(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: רב הונא בשם רב מתני: בזכות ג' דברים נברא העולם – בזכות חלה, ומעשרות וביכורים. שנאמר "בְּרֵאשִׁית וגו'" ואין 'ראשית' אלא חלה, דכת'  "רֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵכֶם", ואין 'ראשית' אלא מעשר, דכת'  "ראשית דגנך", ואין 'ראשית' אלא בכורים דכת'  "ראשית בכורי אדמתך". 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.)