Moshe and his actions as lasting (see Sota 9a, 13a,) he is the antidote to tumas meis.  Death is the ultimate limitation on things, but Moshe is able to transcend death.  Hence, he is the one to initiate the parsha of parah adumah and why it bears his name for Moshe is the only one to fully internalize the idea of the parah.  That is why it is only Moshe that can be given the reason for the parah for only he can have an understanding in how to transcend the demise of earthly things. 

The concept of death is an outgrowth of sin.  Without the sin of Adam and the agel there would be no death.  The concept of the parah erasing death is to remove the traces of sin that exist.  It is way of going back to pure beginnings.  With this idea, we can understand that the misah of the tzaddik atones like the parah shows us that the death of the tzaddik isn't merely an atonement for a sin but the entire existence of sin is uprooted.  In other words, one can bring a korban for kaparah but there is still possibility for sin, the cause, the סיבה of the sin still exists.  Parah adumah comes to remove the concept of death, meaning to uproot the very tumah in the world which causes sin, death and all mishaps.  In the words of Rav Kook, כנסת ישראל שואפת לתקון העולם בכל מלואו, לסליחה מקורית מטהרת, שבאה לא רק מישועת נפש האדם והטבת רצונו מצד עצמו, - שבזה צריכים להפגש בויתור ומדת חסד מיוחדה, בלא התכללות עם כל המדות כולן ובלא שקול של עז צדק ומשפט, - כי-אם תקון כולל לסבת החטאים. חק הטהרה, העברת רוח הטומאה על ידי שמו של משיח שקדם לעולם, "פרה אדומה מכפרת", והיא מטהרת מטומאת מת, נעוץ בסלוק המיתה מיסודה, בהעלאת העולם מעמק חטאו, מחטא הארץ ומקטרוג הלבנה, מנפילת התיאוריה העולמית ביסוד מציאותה, מהנמכת האידיאל העולמי במציאות, מה שהכשיר את החטא האנושי וכל הצרות הרבות הבאות ממנו. הכל, הכל צריך להיות מתוקן, הכל צריך להיות מטוהר. שאיפת ישראל לבנין האומה, לשיבת הארץ, היא שאיפה של עומק הטוב החודר את כל היש בשרשו. לא זקיפת לבנה מאיזה בנין כי אם פניה שלמה ועמוקה אל היסוד של כל הבנין, לכוננו בתקון. לא עצים אחדים וענפים מאילן החיים והטוב, אלא לחשוף את המקור, את מעין החיים שלשד עץ החיים, עם כל שרשיו, גזעיו ענפיו, פארותיו ועליו, משם יונק, וממנו יבא רוח חיים, רוח חדש, ועולם חדש, יבנה, "כי כאשר השמים החדשים והארץ החדשה אשר אני עושה עומדים לפני נאם ד' כן יעמד זרעכם ושמכם.  This is why Chazal compare the kaparah of the death of a tzaddik to the kaparah of the parah to tell us the depths of the atonement is that the death of a tzaddik also removes the very existence of sin.  Since tzaddikim are called "living," they provide an element of erasing the source of sin in the world, of attaching to eternality, which is recognizable in the void of their physical presence, and that brings the world closer to the stage of the ultimate eternity. 

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.  

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.

Bring Out Your Water

Why was Moshe instructed to hit the rock in Beshalach but in Chukas he is told to speak to the rock? The Shir Hashirim Rabbah (4:15) says מַעְיַן גַּנִים בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה פְּעָמִים כְּתִיב בַּתּוֹרָה בְּאֵר בְּאֵר, כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בָּם הַתּוֹרָה,.  There are 48 times the word באר in the Torah to correspond to the 48 קנינים  of Torah.  What is the connection? 

Chazal darshin the shirah of the באר as a reference to Torah.  The Netziv and Sfas Emes explain that it is a reference to תורה שבעל פה specifically.  The event of producing the water from the rock was the transfer from the תורה שבכתב mode to the תורה שבעל פה mode.  The Malbim (20:8) notes that in Beshalach Moshe is instructed to hit a צור but in Chukas he is directed to speak to a סלע.  What is the difference between a צור and a סלע? He says a צור is a hard rock but a סלע is a soft rock that contains water inside of it and if the outer rocky shell is pierced water will be found inside.  That is the תורה שבעל פה.  It is the Torah that is חיי עולם נטע בתוכתנו, it is within our souls and we just need to cut through the rocks outside to bring it out. That is why the acquisition of Torah is called a באר.  There are deep waters within a person and they just need to be drawn out. 

The Shev Shematsah in the beginning of his introduction says the essence of man is to bring forth the waters that are in his באר.  To not be just a בור that receives but to bring forth new waters. 

 אלא דעיקר בריאת האדם על הארץ אם כי הנשמה במחצבה נהנית מזיו התפארת וכלום חסר בבית המלך אולם גזרה חכמתו ית"ש להורידה למטה לנסותה בקיום מצותיו ושמירת תורותיו וכאשר תצדק הרבה כן תרבה וכן תפרוץ ותגדל למעלה עד אשר תשוב אל האלהים אשר נתנה ביתר עוז ורב אונים וכתיב בזהר שתה מים מבורך ונוזלים מתוך בארך כי בהיות הנשמה למעלה אינה אלא בחינת בור שאינו נובע רק מתמלא מאחרים ומצד עצמו הוא ריק ובירידתה אל עולם השפל הזה והשיגה מה שעליה להשיג כגזירת חכמתו ית"ש אזי היא בחינת באר הוא מעין המתגבר ונובע מעצמו ובזה לא יהיה נהמא דכסופא ועיקרא דמלתא דכל דלית ליה מגרמיה כלום עני חשוב כמת כמ"ש בגור אריה דמי באר קרוין מים חיים לפי שהוא נובע מעצמו משא"כ מי בור ולזה עני חשוב כמת ושונא מתנות יחיה ע"ש וא"כ כל זמן היות הנפש במקורה והיא בבחינת בור אין לה חיות, כי מעצמה ריקה היא רק מה שמשפיעין אותה עד רדתה הנה ונובעת מעצמה היא בבחינת באר ויש לה חיות לזה אמר ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים והיינו דעיקר בריאת אדם על הארץ בכדי שתהא הנפש בבחינת באר ותקרא נשמת חיים וזהו אלה המצות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם. That is the תורה שבעל פה.

In Beshalach, Klal Yisroel have just started their journey out of Egypt.  They are empty inside.  There is nothing to bring out of them and one must produce the water יש מאין.  That was the time for hitting the rock.  After years of wandering in the midbar Klal Yisroel developed a connection to Torah and they were filled with water.  There was a Torah inside their souls waiting to be drawn out.  By instruction Klal Yisroel would be able to tap into the water that was inside of them.  Instead Moshe hit the סלע.  The Tikunay Zohar (#21, 44a) says because of this Torah שבעל פה is difficult, it is full of questions and machlokes.  If it had been spoken to then it would have flowed nicely.  וְהַאי סֶלַע לָא נָפִיק מִינָהּ אֶלָּא טִפִּין טִפִּין זְעִיר שָׁם זְעִיר שָׁם, וְכַמָּה מַחֲלוֹקוֹת עַל אִלֵּין טִפִּין, וּמָאן גְּרִים דָּא, הַמּוֹרִים, דְּאִתְּמַר בְּהוֹן כָּל הַמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב מִיתָה, וּבְגִין דָּא שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמּוֹרִים, וּבְגִינַיְיהוּ וַיַּךְ מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם, דְּאִם לָא דְמָחָא בָּהּ לָא הֲווֹ טָרְחִין יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַנָּאִים וְאֱמוֹרָאִין בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא דִבְעַל פֶּה דְּאִיהִי סֶלַע, אֶלָּא אִתְּמַר בּוֹ וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע וְנָתַן מֵימָיו בְּלָא טוֹרַח, וְיִהְיֶה מִתְקַיֵּים בְּהוֹן וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד וְגוֹמֵר (ירמיה לא, לג), וַהֲוָה נָפִיק מַיָּא בְּלָא קֻשְׁיָא וּמַחֲלוֹקֶת וּפְסַק, בְּגִין דִּשְׁכִינְתָּא דְאִתְּמַר בָּהּ (שם כג כט) הֲלֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם יהו"ה הֲוָה שָׁרִי בְּפוּמֵיהוֹן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִיהִי אוֹרַיְיתָא דִבְעַל פֶּה, דְּאִיהִי סֶלַע עַ"ל ס', דְּאִינוּן שִׁתִּין מַסֶּכְתּוֹת, דְּהָכִי אִיהוּ סֶלַ"ע עַ"ל ס'.  This was a turning point in the development in Klal Yisroel, their ability to tap into the Torah that was in them and Moshe chose the hard route, to beat it out.

The possuk in the shirah says באר חפרוה שרים כרוה נדיבי העם במחקק במשענתם.  What is the difference between חופר and כורה?  The Malbim says כי כבר הבדלתי (בהתו״ה משפטים סי׳ קט״ז) שיש הבדל בין חפר – ובין כרה – שהחופר הוא החופר בעומק והכורה הוא שכורה מעט ולא בעומק,.  In light of this we can understand that those that are שרים, the great princes of Torah have deep springs full of words of Torah.  Then there are the נדיבי עם, those that desire to come close to Torah.  For them it is כורה, they don't have as deep of a reservoir but they too have a portion in Torah.

Stare At The Snake

After the snakes came to bite people, Moshe erects a copper snake and places it upon a staff and the people were healed.  The mishna in the end of the second Ch. of Rosh Hashana explains there was no healing power to the copper snake but when one gazed at it, the individual would be inspired to pray.  If there was no power to the snake, what was the point of making the snake at all?

This blog mentioned in the past that in order to conquer pain and problems one can't merely run away but one must stare the problem in the face and tackle it.  When one is looking down, head in the ground, one may temporally avoid the problem but it will always be in the background ready to rear its ugly head.  The only way to solve a problem, to grow from pain is to raise one's head and meet the issue head on.  That is why one had to look up at the snake.  By seeing the snake not merely as a being of destruction but realizing that it was there to correct one's error, to show one the proper path, then one was able to pray to remove the snake because they had properly grown from the snake challenge.

In a more spiritual vein, the Alter Rebbe in Likutay Torah explains that every thing in its spiritual root is inherently good.  It is merely as some things slide through the chute into this world they take a physical form that is not pleasant.   However, by recognizing the good source of the perceived evil one is able to conquer it. (This is even more pronounced in the snake as discussed on the blog in the past here and here, that the snake is representative of all the evil forces in the world.)  It is with that recognition that one can stand and pray to Hashem to bring forth the source of the perceived evil and change it to טוב הנראה והנגלאת. 

I think this idea may be hinted too in the terminology of the possuk, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף וְשִׂים אֹתוֹ עַל נֵס וְהָיָה כָּל הַנָּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי.  Why use the word נס (see Rashi and Rashbam)?  The possuk in Tehillim (60:6) says נָ֘תַ֤תָּה לִּירֵאֶ֣יךָ נֵּ֭ס לְהִתְנוֹסֵ֑ס.  Chassidus explains based upon the Targum there that the peshat is that a person becomes raised up by נסיונות, hardships.  The hardships bring out the potential in a person (as the Ramban (Berashit 22:1) describes. That serves as a banner for the individual.  When one was able to look at the snake and transform the experience into a positive, it raised the person up.  This was a themes the Friedeker Rebbe developed in some of his maamarim on 12-13 Tamuz (coming up this week) where he expressed his understanding for how his own suffering and hardships led to greater horizons. 

The Mishna in Berachot (5:1) says even when a snake is wrapped around one's feet the individual should not interrupt their שמונה עשרה to remove the snake.  Possibly there is an illusion to this idea there as well.  When the snake seeks to bring a person down, when one is overtaken by pain, depression and grief, they should not run away but continue serving G-d and not let one's problems get in the way of living  (see the Nimukay Orach Chayim (104:3) has a very hard time taking this law at face value.)  

Fountain Of Growth

Chazal say that the בארה של מרים still exists and it is concealed.  There is a contradiction in Chazal if it is in the Keneret or in the Mediterranean Sea (see Wikipedia,) but it it still around as opposed to the ענני הכבוד and the מן which cease to exist.  Why does the באר continue as opposed to those other gifts of the midbar? 

The Yalkut Shemoni points out a difference between the shiras hayam and the shira of the באר.

א"ר אבין הלוי בשעה שעמדו ישראל לומר שירת הים לא הניחן משה שיאמרו לעצמן, אלא כשם שרבו של אדם אומר עמו פרשתו כשהוא נער כך אמר משה עמהם שנאמר אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל כנער העונה אחר רבו, לאחר ארבעים שנה עמדו על פרקן התחילו אומרים שירת הבאר לעצמן שנאמר אז ישיר ישראל, אמרו רבש"ע עליך להיות עושה לנו נסים ועלינו לומר שירה שנאמר יי להושיעני ונגינותי ננגן:

The generation leaving Egypt were like children being introduced to G-d.  They had to be taught to sing praise to Hashem.  After living in the midbar in a miraculous existence for years, Klal Yisroel had matured and were able to recognize the need to sing praise to Hashem on their own. 

Following in this mashal the Yalkut (763:18) explains why Moshe was instructed to speak the rock as opposed to in Beshalach where he is instructed to hit the rock.  ודברתם אל הסלע. והכיתם לא נאמר, א"ל כשהנער קטן רבו מכהו ומלמדו ביון שהגדיל בדבור הוא מיסרו, כך אמר הקב"ה למשה כשהיה סלע זה קטן הכית אותו שנאמר והכית בצור אבל עכשיו ודברתם אל הסלע שנה עליו פרק אחד והוא מוציא מים מן הסלע.  When Klal Yisroel was a young child they were instructed by beading led to the water, by forcing them to the right path.  However, as they became advanced it was no longer suitable to merely beat them over the head but they must be taught to develop their on their own.  The difference in drawing water from the rocks was determined by the status of Klal Yisroel.  

[Based upon this we can explain that is why the מי מריבה did not allow Moshe to continue to lead Klal Yisroel.  It's not that the sin was so bad that it must lead to his demise but it meant that Moshe was not ready to teach the next generation.  The people had eclipsed the leadership of Moshe.  (Like the basketball coach that can develop the young players but can't be retained to lead the superstars to the championship.)  And that is why Moshe could not lead them to the promised land.] 

Chazal darshin the shiras הבאר as a reference to Torah.  How do we see in the באר a hint to Torah?  The Netziv explains אבל הענין יבואר בספר דברים (א,ה) בפירוש הכתוב ״בעבר הירדן בארץ מואב הואיל משה באר את התורה״ שלימד שם משה לישראל פלפולה של תורה, איך כל הקבלות בתורה שבע״פ מרומזות בדקדוקי המקרא ע״פ י״ג מדות והויות התלמוד. והתועלת מזה הלימוד היא שאפשר להוסיף לקח בכל עת, ונעשית כמעין המתגבר. . . ומשום הכי נקראת בארה — שהיא המבארת התורה שבכתב על הדיוק, וגם מבארת מקור הקבלות בתורה שבע״פ איה מקומם מרומז בתורה שבכתב. The באר represents the Torah שבעל פה.  It has water from another source, the תורה שבכתב but is also able to produce more, the תורה שבעל פה.  The manna and clouds of glory, aspects of the angelic living in the midbar faded away in history.  Those were long replaced by glorious days in the Jewish commonwealth and the tears of golut that followed.  But what always remains is the באר of the תורה שבעל פה.  Klal Yisroel moved on from the spoon feeding existence that carried them through the birth pains of becoming nation but their independent growth represented by the באר grows as time continues.  

How To Rebuke

This is from the Kedushat Levi on this week's parsha.  I just copied the English translation from Sefaria.  You can look here for the Hebrew.  וראוין הדברים למי שאמרם.

‎Numbers 20,8. “you are to speak to the rock in full view of ‎them, etc.”, “because you did not have enough faith in Me to ‎sanctify Me in full view of the Israelites.” ‎

Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another ‎concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he ‎addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” ‎people, i.e. ‎שמעו נא המורים‎, whereas the other sage claims that ‎Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.‎

I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really ‎disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike ‎the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.‎

Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to ‎order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are ‎designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. ‎One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents ‎this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non ‎starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate ‎immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds ‎people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing ‎His people performing His will. When the people listen to this ‎kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right ‎direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to ‎accept the yoke of heaven.‎

The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding ‎people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, ‎the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using ‎this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as ‎the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the ‎feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away ‎from doing evil and do good instead.‎

The difference between these two methods is that the first ‎method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among ‎the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not ‎to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing ‎out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a ‎desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the ‎compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The ‎person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people ‎are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the ‎feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, ‎and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their ‎attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on ‎this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, ‎whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is ‎still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the ‎human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he ‎addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of ‎belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in ‎keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing ‎how an obstinate rock has to be treated. ‎

Since G-d had a) not instructed Moses to berate the people for ‎demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose ‎the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an ‎opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like ‎compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a ‎sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right ‎circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the ‎spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling ‎Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to ‎sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.‎

Kohan In Demand

The Mishna in Negaim (3:1) says that a kohan must pronounce the nega tamah or tahor.  The Gemorah in Yoma (42a) wants to bring a proof from the fact that a kohan needs to shect the parah adumah that shechita is considered an avodah.  The Gemorah says that shechita is not an avodah and parah adumah requires a kohan just like seeing a nega.  The kohan that sees the nega does not need to be kosher for the avodah, it can be a baal mum or even a katan (see Rambam Ch. 9 of Tumas Tzaaras) and therefore presumably he does not have to wear the priestly garments.   Similarly, one would assume the same thing applies to shecting of the parah adumah (Chazon Eish Parah 8:3.)  However, the Tosfot Yeshanim and Rosh in Yoma say that the kohan that shects the parah adumah must wear the priestly garments.  Why?  The Minchas Avrohom (Torah Kohanim pg. 98) suggests that they must hold that garments are not worn for the sake of doing an avodah but that it is a din in the actions of the parah that it requires priestly garments.  That would explain why the Rambam holds even if the kohan gadol does the avodat haparah he still wears the priestly garments of a regular kohan (see Laws of the Parah 1:12 and Mishne L'melech.)  Why does he not wear his regular priesly garments or at least the bigday lavan he wears on Yom Kippur?  It must be the Rambam understood this is a unique law of wearing priestly garments nothing to do with avodah and that is fulfilled with the bigday lavan. 

The Briskor Rav suggests that this need for a kohan extends to the taharah of the metzorah as well.  

The Silent Leader

Miriam doesn't get much mention in the Torah.  It is merely from a scriptural inference in Beshelach that we derive her prophesy of the berth of Moses.  Even the be'ar miriam, that in her merit the entire nation was supplied with water is only derived from the pessukim after her death.  This is in stark contrast from Moshe who is found in every parsha and even Aharon who is the Kohan Gadol and is found in many parshiout as well.  They are in the front, obviously leading the people but where is Miriam to be found?
We see from here that there are two types of leaders.  There are the leaders that are in the forefront clearly leading the people, setting forth policies and rules for the common folk. These people are openly recognized as the leaders.  There is a second type of leader as well.  That is the person taking care of all behind the scenes work.  They go unnoticed by the public but are by no means any less important than the leaders that are in the forefront.  She isn't in the public limelight but from behind she is pulling the strings.  That is the Miriam model.  Without Miriam indeed there is no Moshe; it was her prophesy that ensures that Moshe is born. 
(Based upon the observation by Rab Bakshi Doron, although he takes it as a lesson for the role of a woman, I think it can be a different model of a leader.)
The Gemorah in Moad Katan (28a) says א"ר אמי למה נסמכה פרשת מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה, לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת, אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת.  Everyone wonders why compare it to the parah adumah and not to a korban?  And why is this limud stressed specifically by Miriam?   Possibly it is to allude to this idea.  The parah adumah is the חקת התורה, the quintessential chok.  Just as the parah's reason  is hidden, so too there are צדיקים that go unrecognized.  There death is not displayed across all the websites and billboards, yet their death is also if not more so, מכפר.

Water

Hilchos Parah Adumah (15:1) הנוגע במי חטאת שלא לצורך הזאה בין אדם בין כלים טמא ואינו מטמא בגדים בשעת מגעו שנאמר והנוגע במי הנדה יטמא עד הערב הנה למדת שמי הנדה אב מאבות הטומאות של תורה וטומאת מגען בכל שהוא ואם היה בהן כדי הזאה מטמאין במגע ובמשא והנוגע בהן או שנושאן שלא לצורך מטמא בגדים בשעת מגעו או בשעת משאו עד שיפרוש ממטמאיו שנאמר ומזה מי הנדה יכבס בגדיו
The Rambam in the short synopsis of the mitzvot in the intro. to Mishne Torah #108 says להיות מי נדה מטמאין לאדם טהור, ומטהרין מטומאת מת בלבד. וכל אלו הדינין של טומאות אלו, רוב משפט כל טומאה וטומאה מהן מבואר בתורה שבכתב.  The Raavad takes issue with this Rambam and wonders why the Ramban doesn't list this as two mitzvot, one mitzvah that it causes tumah and another that it causes tahara.  Rav Eitamar Gurwicz cites from his father the explanation of the machlokes is that the Raavad holds the water of the parah adumah is considered a cheftzah of tumah, just there is a special halacha that if one touches the water for the purpose of causing taharah he doesn't become tamah.  Since it is acheftzah of tumah, it should be counted as a separate mitzvah like all of the other things that cause tumah are counted by the Rambam as a separate mitzvah.  The Rambam however holds that the water isn't a cheftzah of tumah, there is just a law that one who touches them for an improper purpose becomes tamah, just like one who touches the cow becomes tamah, its a specific law of the water, its not a cheftzah of tumah to be counted as a separate mitzvah.

Clothes Without A Body

Rashi in Chukas (21:1) says יושב הנגב – זה עמלק, שנאמר: עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב (במדבר י״ג:כ״ט), ושינה לשונו לדבר לשון כנען כדי שיהו ישראל מתפללין לתת כנענים בידם והם אינם כנענים, ראו ישראל לבשיהם כלבושי עמלקיים, ולשונם לשון כנען, אמרו נתפלל סתם אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי.  If Amalek was trying to mess up the prayers of Klal Yisroel why didn't they change their garments as well so that Klal Yisroel would pray against the wrong nation?
The Or HaMeir on the Megillah says the following teaching from the Baal Shem Tov.

                                                           What I believe he is trying to say is that the evil forces don't have any true self; they only exist as a cover up, as garments over the truth.  It is impossible for Amalek to change their garments for that is their entire existence.  Amalek without its clothes ceases to be Amalek.  Amalek was trying to disguise itself as כנען but not steal their identity.  In order to maintain their own identity, Amalek must remain in its own garb.

Appreciate What You Don't Have

Bamidbar 20:2 וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה מַ֖יִם לָעֵדָ֑ה וַיִּקָּ֣הֲל֔וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹֽן.  Rashi:ולא היה מים לעדה – מכאן שכל ארבעים שנה היה להם הבאר בזכות מרים.  Why are we only informed about this after Miriam's death?  Sadly, too often we are able to appreciate things or people only after they are no longer around.  When Miriam was alive there was water in her merit but no one took note or notice of it.  It is only after she was no longer alive that it was appreciated.

Rashi beginning of Vayetzeh:ויצא – לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא: וילך יעקב חרנה, למה הזכיר יציאתו? אלא מגיד שיציאת צדיק עושה רושם, שבזמן שהצדיק בעיר – היא הודה היא זיווה היא הדרה, יצא משם – פינה זיווה פינה הדרה. וכן: ותצא מן המקום (רות א׳:ז׳) האמור בנעמי ורות.  It is only after the tzaddik/es leaves the city that people see what they had when s/he was there.

Sin Or Salutation

All of the meforshim struggle to explain what the sin of מריבה מי  is.  After all the dust clears it’s still difficult to understand why it’s considered such a grave sin that denies Moshe entry into Eretz Yisroel.  In terms of the episode itself, we find a similar episode earlier in Beshalach (17:6,) yet there a couple of distinctions between them.  In our parsha, Moshe is told to speak to the rock as opposed to earlier he is told to hit the rock as well as earlier he hits a צור but in our parsha a סלע, why are there these differences and what is the difference between a צור  and סלע?

    

One of the classic Telshe chakirot is סימן או סיבה, when there are two events, we can ask is one the cause of the other or just the barometer to determine its presence.  In this case as well, we can ask is the sin of the מריבה מי the cause that Moshe doesn’t enter Eretz Yisroel or was is an indicator that Moshe couldn’t lead the people into Eretz Yisroel. 

According to the Sfas Emes and Rav Tzaddok the sin of Moshe Rabbenu isn’t so grave as to hold him back from entering the land, it demonstrated that he no longer was in touch with the times.  Rav Levi Yitzchok asks why is it that תשבי יתרץ קושיות וביעות, why is it Eliyahu that will answer the questions, why not Moshe Rabbenu?  He explains that the psak halacha must be according to the generation.  Moshe died thousands of years ago; he no longer is aware of what the psak should be for the generation.  Only Eiyahu Hanavei who is still around, comes at a bris, pesach night etc., is aware of the pulse and needs of the generation can give the psak (Kedushas Levi likuttim.)

As discussed earlier, Sefer Bamidbar is the switchover from the generation that left Egypt to the generation entering Eretz Yisroel.  It’s the switch from the experience of the supernatural to that of the natural.  Moshe Rabbenu was the leader for the times of the supernatural.  The name Moshe reflects this essence.  Water represents the desires of an individual (see Tanya end Ch. 1.)  Moshe Rabbenu was completely above all physical desires; he was completely removed from all worldly limitations.  He was the man fit to lead a supernatural existence.  On the other hand, the generation that was entering Eretz Yisroel was a people that had to live in the limits of mundane life.  They weren’t completely removed from human desires.  In order to lead the nation, Moshe would have to be able to recognize and adapt to the change in the people.  

The generation that left Egypt had no feelings of self, they had no personal existence, all they had came from Hashem.  They had no personal desires, traits and talents to cultivate.  In that time, it was a time to beat the צור, a rock that is completely hardened inside and out.  It was a time to kill out any feelings of self and just accept what came from Hashem.  However, fast-forwarding to our parsha, times had changed.  It was time to enter Eretz Yisroel, it was a new generation that hadn’t been scarred by years of slavery.  They had a sense of self, a personal existence to cultivate and develop.  The task of Moshe was no longer to beat them down, it was to draw out their powers and capabilities to be used in a positive manner.  The סלע is made of a סמך, למד, עין.  The middle letter’s spells out מים, the outside is hard but inside there is life.  Moshe’s job was to show that the rock has inside of it waters, ונתן מימיו, to be able to draw out the water from inside of it.  To foster the desires, talents and capabilities the next generation had and use it to serve Hashem. 

Moshe however, was afraid of the consequences that could happen if a person isn’t curbed and rung in and persisted with the old methodology of hitting the rock, of beating one’s physical self instead of handling it gently and with care, with soft words.  Moshe was thus unfit to be the leader anymore and Hashem told him a replacement would have to be put in place.

[Based upon Sfas Emes, Rav Tzaddok (Risasei Lalyah #56,) Kli Yakar (20:8) and Or HaTorah of Tzemach Tzedek and shiurim from Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.]

No Need To Understand

The Be’ar Yosef asks why didn’t Hashem give the reason of parah adumah?  He explains that the Torah is teaching us that we do the mitzvot because Hashem commanded us, not because we understand.  Similarly, we find in the Or HaChaim who asks why is it called chukas haTorah, it should be called chukas hatumah?  He explains that when one fulfills a mitzvah even though he doesn’t understand it, it shows that he is willing to fulfill the entire Torah.  See the Sichos Mussar that elaborates on the Or HaChaim and explains that a person must be a servant of Hashem and a servant does everything the master says even without understanding. 

The Alter from Nevarduk asks what was the great sin that Moshe did by hitting the rock?  Why was it fitting of such a harsh punishment not to enter Eretz Yisroel?  He explains based upon a midrash that Moshe didn’t hit the rock that Hashem told him to speak to, rather another rock.  Why did Moshe do this?  He explains that Moshe thought if he would just talk to the rock that Hashem told him to talk to, then Klal Yisroel would suspect he did it through witchcraft and he only had power over the rock they asked for.  Therefore, Moshe thought it would bring greater honor to Hashem’s name to bring out water from another rock, therefore out of great passion he hit the rock twice.  However, in reality there was a kiddush Hashem anyway for the midrash says that water poured out from all the rocks.  The Alter says that Moshe wasn’t punished for his action which was done with the best of intentions, rather he was punished for the intentions.  To violate the word of Hashem with intentions to do better shows a lack of complete acceptance of the word of Hashem (see further elucidation in Sichos Mussar parshas Tetzaveh on the haftorah of Zachor.) 

However, there is a time and place for calculations.  Verse (21:27) על כן יאמרו המושלים. The Gemorah Babba Bathra 78b says a derash it’s referring to those that rule over there yetzer harah and calculate the reward of a mitzvah versus the loss and gain of an averah.  The Gemorah says the canopy of those that don’t make this cheshbon will be burnt from those that do.  The Or Yahel says we see from the Gemorah that this cheshbon isn’t the difference between tzaddikim and reshaim, but even between different levels of tzaddikim.  

We see from this parsha good chesbonos and bad ones.  One must not make calculations to go against the word of God, but must calculate to make sure he is going on the path of Hashem.

Whole Torah

The Derashot HaRan says the problem of מי מריבה was because Moshe insulted the tzibbur by saying שמעו נא המורים (see Ramban.)  He adds that on the individual level this critique and description of Moshe was deserved.  However, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and on the level of the tzibbbur one cannot use such an expression about Klal Yisroel (derush 1.)  In Derush 9 he elaborates that this itself isn’t a reason for punishment but a sin against the klal stops a person’s prayers from being accepted; that’s why Moshe’s prayers for forgiveness were rejected.

Chazal have a derash on זֹ֚את הַתּוֹרָ֔ה אָדָ֖ם כִּֽי־יָמ֣וּת בְּאֹ֑הֶל that אמר ריש לקיש, מניין שאין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, שנאמר זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל (ברכות מ״ג ב׳).  Simply understood, Chazal are telling us the commitment one must have in order to understand Torah.  The Rambam adds to this (Talmud Torah 3:12) אמרו חכמים דרך רמז זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אין התורה מתקיימת אלא במי שממית עצמו באהלי החכמים.  I assume the source of the Rambam is the word in the possuk באהל.  It’s not just a means of personal commitment, it’s a measure of one’s commitment to the beis midrash, to stick to the chachamim, to be attached to the klal learning Torah (based upon Sichos Rav Nosson Tzvi.)  In light of the Ran we can say that when there is a klal learning Torah, the result is greater than the sum of all the individual’s efforts.  By living in such a אהל, one is able to receive greater return on his effort than what he put in. 

The derash of Chazal itself requires an explanation.  Why is this about learning Torah written in the middle of parshat parah adumah? 

Based upon what we explained in Bechukosai and here, we can understand that  the Torah wishes to underscore the fact that Torah is a chok.  Parah Adumah is the quintessential chok of the Torah and the Torah wishes to convey that one’s acquisition  of Torah is also above human logic.  Even though one may put in tremendous amounts of effort in order to acquire Torah, at the end of the day its not an outgrowth from the work put in, its a gift from God.

Tumah Of The Cow

The parah adumah causes tumah to those that are involved in the processes of its purifying process but not to people that merely touch it.  There are two ways to understand this law.  One way we can understand that the parah is a cheftzah of tumah but the Torah limits that tumah only to those that are involved in the processes of the cow.  Another possibility is that there is no inherent tumah on the cow itself, the tumah is a din on those that are working with the cow. 

The Gemorah has a principle it discusses in a few places, notably regarding the parah adumah of סופו ליטמא טומאה חמורה.  This means that something which will ultimately in the future assume a higher status of tumah doesn’t require hechsher in order for it to cause tumah to other foodstuff.  This rule applies even before it reaches the higher level of tumah, it will immediately have the power to affect foodstuff.  The example the Gemorah gives is a bird which is dead which will cause a higher level of tumah to a person that eats it when it’s in the person’s throat.  The Gemorah says because of this rule it doesn’t require hecsher.  The Rishonim debate if it requires something tamah to make it tamah or its tamah automatically.  The Rambam understands the Gemorah in Zevachim (ibid.) to differentiate in this point between the parah adumah and the bird.  The parah adumah only will eminate tumah if its touched by something which is tamah but in regard to the bird there is no such requirement.  In his words in Shar Avos Hatumah (3:2-3) אין נבלת העוף הטהור צריכה מחשבה לטמא טומאה זו החמורה אלא כיון שבלע ממנה כזית מכל מקום הרי זו מטמאה בבית הבליעה חישב עליה לאכילה הרי זו מטמאה טומאת אוכלין והרי היא כאוכל ראשון לטומאה אע"פ שלא נגע בה טומאה אחרת ואינה צריכה הכשר:

פרה אדומה ושעירין הנשרפים אינן כן אף על פי שהן מטמאין המתעסק בהן אם חישב עליהן לאכילה צריכין שתגע בהן טומאה ואח"כ יטמאו טומאת אוכלין.  

Why is there this distinction?  In light of the previous chakirah we understand the bird is itself something which will become tamah but the parah adumah itself isn’t tamah, only the people involved in its process become tamah and therefore it needs something tamah to touch it to conduct tumah (Kesef Mishne, Mishnas Rav Aharon Taharos #27.)

Briskors And Red Cows

The Rambam (Laws of Parah Adumah 1:9) says that if the cow was slaughtered with intent to be used for mundane purposes it shall be redeemed and doesn’t affect kaparah.  Why must it be redeemed, why is it different from any korban if slaughtered with intent for chullin that its kosher even if it doesn’t affect kaparah?  The Briskor Rav (Maaseh Korbanot 4:11) brings his father explained that we see from here that the parah adumah only assumes the status of a korban after it is slaughtered as a parah adumah, before that it is merely bedek habais.  [The Gemorah in Yoma 42a, Shavout 11b and another half dozen places says its bedek habais.]  The reason why the parah is invalidated as a korban isn’t because of a pasul of שלא לשמה, rather it never assumed the status of a korban and is redeemed as kodshai bedek habais. 

The Raavad Parah Adumah (1:1) says that one can’t designate a calf for the parah adumah because it is a pesul of מחוסר זמן for the cow must be at least three years old.  From here Rav Chayim (stencil) proves that there is the kedusha of a korban once the animal is designated as the parah adumah.  He brings another support to this from the Rambam Laws of Meilah (2:5) that says there is mielah in the parah once it is designated for the parah.  However, this Rab Chayim seems to contradict the previous one that says the parah isn’t considered a korban until it is slaughtered?

It is also noteworthy that the Toras Hakodesh (26:3) brings the Rash in Parah (4:4) explains that the mielah on a parah begins only after the slaughtering and he explains it based upon the first Rav Chayim that it only is considered a korban after the slaughtering and that is when the mielah will start because the sifri learns the law of mielah from that it’s called a chatas; hence it is dependent upon the shem korban.  (If the parah is bedek habais why does the sifri need a derasha that there is mielah on the parah, every bedek habyis has mielah?  See Tosfos Menachos 51b, Kesef Mishne ibid, see Sfas Emes there that will work with this Rosh,  ודו"ק.)  This Rosh is not like the Rambam that says the mielah starts from the time of the hekdesh.  So, it would seem that the Rambam holds that it is a korban already from the time that it is hukdash not like the Rav Chayim cited in Briskor Rav.  

However, Rav Chayim on the Rambam has a different interpretation of that Rambam that the mielah on the parah stems from the din of bedek habayis and the derasha of it being a chatas tells us that mielah no longer applies after it is burnt (עיי"ש.)  [However, the Rav Chayim (stencil) no longer has a proof from here that it is considered a korban from the time it is designated as a parah adumah according to what Rav Chayim on the Rambam writes.]

Eliezer

Here and here my father shlita discussed the midrash  וע״ד המדרש ושם האחד אליעזר א״ר יוסי ב״ר חנינא בשעה שעלה משה למרום מצאו להקב״ה שהיה עוסק בפרשת פרה אדומה והיה אומר הלכה משמו של רבי אליעזר עגלה ערופה בת שנתה ופרה אדומה בת שתי שנים אמר לפניו רבש״ע כל העליונים והתחתונים שלך ואתה אומר הלכה משמו של ב״ו אמר לו עתיד צדיק אחד לעמוד בעולמי ואליעזר שמו ועתיד לעסוק בפרה אדומה תחלה ואומר עגלה בת שנתה פרה בת שתי שנים אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם יהי רצון מלפניך שיהיה מחלצי, אמר לו חייך שהוא מחלציך שנאמר ושם האחד אליעזר ושם אותו המיוחד אליעזר (citation from Rabbenu Bechai (18:4) courtesy of mg.alhatorah.org.)

The midrash is ambiguous as to what Moshe Rabbenu saw in this teaching of Rebbe Eliezer that he was inspired to name his son after him? This midrash is explained by the Bnei Yissocher maamarai tishrai #12 and in his Igra D'perka #327.  His elucidation is beyond the scope of this blog, so here is the link to the Igra D'perka. For those that are not kabbalisticly inclined (yet😄,) here is a very nice peshat of Rav Shwab (I don't have anything against Rav Shwab, contrary to the opinion of some.)

An interesting lesson in parenting derived from the deafening silence of the son's of Moshe here.

Of course, the author likes this midrash because it talks about his blog's pseudonym.