Parshat Chukas
Hashem tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to the rock, and it will give forth water. Moshe hits the rock. Hashem punishes them by not allowing them to enter Eretz Yisrael.
What did Aharon do wrong? He stood there while Moshe hit the rock. He did not do anything. So why did he get punished at all, or at least why the same as Moshe?
We see from here that being an accomplice to a crime is just as bad as having committed the actual crime.
Aharon was the guy in the getaway car. If someone goes in to rob a bank, and his partner sits outside waiting for him in the getaway car, they are both equally responsible for robbing the bank.
So Aharon was like that guy in the getaway car. He was Moshe's accomplice. He stood by Moshe's side while Moshe hit the rock. So sure he did not actually hit the rock himself, but he is equally as guilty.
We have to be very careful with whom and with what we associate ourselves. Just being associated with bad, makes us equally as guilty, even if we did nto actually do anythign wrong.
Showing posts with label chukas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chukas. Show all posts
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Chukas: resting on your laurels
Parshat Chukas
The Parsha concludes with how the Jews smote Og and took over the land of Bashan. Then it concludes with one last passuk, that is even the first of a new perek, and says they traveled to Arvos Moav.
Why does it not conclude the parsha with the battle of Og and start the next parsha with the travel to Arvos Moav? Anyway that is really relevant to the parsha of Balak and Bila'am and not to us in this parsha, so why did chazal make the portion break after that last passuk and not before?
I do not ask why the perek is begun with this passuk rather than the one after it, because the chapeters were delineated not by Jewish sources, so that has less meaning. But the portion itself (the paragraph markers, so to speak) is marked after this passuk, and the parsha concludes with this last passuk. Why?
I would suggest that they could have stopped after what was definitely a big battle with Og. they could have stayed a while and rested, enjoyed a bit of respite, before they moved on.
But no - it says the nest passuk right away to tell us that they right away moved on. They went to Arvos Moav right away and continued on the journey to Eretz Yisrael.
They refused to sit on their success. One must always continue progressing.
The Parsha concludes with how the Jews smote Og and took over the land of Bashan. Then it concludes with one last passuk, that is even the first of a new perek, and says they traveled to Arvos Moav.
Why does it not conclude the parsha with the battle of Og and start the next parsha with the travel to Arvos Moav? Anyway that is really relevant to the parsha of Balak and Bila'am and not to us in this parsha, so why did chazal make the portion break after that last passuk and not before?
I do not ask why the perek is begun with this passuk rather than the one after it, because the chapeters were delineated not by Jewish sources, so that has less meaning. But the portion itself (the paragraph markers, so to speak) is marked after this passuk, and the parsha concludes with this last passuk. Why?
I would suggest that they could have stopped after what was definitely a big battle with Og. they could have stayed a while and rested, enjoyed a bit of respite, before they moved on.
But no - it says the nest passuk right away to tell us that they right away moved on. They went to Arvos Moav right away and continued on the journey to Eretz Yisrael.
They refused to sit on their success. One must always continue progressing.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Chukas: fitting emuna
Parshat Chukas
After the incident in which Moshe hit the rock to draw water instead of speaking to the rock, Hashem gives Moshe a punishment. In 20:12, Hashem tells Moshe, "Therefore you will not bring the nation [into the land of Israel]."
How does the punishment fit the crime? Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. Ok, so he did not maximize the possible Kiddush Hashem. He did not teach them the highest level of emuna he could have. What does that have to do with bringing Bnei Yisrael into the Land of Israel?
Living in Eretz Yisrael is the ultimate level of emuna one can have. Especially after coming from a life of slavery, and the life of the people who grew up in the desert. To live in Eretz Yisrael requires great emuna that Hashem takes care of us and our needs.
If Moshe could not teach Bnei Yisrael that level of emuna, then he is not the right person to prepare them and bring them into Eretz Yisrael. They need someone who can raise them to the appropriate level of emuna.
After the incident in which Moshe hit the rock to draw water instead of speaking to the rock, Hashem gives Moshe a punishment. In 20:12, Hashem tells Moshe, "Therefore you will not bring the nation [into the land of Israel]."
How does the punishment fit the crime? Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. Ok, so he did not maximize the possible Kiddush Hashem. He did not teach them the highest level of emuna he could have. What does that have to do with bringing Bnei Yisrael into the Land of Israel?
Living in Eretz Yisrael is the ultimate level of emuna one can have. Especially after coming from a life of slavery, and the life of the people who grew up in the desert. To live in Eretz Yisrael requires great emuna that Hashem takes care of us and our needs.
If Moshe could not teach Bnei Yisrael that level of emuna, then he is not the right person to prepare them and bring them into Eretz Yisrael. They need someone who can raise them to the appropriate level of emuna.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Chukas: a rep
Parshat Chukas
In 20:13 it tells us that, "These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel fought with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them."
But at the beginning of this incident in 20:2 it said they fought with Moshe. Did they fight with Moshe or with Hashem?
I would say, that is one and the same. Technically, they fought with Moshe, as the passuk first says. However, Moshe was a representative of Hashem to the people of Israel.
Picking a fight with Moshe is like picking a fight with Hashem.
In 20:13 it tells us that, "These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel fought with the LORD, and He was sanctified in them."
But at the beginning of this incident in 20:2 it said they fought with Moshe. Did they fight with Moshe or with Hashem?
I would say, that is one and the same. Technically, they fought with Moshe, as the passuk first says. However, Moshe was a representative of Hashem to the people of Israel.
Picking a fight with Moshe is like picking a fight with Hashem.
Chukas: why didn't He kill them?
Parshat Chukas
In 20:2-8, we find Miriam has just died. With her went the "Well of Miriam" which had been the source of water for the Israelites.
the people find themselves in the desert with no water. They come to Moshe and complain that they have no water and how could he bring them in the desert to die... and Hashem tells Moshe to speak to the rock to draw out water for the nation.
What changed? In the previous few parshiyos, we encountered a number of incidents in which the people complained and Hashem punished them. He sent them plague to kill them, or too much meat, etc.. Why this time does Hashem provide them with water in this fashion instead of punishing them for the complaints like He did previous times?
Here they were complaining about a lack of water. In previous incidents they complained about a lack of luxuries , or about questioning leadership, etc.
The complaint here about lack of water is legitimate. People need water to live. It is a basic necessity. For this type of complaint there is no need to punish them.
Yes, it also might indicate a weak level of emuna - faith in Hashem's ability or capability to provide for them. They should have, after all they have seen and been through, been confident that Hashem would find them a new source for water.
That, however, is not a reason to punish them, rather a reason to educate them. Hashem has to now provide for them a lesson in emuna. That is why His response is not to just find them a pool of water in the desert. Rather, He makes it into a whole lesson. he brings them to a rock and instructs Moshe to draw water from the rock. That was going to be a lesson in emuna, at the same time as providing the water they needed.
In 20:2-8, we find Miriam has just died. With her went the "Well of Miriam" which had been the source of water for the Israelites.
the people find themselves in the desert with no water. They come to Moshe and complain that they have no water and how could he bring them in the desert to die... and Hashem tells Moshe to speak to the rock to draw out water for the nation.
What changed? In the previous few parshiyos, we encountered a number of incidents in which the people complained and Hashem punished them. He sent them plague to kill them, or too much meat, etc.. Why this time does Hashem provide them with water in this fashion instead of punishing them for the complaints like He did previous times?
Here they were complaining about a lack of water. In previous incidents they complained about a lack of luxuries , or about questioning leadership, etc.
The complaint here about lack of water is legitimate. People need water to live. It is a basic necessity. For this type of complaint there is no need to punish them.
Yes, it also might indicate a weak level of emuna - faith in Hashem's ability or capability to provide for them. They should have, after all they have seen and been through, been confident that Hashem would find them a new source for water.
That, however, is not a reason to punish them, rather a reason to educate them. Hashem has to now provide for them a lesson in emuna. That is why His response is not to just find them a pool of water in the desert. Rather, He makes it into a whole lesson. he brings them to a rock and instructs Moshe to draw water from the rock. That was going to be a lesson in emuna, at the same time as providing the water they needed.
Chukas: relaxed perfection
Parshat Chukas
In the beginning of the parsha, the Torah teaches us the concept of Para Aduma (red heiffer) and its details. In 19:2 the passuk tells us to take a "complete (faultless) red heifer" (פרה אדומה תמימה).
Rashi defines "temima" - faultless, or complete, as meaning it must be complete in its redness, being that if it would be found to have two black hairs, it would invalidate it from service as a red heifer.
One could extrapolate from that that one black hair would be acceptable. Only a minimum of two black hairs is a problem.
What's the difference one hair or two hairs? They are both so insignificant relative to the rest of the animal. If the minimum is going to be so small, why not make it even one hair, and if one hair is not a problem, why is two hairs a problem - maybe we should say only ten hairs?
There is no such thing as "perfect" in this world. The most perfect item will always have some sort of minor blemish. If you look hard enough you will find it. There is nothing perfect.
The Torah allows for a slight blemish in the red heifer, because if it did not, it would be impossible to ever have a red heifer. With one black hair we still call it "complete" and "perfect". That is the physical reality.
But once that blemish repeats itself, it can no longer be called "complete" or "perfect" even by our relaxed standards. One non-red hair will be ok, but more than that, means it is not just a slight aberration of perfection, but it is not perfect.
The same is true in our lives. Nobody is perfect. Do something once, and it can be overlooked as a slight aberration. Do it twice and it is indicative of a problem and can no longer be ignored.
In the beginning of the parsha, the Torah teaches us the concept of Para Aduma (red heiffer) and its details. In 19:2 the passuk tells us to take a "complete (faultless) red heifer" (פרה אדומה תמימה).
Rashi defines "temima" - faultless, or complete, as meaning it must be complete in its redness, being that if it would be found to have two black hairs, it would invalidate it from service as a red heifer.
One could extrapolate from that that one black hair would be acceptable. Only a minimum of two black hairs is a problem.
What's the difference one hair or two hairs? They are both so insignificant relative to the rest of the animal. If the minimum is going to be so small, why not make it even one hair, and if one hair is not a problem, why is two hairs a problem - maybe we should say only ten hairs?
There is no such thing as "perfect" in this world. The most perfect item will always have some sort of minor blemish. If you look hard enough you will find it. There is nothing perfect.
The Torah allows for a slight blemish in the red heifer, because if it did not, it would be impossible to ever have a red heifer. With one black hair we still call it "complete" and "perfect". That is the physical reality.
But once that blemish repeats itself, it can no longer be called "complete" or "perfect" even by our relaxed standards. One non-red hair will be ok, but more than that, means it is not just a slight aberration of perfection, but it is not perfect.
The same is true in our lives. Nobody is perfect. Do something once, and it can be overlooked as a slight aberration. Do it twice and it is indicative of a problem and can no longer be ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
