"Shlach"

Sometimes the week's portion is Shlach in Israel and outside Israel it is Beha'aloscha

Aftermath of the rebellious incidents:

The "meraglim" (spies) ;

the decree of the 40 years of wandering;

And re "tzitzit".

Explanation of the photos above: making the connection between "tzitzit" and "tzitz"

Left: wearing the 'string fringes' as per the Biblical command of 'tzitzit' at the end of this week's portion;

Right: Only Ahron's rod sprouted, "vayatzetz tzitz".

Note the relevant Hebrew terms: "Mateh" = "staff/rod", "matot" = "staffs"; also means 'tribe' (as in English a staff is a group of people and also a rod. After Korach's rebellion: Each tribe was represented by their leader's rod/staff - the heads of the tribes placed their staff in the mishkan as a test commanded by Moses, and only Ahron's sprouted.

Topics

A. The 40 years in desert as medicine rather than punishment, and the role of the younger generation;

B. The Biblical Holiday associated with the end-result of the 40 years of medicine. (An Appendix to topic A)

C. Understanding the commandment of Tsitsit (fringes), via why it is juxtaposed to the story of the spies.

D. What the spies misunderstood, leading them to act as they did;

See below for text version of these three videos (plus an additonal topic)

A. God's gift to the Jewish People: A 40 year spiritual desert-retreat/healing quarantine.

Before or after watching this video, you can see the text in the section below,

Desert retreat gift.m4v

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HgNpTDNC9oKYYNeIJhHwyskWGA63CHQ4/view?usp=sharing

B. Parallels between the words in the stories of two topics in this parsha: the meraglim(spies) & tzitzit.

(An Appendix to video #1)

Chumash, shlach. Parallels Tzitzit and spies.m4v

C. Sukkot & 'Shmini Atzeret' (the holiday of the 8th [day])

We relive/re-experience the desert-era closeness annually at the holiday of "Shmini Atzeret".

Why no Biblical reason for this holiday? Speculation: because the reason had not yet happened (at the time of the giving of the Torah)!

Chumash, Holidays. Succos Shmini Atzeret, Anan.m4v

On OC "Chumash, shlach. Parallels Tzitzit and spies.m4v"

Chumash, shlach. Parallels Tzitzit and spies.m4v

A: The 40 years in the desert: God's gift to the Jewish People: a 40-year spiritual desert-retreat/healing quarantine - a cure rather than punishment:

Moses refused God's offer of making him the Patriarch of a winnowed nation, prayed for the forgiveness of the People, and God indeed forgave them, but said that they would not be able to enter the Land (as later happened with Moses himself). It would not necessarily be correct to say the wandering was a punishment, since they had been forgiven - indeed since they were not going to merit entering the Land they would die as soon as the time came to enter, so in order that they would be spared immediate death they were maintained alive, necessarily in the dessert rather than going back to Egpyt and being slaves again after a failed Exodus.

Indeed the great Rabbinical commentators write that the reason that only the younger generation was enabled to enter the Land was that they were not psychologically suitable for the challenges of conquering the Land, only their children who grew up not in slavery but rathe rin the freedom of wilderness were apprropriately developed. Clearly the imnplicaiton of had a slac ementality and werenot a punishmentThe despairing report of the spies ('Meraglim') and the reaction of the Jewish People was a symptom of their estrangement, and God responded with divine closeness to heal them - the 40 years in the desert with the anan (cloud of glory) hovering close was a cure, the 40 years was exactly the medicine that was needed!

The generation of those exiting Egypt died out prior to entering the Land, however they died healed, rather than dying immediately after their failure, and this was pdue to

Ironically, this 'cure' for wanting to run from the desert back to Egypt rather than entering Israel worked so well that it was counterproductive - by the end of the 40 years the younger generation of the Jewish people were so attached to the closeness via the anan which they experienced growing up in the desert that they didnt want to leave the desert at all even to go into the Land of Israel!

[Note: we'll see more on this topic below.]

.......

B: Speculation: The Biblical Holiday of "Shmini Atzeret" is associated with the end-result of the 40 years of medicine, the great energy of closeness experienced by the Jewish people to God at the conclusion of the desert-sojourn, where this closeness returns annually at the holiday .

However since the referred to event happened at the end of the 40 year sojourn, this holiday is not explained in the Torah, in the commandment about sukkot etc which was given towards the beginning of these 40 years.

Note: When it was time to enter 40 yrs later, they were so close to the anan they didn't want to leave it, like a drug addiciton. So God gave the week-long holiday of succot as a compensation, and so that when they entered the land they would have protection with the closeness and not be afraid]. "

In other words, at first they didn't want to go into the Land, for the wrong reason, and then the cure for that made it happen again, not wanting to go in, but for a good reason.

And as a result of the Jewish People's continued attachment in the desert not wanting to leave for fear of losing the closenes sof the anan, when sukkot is over God attaches an extra day, a special holiday on its own, "the holiday of the eight day".

May we all merit to re-attach to this energy annually during the holiday of shmini atzeret.

.....

C: Tzitzit

Parallels between (the wording of) the meraglim event & the tzitzis commandment:

We'll see indications that the way God told Moses to juxtapose these two sections of the Torah reflects hints of connections between them.

The point we'll make is that this juxtaposition points to the interpretation that the mitzva of tzitzit was a healing for the spiritual defect that manifested in the event of the spies.

If it is indeed true that the Torah's juxtaposition of tzitzis and the meraglim, and the parallel wording, is meant to indicate that tztzis was meant as a fixing (tikkun) for the meraglim issue, this can be a hint that so too the 40 years in the desert (or an additional 39 years) was a cure as well, a gift to the jewish People.

These 40 years created the closeness with the shchinah/anan that was needed, to cure the alienation that was manifest in the meraglim event, and being enveloped by the tzitzis is like being enveloped in the anan.

Just like the Jewish People were not sufficiently spiritually developed to hear more than the opening word 'anochi' at the beginning of "the ten commandements" , their souls left their body when they heard that word directly from God, so too they couldn't yet be at the level to go in to the Land. Since the people were obviously not ready to go in, Hashem gave them both: 40 years of anan closeness as preparation, the mitzvah of tzitzis as bodily-anan.

The parallels we mentioned are as follows:

the meraglim issue involved trusting God's true emissaires and not the others. In the next parsha re Ahron and Korach, (which immediately follows after the tzitzit commandment) we have the words 'mateh' & 'tzitz', which is sign of God choosing or indicating the right way etc, and so since it follows immediately it is part of the same story in some sense, and so we can consider tzitit as a protection, a means of preventing the same thing happening again; the tzitit command is sandwhiched between these two rebellion-stories, and so is meant to warn us the reader that w eneed spiritual strengthening to avoid such calamities, and then God shows what the meaning of the tzitzit via 'vayatzetz tzitz', sprouting of a growing fringe, so we can see that "tzitzit" is connected to this issue of who is truly representing the the divine will.

the spying mission was described by the word 'latoor' (similar to "to tour", to wander") ---> the mitzva of tzitzit is so that 'lo tatooroo' : "you will not/do not stray after your heart"
the key egregious statement of the spies was re the giants etc, in conneciton which 3 times they say "and we saw" ---> the parallel in the wording re tzitit is "acharei eineichem....ur'isem osom" , "you will see the fringes (tzitzit) and you won;t stray after your eyes"; and then the famous 'grasshoppers' aspect, which was about the heart interpreting what the eyes saw, and this is paralleld by "lo tasuru acharei ... levavchem" you won;t stray after what your eyes see;
The word "znut" (unfaithfulness, harlotry or promiscuity) is used in both the meraglim story and re tzitsis, and of course re Rochov in the haftorah. Re the spies: "you will carry znut-chem" (וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם): re tzitzit: "lo tasuru acharei eneichem...asher at em zonim achareyhem" [ie Tzitsis talks of 'not being mezaneh after what you see', so it is same terminology. ][At end of parsha says Matos for tribes and uses words "ve'ra'inu et ha ankakim, vanihyeh be'eneyhem..." etc
Yehoshua and colev tore their clothes - tzitzis involves clothing (a 'beged');
Perhaps stretching the analogy, perhaps not, we relate the visual configuration: The meraglim went to the 4 sides of the Land, which is an elonanted rectangle, but left out har habayit, so it was rectangle with a hole in the middle - like a 'talit katan' which has "four corners" and an area in middle which it surrounds (the head/torso! ufaratzta yama vakedma vetzfona venegba, and the spies went to all parts of the Land of israel as they describe later - seemingly except the center, where Yerushalayim is. In both cases what is left out is actually an essential aspect - in middle of the tzitzit is the head, and on all sides is the 4-cornered garment, like the land of Israel centered about the bet hamikdash (God tells us "veshachanti betocham", that God will rest within us when we are in the Temple, and the wearer of the tzitzit is himself "betoch" 'within' the garment having the tzitzit.)

Other parallel aspects:

It was the men who complained "our children and wives will be booty", and it was they who needed a cure, so tzitzis was given to the men.
It envelops men, a body hug, to heal.

All these deliberate parallels can be taken as implying that the tzitzis was given due to the meraglim event; and the juxtaposition is meant to tell us something - presumably that just as with the tzitzit so too the 40 years in the deser, both were intended as a cure.

The haftorah (prophetic reading of the week) is about the other meraglim story, with Rochov haZonah.

Yehoshua is closelyinvolved in both stories, he is one of the meraglim and he tries to save the day with Moshe Rabbbenu (Moses) and then he is the one who sends the m’raglim 40 years later, who find Rochov (and according to Tradition later marries her).

Rochov hung out a colored thread : אֶת-תִּקְוַת חוּט הַשָּׁנִי הַזֶּה תִּקְשְׁרִי, בַּחַלּוֹן

Tzitzis (see the parsha) has a colored thread: וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת

Perhaps stretching the analogy, perhaps not, we relate the visual configuration: These later spies go to Yericho, first spies in the land since the meraglim, they save rochov, via chut hashani, like strings of tzitzis, and like tcheles, and it was hung from the window they escaped through, so it a protection-window like tzitzis, and a wall with a window is like a talis koton with a hole! יח הִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ בָאִים, בָּאָרֶץ; אֶת-תִּקְוַת חוּט הַשָּׁנִי הַזֶּה תִּקְשְׁרִי, בַּחַלּוֹן אֲשֶׁר הוֹרַדְתֵּנוּ בוֹ, [I imagine the spies climbing up and when able to stick their head into the window, with the colored thread hanging along, feeling protected, and imagine the safe-space as being draped about their heads like a talit katan with tzitzit, and the colored thread. [This could make a nice graphic (AI can do it)

D. What the spies misunderstood, leading them to act as they did

The phrase 'Shlach lecha' conjures up the phrase "Lech Lecha". Let's attempt to make a connection between these two events: Abraham arrived in the land but his grandson left, and the return was only now with the spies. Avraham arrived and the land was full of others, as was the case for the spies, and he wasn't even able to stay, there was famine, he ended up in Egypt almost immediately, and then Abraham's grandson Jacob had to leave for Egypt also because of famine but it ended up being for hundreds of years, so at first the stay in the land by Abraham was a sojourn, not permanent; so we can speculate that the sending of the spies was meant to be "a closing of the circle". Both relate to an advance scout to Eretz Yisrael (of Abraham, and the spies), and both were a type of test, but Abraham passed the test by not complaining about the difficulties. His descendants knew his story and travails (eg midrash tells of scrolls brought to Egypt with the stories of the ancestors), and could perhaps have undertaken to persist in the divinely-commanded culmination of Abraham;s journey to the Land, despite any difficulties and discouragements, but though there wer eindividuals who lived up to Abraham's example, as a whole the people did not quite.

Let's imagine that the spies were honest in their report - if so, what was wrong? The flaw in what they did was that:

1. they reported to the people not to the headquarters which had sent them;

2. moreso - they gave an opinion of what to do, not just giving information/analysis.

This is treason.

3. Also, they misunderstood the reason for sending them - it wasn't so that God could know whether it would be possible to bring the Jews to the Land! That was a done deal! It was just that a certain effort was required, and events had to unfold with the appearance of natural events as God often operates in this world, and so they needed to know what would be awaiting them in order to create a strategy, but the outcome was promised of course.

They didn’t correctly understand that their mandate was not to report on the land ‘objectively’ according to their own judgement, they were not given permission to help determine whether or not to go in, but rather, given the assumption that God would lead them in and help them be successful, they had to make the effort and see where the soft spots were , they would need to do the work that was needed according to rational natural considerations, and then God would help by making it all work out.

Message: we too have to understand our mission, and not think that all is meant to happen supernaturally, instead we need to make the effort and we use natural guides as much as possible to do what needs to be done, and then we can rely on God to make it work in the way God wants it to work (which might not be the way we expect).

END OF EDITED MATERIAL

לב וּפִגְרֵיכֶם, אַתֶּם--יִפְּלוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה. לגוּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, בַּמִּדְבָּר

וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

Sefer yehoshua, ch 2: וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית-אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב

…

Also: it was a problem of 'seeing' [וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם]: וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

And a beged was involved: וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וְכָלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, מִן-הַתָּרִים, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ--קָרְעוּ, בִּגְדֵיהֶם. ז

…

Truth again: “Emet”: Rochov says:

כִּי-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּכֶם, חָסֶד; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם גַּם-אַתֶּם עִם-בֵּית אָבִי, חֶסֶד, וּנְתַתֶּם לִי, אוֹת אֱמֶת.

and the meraglim of yehoshua say to Rochov: , וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּךְ, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

Chut shel chesed = tzitzis? Tcheles.

..

...

An upbeat message regarding the aftermath of the incident of the spies:

Three videos based on this week's Torah portion:

A. God's gift to the Jewish People: A 40 year spiritual desert-retreat/healing quarantine after the incident of the spies ('Meraglim') : seeing the 40 years in desert as a cure rather than punishment.

Plus: the role of the younger generation; https://drive.google.com/.../1HgNpTDNC9oKYYNeIJhH.../view

B. 'Ritual commandments' as a means of fixing what was broken: Understanding the commandment of ‘Tsi-tsit’ (fringes) via why it is juxtaposed to the story of the spies, and via the parallels in their wording and themes. (An Appendix to video #1). https://drive.google.com/.../1dlZy6YDPRfuprySwnOp.../view..

https://drive.google.com/.../1pR1W7FlmEsr2-JtcZQ.../view

Written May 2020 under the influence of the covid-19 situation

At the end of the 40 years healing in the spiritual desert quarantine, the older generation died off. In this way, they died with lots of closeness to God, and this made up for their transgression of disbelief and distrust. (Similalrly, God caused the waters to roll back onto the Egyptians in the sea (yam suf) only after they recognized hashem's Hand, and were starting to run back.)
Maybe there was a trade-off: the older generation was supposed to die as a result of the spies and their reaction, but the younger generation said they were willing to sacrifice their entire adult life, 40 years living in the desert, in order that the elders not die, and instead their death sentence was commuted to a ban on their entering the land (like a form of koress/karet). [Note: Elsewhere God said "poked avon avos al banim" "visits the transgression of the the parents on the children": in the light of this, perhaps the children suffered 40 years in the desert as a result of their parents' transgression. However, it can also have been the opposite: in prayer we use the phrase, regarding God's attributes, "ve-nakeh" "and absolves" in the opposite sense than meant by the passage (where it says "and absolve will NOT absolve"), so perhaps we can also reverse the other relevant statement in those passages: ie if children can be made to suffer as a result fo their parents' misdeeds maybe one can have the reverse as well - the children can take upon them selves some aspect of the tikkun in order to spare their parents some aspect of the 'punishment' (ie the reverse of the meaning in the pasuk) - and in the case of the desert, the younger ones accepted this 40-year life-in-the-desert and thus spared the lives of their elders.]
This "kibud av" [respecting parents](of the under 21's) led to the merit of "l'ma'an ya'arichun yamecha AL HA'ADAMA" the Biblical reward given for observing the commandment "honor thy parents", which is long life, and specifically as stated there: "on the Land which God promised you", which they themselves needed to conquer as soon as leaving the desert, so this merit of savnig their parents form death ended up saving them during the battles for the Land in the time of Joshua.
In our generation, at the height of the initial covid-19 wave, many younger people - knowingly or not - sacrificed freedom and income in order to keep alive the oldest and most health-compromised. (May the merit of this 'kovid' (respect/honor) keep us all alive and well in this time of plague. )

The mistake of the meraglim was that they gave their opinion about whether the Bney Yisrael should go in, that wasn't their mandate/mission, only to see it and describe it.

Note: Yosef added his advice to the requested interpretaiton, and it was fraught, but his was leshem shamayim and Pharoah was a great man, not little with jealousies.

Also: Calev jumped in with an exhortaiton to go in, that 'we can', but maybe this opened the way fo the others to jump in with negativity, because until that point their report was accurate, just that it was probably told with a tone of foreboding, as we can deduce form the later words of the meraglim. So there was reason for calev to say it, he saw that the people were frightened, but it demonstrates that even loshon tov is fraught, as the ch chayim taught.

Interesting that the anan was shochen on the mishkan, and veshachanti betocham, and hashem says we were brought out of Egypt 'leshochni betochechem', and here re the land, EY: לְשַׁכֵּן אֶתְכֶם בָּהּ

And Bamdibar 35 (Mas’ei): לג וְלֹא-תַחֲנִיפוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּהּ, כִּי הַדָּם, הוּא יַחֲנִיף אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא-יְכֻפַּר, לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שֻׁפַּךְ-בָּהּ, כִּי-אִם, בְּדַם שֹׁפְכוֹ. לד וְלֹא תְטַמֵּא אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹשְׁבִים בָּהּ--אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי, שֹׁכֵן בְּתוֹכָהּ: כִּי, אֲנִי יְהוָה--שֹׁכֵן, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. {פ}.....

Is this a source/reason for Avraham being tested 10 times (to protect his descendants when they were deserving of death due to their 10 'tests' of God) etc? וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי, זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים

..

וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. כב כִּי כָל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, הָרֹאִים אֶת-כְּבֹדִי ... אִם-יִרְאוּ, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ,... וְכָל-מְנַאֲצַי, לֹאיִרְאוּהָ. כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, ... וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו,.

..

Tzadik/Chasid: when ask someone for chesed, it generates a new interaction, above tzedek, their midos = nature, character. H's midos included 'lo yinakeh....al banim...reebayim'. But then MR asks for chesed,"סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ;" , and H indeed doesn;t punish the banim!

Instead, they had to stay in the midbar (as shepherds) as long as their parents are alive, so it is a blessing that the parents aren't killed, they are left alive, just that they are in the midbar (like Adam/Chava, not kkilled, just exiled), and their children are not punished, just that they have to suffer the situaiotn which enables their parents to remain alove! (וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם,) so this is a chesed interpretaiton of 'poked avon avos al banim'.

MR did "Vayemaher...vayikod..." to stop the negative extra part, and now H shows him that indeed in the right circumstances, asking for chesed, allows indeed the negative extra part to be overcome.

And the first venakeh becomes positive (rather than being part of the rest, the negative, venakeh lo yinakeh), so it is like "im yihyu chata-echem kashoni, kashelg yalbinu"

And because H did this, chazal were able to be 'mtaken' that in slichos, when we are in a teshuva-mindset and are asking for rachamim, chesed, we can say only the positive part (stopping at venakeh).

(Lesson: if we act with chesed to others, meaning we go beyond our 'midos', H will act that way to us, beyon H's midos)

...

Karmic action: yom lashohono, yom lashono. This stresses that it is all result of their action, not punishment, it is with a cheshbon, not anger etc.

And the same re: אִם-לֹא, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם בְּאָזְנָי: כֵּן, אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם. כט בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִפְּלוּ פִגְרֵיכֶם

And: וְטַפְּכֶם--אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם, לָבַז יִהְיֶה: וְהֵבֵיאתִי אֹתָם--וְיָדְעוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר מְאַסְתֶּם בָּהּ. ie: what you said has power, it will become true, you will all die here. And what you said about your children will be the reverse, they will live. So it is all with a cheshbon, a karmic effect, not punishment.

The above was excerpted from file "Chumash English..

יט סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד-הֵנָּה. כ וַיֹּאמֶר ה, סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ. כא וְאוּלָם, חַי-אָנִי: וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. כב כִּי כָל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, הָרֹאִים אֶת-כְּבֹדִי וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂיתִי בְמִצְרַיִם, וּבַמִּדְבָּר; וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי, זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים, וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ, בְּקוֹלִי. כג אִם-יִרְאוּ, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, לַאֲבֹתָם; וְכָל-מְנַאֲצַי, לֹא יִרְאוּהָ. כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ, וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-בָּא שָׁמָּה, וְזַרְעוֹ, יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה. כה וְהָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּעֵמֶק; מָחָר, פְּנוּ וּסְעוּ לָכֶם הַמִּדְבָּר--דֶּרֶךְ יַם-סוּף. {פ}

כו וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. כז עַד-מָתַי, לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים, עָלָי; אֶת-תְּלֻנּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים עָלַי--שָׁמָעְתִּי. כח אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם, חַי-אָנִי נְאֻם-יְהוָה, אִם-לֹא, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם בְּאָזְנָי: כֵּן, אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם. כט בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִפְּלוּ פִגְרֵיכֶם וְכָל-פְּקֻדֵיכֶם, לְכָל-מִסְפַּרְכֶם, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמָעְלָה: אֲשֶׁר הֲלִינֹתֶם, עָלָי. ל אִם-אַתֶּם, תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתִי אֶת-יָדִי, לְשַׁכֵּן אֶתְכֶם בָּהּ--כִּי אִם-כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן. לא וְטַפְּכֶם--אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם, לָבַז יִהְיֶה: וְהֵבֵיאתִי אֹתָם--וְיָדְעוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר מְאַסְתֶּם בָּהּ. לב וּפִגְרֵיכֶם, אַתֶּם--יִפְּלוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה. לג וּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה,וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, בַּמִּדְבָּר. לד בְּמִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר-תַּרְתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם--יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנֹתֵיכֶם, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וִידַעְתֶּם, אֶת-תְּנוּאָתִי.

...................................................................................................…

Was the Meraglim’s report true, accurate? M"R davens for forgiveness, using the 13 midos, but skips "ve'emet" of v'rav chesed v'emet. And 'vechata'ah', and le'alafim? (He does however say 'venakeh lo yenakeh.. …ribay'im')

, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן, וָפָשַׁע; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים. יט סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד-הֵנָּה .

…..

I can segue into my stuff re: truth not being a value; answering truthfully can mean answering the hidden question, in the same form as the question; true answer can be a hug or an experience etc.

Meraglim didn’t correctly understand that they were not to report on the land on a blank slate of whether or not to go in, but rather, given the assumption that God would lead them in and help them be successful, they had to do hishtadlus and see where the soft spots were etc.

……

Maybe because both meraglim reports were true, so truth is problematic here?

Truth is not a Jewish value; a true answer which leads murderers to an innocent victim is a crime. [Also, if your wife asks if she looks ugly, answering truthfully doesn’t necessarily mean the literal truth but rather can also mean answering the hidden question (do you still love me?), in the same form as the question (not “yes I love you”, but “you are more beautiful now than ever”). And the true answer to “How can God do this to me” can be a hug. Also: Truth can be an experience rather than words; etc.]

...

Note: Rochov says:

כִּי-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּכֶם, חָסֶד; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם גַּם-אַתֶּם עִם-בֵּית אָבִי, חֶסֶד, וּנְתַתֶּם לִי, אוֹת אֱמֶת.

and the meraglim of yehoshua say to Rochov: , וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּךְ, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

……………

שְׁלַח-לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן

Why tzitzis? Maybe the word "taturu" , which is parallel, is a key

וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ, אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת. לג וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ, אֶת-הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק--מִן-הַנְּפִלִים; וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

…

Tzitzis: ur’item otam: it is about ‘seeing’. So the use of ‘seeing’ in this and related contexts is interesting…

…..........

Tzitzis use the language, terms of the meraglim: la-tour/lo taturu, zonim/וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, kanfei bigdehem = canfei nesharim, which is to bring them to the land, and arba kanfos ha;aretz etc, yomo vokedmo..., (MR: eneychem ho'ro(i)'os).

.……

Kolev: some have said it is related to Kelev? Maybe, because two other nesi'im had animal-name sounding names: בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.

Relation between the meraglim event and the mitzvah of tzitzis: Why is the mitzvah of tsitsit given after the meraglim event? (or placed after that account)

Maybe the word "taturu", which is parallel, is a key: שְׁלַח-לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן

וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ, אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת. לג וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ, אֶת-הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק--מִן-הַנְּפִלִים; וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

….

Continuation re ROchov in haftoroh

Truth again: “Emet”: Rochov says:

כִּי-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּכֶם, חָסֶד; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם גַּם-אַתֶּם עִם-בֵּית אָבִי, חֶסֶד, וּנְתַתֶּם לִי, אוֹת אֱמֶת.

and the meraglim of yehoshua say to Rochov: , וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּךְ, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

Chut shel chesed = tzitzis? Tcheles.

………..

Yaakov, M”R, Rochov: Interesting that MR tells God re the plan to wipe out the Jewish people because of the meraglim issue "what will the goyim think" (and elsewhere too), ie this is the origin of the phrase!! Not Yakov worrying about the reaction of the nations to what happened in Shchem?!

MR tells God:

ד; וְאָמְרוּ, הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמְעוּ אֶת-שִׁמְעֲךָ, לֵאמֹר.

טז מִבִּלְתִּי יְכֹלֶת

And Rochov tells how all the nations heard what happened at Yam Suf and feared God and the Bney Yisroel.

....................

mekoshesh etzim

; רָגוֹם אֹתוֹ בָאֲבָנִים כָּל-הָעֵדָה, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. Why did God tell all the people to stone the mekoshesh etzim, rather than delegating the stoning to beit-din executioners? Why skila (is it mentioned anywhere before? Is there any mention of it being carried out)? Of course it is to teach a lesson and etc etc but why now?

Answer: Maybe because they were previously ready to stone Yehoshua and Kolev.

ו וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וְכָלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, מִן-הַתָּרִים, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ--קָרְעוּ, בִּגְדֵיהֶם. זוַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ--טוֹבָה הָאָרֶץ, מְאֹד מְאֹד

אַל-תִּמְרֹדוּ,

וַיֹּאמְרוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, לִרְגּוֹם אֹתָם, בָּאֲבָנִים

…

Interesting parallel to Kayin/hevel: וַיֹּאמְרוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, לִרְגּוֹם אֹתָם, בָּאֲבָנִים

ח וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו; וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ.

………

What was the mistake of the spies? Answer: 1. Spies are not supposed to call a press conference to report to the naiton, 2. nor are they to give their conclusions about which iperaiotn to mount, only to gether intellignece (and maybe some analysis, context).

........

Yediat Ha’aretz: The nations in E"Y were distributed in specific geographical/topographical regions: Cna'an along the Med sea-front, & the Jordan river, ie in the fertile areas near the waters, others in the Negev, and others in the mountains/hills (Yerushalayim, Chevron): כח אֶפֶס כִּי-עַז הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ; וְהֶעָרִים, בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד, וְגַם-יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק, רָאִינוּ שָׁם. כט

עֲמָלֵק יוֹשֵׁב, בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב; וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר, וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל-הַיָּם, וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן.

Their report presupposes that the listeners understood the geography of E”Y.

…

“Az”: Also, note that "Az" appears, and then Can'ani, so maybe the famous pasuk "vehacna'ani az ba'aretz" really does mean simply that they were strongly holding it

....

Interesting that the nations in E"Y were distributed geographically: Cna'an along the Med sae-front, & the Jordan river, ie in the fertile areas near the waters, others in the Negev, and pther sin the mountains/hills (Yerushalayim, Chevron): כח אֶפֶס כִּי-עַז הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ; וְהֶעָרִים, בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד, וְגַם-יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק, רָאִינוּ שָׁם. כט עֲמָלֵק יוֹשֵׁב, בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב; וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר, וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל-הַיָּם, וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן.

…

Also, note that "Az" appears, and then Can'ani, so maybe the famous pasuk "vehacna'ani az ba'aretz" really does mean simply that they were strongly holding it

……..

Question: how is it possible that in 40 years of wandering the Jews did not have sufficient information about the land to which they were headed? Surely if the giants lived there it would be known, and if there was terrific fruit it would have been exported to Egypt and they'd have seen it (of course if they had "mun" they didn't need to buy any food, so may be that's why they didn't have any fruit from there but surely they would come across trade caravans etc, surely during the 40 years they'd see indictaitns, hear rumors and reports.

Maybe the unplanned changes in encampment and routes deterred people from leaving for more than a day?

How difficult would it have been to trace where they were? Maybe they left no physical traces?! but couldn't the pillar of fire be seen from afar?

..

File “Parshas Shlach”

Parshas Shlach: [Meraglim and then mikoshesh etzim and parshas tsitzis (end of shma)]

Was the Meraglim’s report true, accurate? M"R davens for forgiveness, using the 13 midos, but skips "ve'emet" of v'rav chesed v'emet. And 'vechata'ah', and le'alafim? (He does however say 'venakeh lo yenakeh.. …ribay'im')

, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן, וָפָשַׁע; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים. יט סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד-הֵנָּה .

Maybe because both meraglim reports were true, so truth is problematic here?

Truth is not a Jewish value; a true answer which leads murderers to an innocent victim is a crime. [Also, if your wife asks if she looks ugly, answering truthfully doesn’t necessarily mean the literal truth but rather can also mean answering the hidden question (do you still love me?), in the same form as the question (not “yes I love you”, but “you are more beautiful now than ever”). And the true answer to “How can God do this to me” can be a hug. Also: Truth can be an experience rather than words; etc.]

The Error/Averah of the Meraglim: The meraglim didn’t correctly understand that their mandate was not to report on the land ‘objectively’ according to their own judgement, they were not given permission to help determine whether or not to go in, but rather, given the assumption that God would lead them in and help them be successful, they had to do hishtadlus and see where the soft spots were etc.

……

Kolev: some have said it is related to Kelev? Maybe, because two other nesi'im had animal-name sounding names: בֶּן-גְּמַלִּי, בֶּן-סוּסִי.

……

Yediat Ha’aretz: The nations in E"Y were distributed in specific geographical/topographical regions: Cna'an along the Med sea-front, & the Jordan river, ie in the fertile areas near the waters, others in the Negev, and others in the mountains/hills (Yerushalayim, Chevron): כח אֶפֶס כִּי-עַז הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ; וְהֶעָרִים, בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד, וְגַם-יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק, רָאִינוּ שָׁם. כט

עֲמָלֵק יוֹשֵׁב, בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב; וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר, וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל-הַיָּם, וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן.

Their report presupposes that the listeners understood the geography of E”Y.

…

“Az”: Also, note that "Az" appears, and then Can'ani, so maybe the famous pasuk "vehacna'ani az ba'aretz" really does mean simply that they were strongly holding it

…..

mekoshesh etzim

; רָגוֹם אֹתוֹ בָאֲבָנִים כָּל-הָעֵדָה, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. Why did God tell all the people to stone the mekoshesh etzim, rather than delegating the stoning to beit-din executioners? Why skila (is it mentioned anywhere before? Is there any mention of it being carried out)? Of course it is to teach a lesson and etc etc but why now?

Answer: Maybe because they were previously ready to stone Yehoshua and Kolev.

ו וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וְכָלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, מִן-הַתָּרִים, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ--קָרְעוּ, בִּגְדֵיהֶם. זוַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֶל-כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ--טוֹבָה הָאָרֶץ, מְאֹד מְאֹד

אַל-תִּמְרֹדוּ,

וַיֹּאמְרוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, לִרְגּוֹם אֹתָם, בָּאֲבָנִים

…

Interesting parallel to Kayin/hevel: וַיֹּאמְרוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, לִרְגּוֹם אֹתָם, בָּאֲבָנִים

ח וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו; וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ.

………

Parshas Shlach:

Meraglim and then mikoshesh etzim and parshas tsitzis (end of shma).

………..

M"R davens for forgiveness, using the 13 midos, but skips "ve'emet" of v'rav chesed v'emet. And 'vechata'ah', and le'alafim? (He does however say 'venakeh lo yenakeh.. …ribay'im')

, אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב-חֶסֶד, נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן, וָפָשַׁע; וְנַקֵּה, לֹא יְנַקֶּה--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבוֹת עַל-בָּנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים. יט סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד-הֵנָּה .

Maybe bec both meraglim reports were true, so truth is problematic here? I can segue into my stuff re: truth not being a value; answering truthfully can mean answering the hidden question, in the same form as the question; true answer can be a hug or an experience etc. Meraglim didn’t correctly understand that they were not to report on the land on a blank slate of whether or not to go in, but rather, given the assumption that God would lead them in and help them be successful, they had to do hishtadlus and see where the soft spots were etc.

……

Note: Rochov says:

כִּי-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּכֶם, חָסֶד; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם גַּם-אַתֶּם עִם-בֵּית אָבִי, חֶסֶד, וּנְתַתֶּם לִי, אוֹת אֱמֶת.

and the meraglim of yehoshua say to Rochov: , וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּךְ, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

……………

שְׁלַח-לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן

Why tzitzis? Maybe the word "taturu" , which is parallel, is a key

וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ, אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת. לג וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ, אֶת-הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק--מִן-הַנְּפִלִים; וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

…

Interesting that the nations in E"Y were distributed geographically: Cna'an along the Med sae-front, & the Jordan river, ie in the fertile areas near the waters, others in the Negev, and pther sin the mountains/hills (Yerushalayim, Chevron): כח אֶפֶס כִּי-עַז הָעָם, הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ; וְהֶעָרִים, בְּצֻרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאֹד, וְגַם-יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק, רָאִינוּ שָׁם. כט עֲמָלֵק יוֹשֵׁב, בְּאֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב; וְהַחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּהָר, וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי יוֹשֵׁב עַל-הַיָּם, וְעַל יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן.

…

Also, note that "Az" appears, and then Can'ani, so maybe the famous pasuk "vehacna'ani az ba'aretz" really does mean simply that they were strongly holding it

…

Tzitzis: ur’item otam: it is about ‘seeing’. So the use of ‘seeing’ in this and related contexts is interesting…

…..

Relation between the meraglim event and the mitzvah of tzitzis: Why is the mitzvah of tsitsit given after the meraglim event? (or placed after that account)

Maybe the word "taturu", which is parallel, is a key: שְׁלַח-לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים, וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת-אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן

וַיֹּצִיאוּ דִּבַּת הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר תָּרוּ אֹתָהּ, אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר עָבַרְנוּ בָהּ לָתוּר אֹתָהּ, אֶרֶץ אֹכֶלֶת יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ הִוא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-רָאִינוּ בְתוֹכָהּ, אַנְשֵׁי מִדּוֹת. לג וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ, אֶת-הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק--מִן-הַנְּפִלִים; וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

….

The haftorah is about the other meraglim story, with Rochov haZonah.

She hung out a thread : אֶת-תִּקְוַת חוּט הַשָּׁנִי הַזֶּה תִּקְשְׁרִי, בַּחַלּוֹן

Tzitzis (see the parsha) has: וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת

……………

The word znus is used in both the meraglim story and re tzitsis, and of course re Rochov. Yehoshua is intimately involved in both stories, he is one of the meraglim and he tries to save the day with MR and then he is the one who sends the m’raglim 40 years later, who find Rochov.

לב וּפִגְרֵיכֶם, אַתֶּם--יִפְּלוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה. לגוּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, בַּמִּדְבָּר

וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

Sefer yehoshua, ch 2: וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית-אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, וּשְׁמָהּ רָחָב

…

Also: it was a problem of 'seeing' [וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם]: וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם.

And a beged was involved: וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, וְכָלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, מִן-הַתָּרִים, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ--קָרְעוּ, בִּגְדֵיהֶם. ז

…

Truth again: “Emet”: Rochov says:

כִּי-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּכֶם, חָסֶד; וַעֲשִׂיתֶם גַּם-אַתֶּם עִם-בֵּית אָבִי, חֶסֶד, וּנְתַתֶּם לִי, אוֹת אֱמֶת.

and the meraglim of yehoshua say to Rochov: , וְעָשִׂינוּ עִמָּךְ, חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

Chut shel chesed = tzitzis? Tcheles.

………..

Yaakov, M”R, Rochov: Interesting that MR tells God re the plan to wipe out the Jewish people because of the meraglim issue "what will the goyim think" (and elsewhere too), ie this is the origin of the phrase!! Not Yakov worrying about the reaction of the nations to what happened in Shchem?!

MR tells God:

ד; וְאָמְרוּ, הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמְעוּ אֶת-שִׁמְעֲךָ, לֵאמֹר.

טז מִבִּלְתִּי יְכֹלֶת

And Rochov tells how all the nations heard what happened at Yam Suf and feared God and the Bney Yisroel.

.......

Kin’ah, ga’ava, ta’ava: ‘takes a person out of the world’ (Pirkei Avos)

Kin’ah, ga’ava, ta’ava are also mentioned in regards to Hashem?: (hashem gei’oos’ moloch, and shchinah is mis’a’veh’ for bneii yisrael?, el kno’ois

And in regards to doing the right thing?: Pinchus, ‘kiney es kin’osi’; ….

· Ta’ava la’eynamyim took Adam/Chava out of gan eden

· Ga’ava: snake tempts chava via ‘vehyisem lelokim’ (some sources point to kin’ah between the various figures in the Garden)

· Kin’ah by the shvatim towards Yosef.

· kivros hata’avo (so is re taava), kinoh of sota (so is re kina''ah), but also Kina’h of Pinchus, but that is ‘kin’osi’, and it took someone ELSE (zimri) out of the world! And for zimri it was ta’avah!

· Korach re kovod/ga;avah though doesnt use this word, is there a different relvant keyword used? or in another story. look in concordance.

· Does sefer Bamidbar/Dvorim (begining) have the most examples of these?: Pinchas, Korach,etc

..

40 years in desert as cure:

Said at Machlis 2018 and earlier; more than once on succos.said it at a picnic supper Fri night in gan sacher (went there after beginning part of Machlis.) Was complimented. (see email subject "excerpts")

Chumash: bamidbar:

Shlach: 14:12: Hashem tells MR he'll kil the Jewsih people and set MR in ther place. MR has no ego and is not tempted, instead prays for forgiveness of the people.

...

Shlach:

Use of the term Shlach lecha is deliberate, conjures up Lech Lecha, both of them being for an advance scout to Eretz Yisrael, because Avraham arrived and the land was full of others, as was the case for the meraglim, and he wasn't even able to stay, there was famine etc, so it was a sojourn, not a permanent stay, his grandson left and the return was only with the meraglim.

..................

The mistake of the meraglim was that they gave their opinion about whether the B Yisrael should go in, that wasn't their mandate/mission, only to see it and describe it.

Note: Yosef added his advice to the requested interpretaiton, and it was fraught, but his was leshem shamayim and Pharoah was a great man, not little with jealousies.

Also: Calev jumped in with an exhortaiton to go in, that 'we can', but maybe this opened the way fo the others to jump in with negativity, because until that point their report was accurate, just that it was probably told with a tone of foreboding, as we can deduce form the later words of the meraglim. So there was reason for calev to say it, he saw that the people were frightened, but it demonstrates that even loshon tov is fraught, as the ch chayim taught.

...........

Tzitzis use the language, terms of the meraglim: la-tour/lo taturu, zonim/וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, kanfei bigdehem = canfei nesharim, which is to bring them to the land, and arba kanfos ha;aretz etc, yomo vokedmo..., (MR: eneychem ho'ro(i)'os).

..

The 40 years was a medication/gift, not a punishment. Just like they couldn't hear more than 'anochi', they couldn't yet be at the level to go in to the Land.

Since the people were obviously nor ready to go in, H gave them 40 years of closeness with shechinah, anan, as preparation, and the mitzvah of tzitzis as bodily-anan, so that when they entered the land they would have protection with the closeness and not be afraid.

When it was time to enter 40 yrs later, they were so close to the anan they didn't want to leave it, like a drug addiciton, so H gave succos as a compensaiton.

So at first they didn't want to go in for the wrong reason, and then the cure for that made it happen again,not wanting to go in, but for a good reason.

יט סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ; וְכַאֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה, מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד-הֵנָּה. כ וַיֹּאמֶר ה, סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ. כא וְאוּלָם, חַי-אָנִי: וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. כב כִּי כָל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, הָרֹאִים אֶת-כְּבֹדִי וְאֶת-אֹתֹתַי, אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂיתִי בְמִצְרַיִם, וּבַמִּדְבָּר; וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי, זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים, וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ, בְּקוֹלִי. כג אִם-יִרְאוּ, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, לַאֲבֹתָם; וְכָל-מְנַאֲצַי, לֹא יִרְאוּהָ. כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ, וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-בָּא שָׁמָּה, וְזַרְעוֹ, יוֹרִשֶׁנָּה. כה וְהָעֲמָלֵקִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, יוֹשֵׁב בָּעֵמֶק; מָחָר, פְּנוּ וּסְעוּ לָכֶם הַמִּדְבָּר--דֶּרֶךְ יַם-סוּף. {פ}

כו וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. כז עַד-מָתַי, לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים, עָלָי; אֶת-תְּלֻנּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים עָלַי--שָׁמָעְתִּי. כח אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם, חַי-אָנִי נְאֻם-יְהוָה, אִם-לֹא, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם בְּאָזְנָי: כֵּן, אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם. כט בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִפְּלוּ פִגְרֵיכֶם וְכָל-פְּקֻדֵיכֶם, לְכָל-מִסְפַּרְכֶם, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמָעְלָה: אֲשֶׁר הֲלִינֹתֶם, עָלָי. ל אִם-אַתֶּם, תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂאתִי אֶת-יָדִי, לְשַׁכֵּן אֶתְכֶם בָּהּ--כִּי אִם-כָּלֵב בֶּן-יְפֻנֶּה, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן. לא וְטַפְּכֶם--אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם, לָבַז יִהְיֶה: וְהֵבֵיאתִי אֹתָם--וְיָדְעוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר מְאַסְתֶּם בָּהּ. לב וּפִגְרֵיכֶם, אַתֶּם--יִפְּלוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה. לג וּבְנֵיכֶם יִהְיוּ רֹעִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה,וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם, בַּמִּדְבָּר. לד בְּמִסְפַּר הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר-תַּרְתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם--יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה יוֹם לַשָּׁנָה תִּשְׂאוּ אֶת-עֲו‍ֹנֹתֵיכֶם, אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; וִידַעְתֶּם, אֶת-תְּנוּאָתִי.

.........

Interesting that the anan was shochen on the mishkan, and veshachanti betocham, and hashem says we were vrough out of Egye 'leshochni betochechem', and here re the land, EY: לְשַׁכֵּן אֶתְכֶם בָּהּ

.....

Is this a source/reason for Avraham being tested 10 times (to protect his descendants when they were deserving of death due to their 10 'tests' of God) etc? וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי, זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים

..

וְיִמָּלֵא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ. כב כִּי כָל-הָאֲנָשִׁים, הָרֹאִים אֶת-כְּבֹדִי ... אִם-יִרְאוּ, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ,... וְכָל-מְנַאֲצַי, לֹאיִרְאוּהָ. כד וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב, ... וַיְמַלֵּא, אַחֲרָי--וַהֲבִיאֹתִיו,.

..

Tzadik/Chasid: when ask someone for chesed, it generates a new interaction, above tzedek, their midos = nature, character. H's midos included 'lo yinakeh....al banim...reebayim'. But then MR asks for chesed,"סְלַח-נָא, לַעֲו‍ֹן הָעָם הַזֶּה--כְּגֹדֶל חַסְדֶּךָ;" , and H indeed doesn;t punish the banim!

Instead, they had to stay in the midbar (as shepherds) as long as their parents are alive, so it is a blessing that the parents aren;t killed, they are left alive, just that they are in the midbar (like Adam/CHava, not kkilled, just exiled), and their children are not punished, just that they have to suffer the situaiotn which enables their parents to remain alove! (וְנָשְׂאוּ, אֶת-זְנוּתֵיכֶם--עַד-תֹּם פִּגְרֵיכֶם,) so this is a chesed interpretaiton of 'poked avon avos al banim'.

MR did "Vayemaher...vayikod..." to stop the negative extra part, and now H shows him that indeed in the right circumstances, asking for chesed, allows indeed the negative extra part to be overcome.

And the first venakeh becomes positive (rather than being part of the rest, the negative, venakeh lo yinakeh), so it is like "im yihyu chata-echem kashoni, kashelg yalbinu"

And because H did this, chazal were able to be 'mtaken' that in slichos, when we are in a teshuva-mindset and are asking for rachamim, chesed, we can say only the positive part (stopping at venakeh).

(Lesson: if we act with chesed to others, meaning we go beyond our 'midos', H will act that way to us, beyon H's midos)

...

Karmic ation: yom lashohono, yom pashono. This stresses that it is all result of their aciton,not punishment, it is with a cheshbon, not anger etc.

And the same re: אִם-לֹא, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם בְּאָזְנָי: כֵּן, אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם. כט בַּמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה יִפְּלוּ פִגְרֵיכֶם

And: וְטַפְּכֶם--אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם, לָבַז יִהְיֶה: וְהֵבֵיאתִי אֹתָם--וְיָדְעוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר מְאַסְתֶּם בָּהּ. ie: what you said has power, it will become true, you will all die here. And what you said about your children will be the reverse, they will live. So it is all with a cheshbon, a karmic effect, not punishment.

..................................

Korach: A's sons died bec of esh zarah, here says korach wanted ish zar, ktoret and esh,

MR & A took shelter in anan (!), and MR tells A to leave the safety and go to the plague and take ktoret/esh (dangerous!) and A stood between the dead and living and the plague stopped, so A was ready to sacrifice his life for the poeple who were claiming he had taken the kehuna for ego reasons! this is lack of ego on A's part! so that is how the plague was stopped.

And: אֱמֹר אֶל-אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, וְיָרֵם אֶת-הַמַּחְתֹּת מִבֵּין הַשְּׂרֵפָה, וְאֶת-הָאֵשׁ, זְרֵה-הָלְאָה: כִּי, קָדֵשׁוּ

Withoiut nikud, as written int he torah, his is exactly esh zarah! So Elazar is being asked t take what looks like esh zarah, which killed two of his borthers! This is willingness for self-scrifice, lack of ego.

..

Then: ה זִכָּרוֹן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִקְרַב אִישׁ זָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן הוּא, לְהַקְטִיר קְטֹרֶת, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה כְקֹרַח וְכַעֲדָתוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה לוֹ.

...

Korach: Hashem speaks to both M"R and A, like a joint-nevuah, and indeed they repsond as one! do they both say the exact same thing?!:

ס} כ וַיְדַבֵּר ה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. כא הִבָּדְלוּ, מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַזֹּאת; וַאֲכַלֶּה אֹתָם, כְּרָגַע. כב וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵל, אֱלֹ-י הָרוּחֹת לְכָל-בָּשָׂר: הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא, וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף. {ס}

[It is an oddly-abrupt story, truncated (and enclosed by two spaces, 'samech', making it a separate story) , no response form God, almost as if it is saying 'ok, this happened so many times, you already know how it went'.....]

..............................................

Chukas: 20:11: M"R & A hit the rock. They were guilty of ego: M"R said "Will we take water out of this rock"? in mockery, when it wasn't HIM that was tkaing the water out in an case, and also, he was in some sense self-aggrandizing (tkaing credit) and grandstanding, mocking sarcastic/ironic, and this is all ego and so MR was punished (& A too).

.......................................................

Balak: the donkey talks, and Bil'am argues with it! He should have been shocked, and like M"R said "asura na ...mar'eh hagadol hazeh'!

But then the donkey remonstrates, and asks Bilaam if he (donkey) had ever done this, and Bil'am then answers a simple 'no'. By this he is taking responsibility instead of arguing. Also, Bil'am is now thinking "yeah, that's true, so why is the donkey doing this NOW'? And so he is thinking, 'the donkey must be doing it for a good reason, so what is that reason'? And in merit of being dan lekaf zchut, and being open to hearing the other side of the seeming confrontation against him, he merits seeing the angel (which also clarifies that what he saw as confrontation was actually the opposite). So it is ego-lowering and dan lekaf zchut openenss which led to revelation.

....................

What is the significance of the exchange between the aton and Bil'am? Why is Bil'am subjected to this came of cat-and-mouse :) by the angel? (And of course why can the aton see the angel and Bil'am cannot),and what is this meant to tell Bil'am, and us?

The malach was not visible to Bilam, whose level had sunk due to his ego-driven behavior in going on the mission when it should have been clear that he should not, whereas it WAS visible to the aton due to its ego-less behavior of serving Bil'am faithfully all those years - this is deliberately made a point of, and the aton is consistent here too in faithfully trying to prevent harm to Bilaam by keeping him from the angel's sword, which was meant for Bil'am and did not directly endanger the aton (אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי.),

[Note: Even if the aton was not a target initially, the aton may have feared the angel could killed him for trying to evade what God willed, so this was an act of great self-sacrifice on its part, unless it didn't know it was an angel, just saw it as a danger, and also maybe the aton didn't realize that it would be spared the sword.]

[Bil'am would presumably stop when seeing an angel in front of him, even without a sword, so the sword was either for the benefit of the aton who didn;t know it was an angel, just recognized the sword as a danger, or it was to later impress Bil'am that he would have been killed had the aton not stopped.

In any case, Bilam does not thank the aton.]

[The aton could have simply stopped at the angel, but instead it trie dto go around. Probably the aton did not realize that its master (Bilam) didnt see the angel, and that Bilam did not tell it to stop simply becuse he wasn;t aware of the angle, and so the aton just assumed its master wanted it to continue.]

Bil'am was meant to understand - after all he was a navi, and should at least try to interpret, as in "makel shaked ani ro'eh': a sterile stubborn animal is loyal to its master but Bil'm is to stubborn to be loyal to his Master; the animal is sterile and so will his mission be (in the sense in which he went, to curse the Jews); the aton sees the malach, due to its faithfulness, lack of ego (as in their conversation), so its eyes are open, whereas Bila'am sees only his own self; not only did Bilam not see the angel, he didn't even remark on the very fact that the the aton was talking to him. And he didn't realize he had to 'apologize to the aton' for his lack of understanding and instead apologizes ot the malach, self-justifying in tha the didn't see the malach, as if that wasn't obvious to the malach and part of the exercise. So he doesn't really get it, and he simply continues (asking permission to continue and getting it form God is like the Bney Yisrael asking for meat and receiving it, the 'slav' [which killed them]).

......................

According to chazal, Balak receives reward because he built 7 mizbechos to God. Why a reward if he wanted to destroy the Bney Yisrael?

Maybe because he understood that one could not kill M"R and the bney yisrael in a natural manner, one needed it to be God's will. One needed to operate at the spiritual cosmic level. And so he hires Bil'am, and makes sacrifices - and this is ok, it is the role/destiny of his nation, they are not bney yisrael, they follow their own path. And since he did so, asking God for help, realizing that all is governed at that level, he was rewarded.

........................................

.............Unfnished

Theme of חֶרֶב is stressed:

נִצָּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ

לוּ יֶשׁ-חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי, כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ.

; וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן-בְּעוֹר, הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב.

..........Unfnished

Note that Hashem opens the aton's mouth and opens Bil'am's eyes (though not the same expression for 'open', but doe snot need to open the aton;s eyes. But it stresses three times that the aton saw the angel:

וַתֵּרֶא הָאָתוֹן אֶת-מַלְאַךְ (says this 3 times)

וַיִּפְתַּח

אֶת-פִּי הָאָתוֹן; לא וַיְגַל אֶת-עֵינֵי בִלְעָם, וַיַּרְא אֶת-מַלְאַךְ

.............................................................................................

Pinchas:

One has to remember that there was a plague, people were dying, Pinchas's action saved many Jewish lives. So it was "sha'at hadchak", "eys la'asos", and Zimri was like a 'rodef' (which is also the justificaiton for abortion in case of harm to the mother), so perhaps no no further justification of 'kanaim pogim bo' is needed - as we see, in retrospect, from the cessation of the plague, it is clear that the action taken by Pinchas was necessary to stop the plague.

However a question arises: If the Jewish people were all dying because of Zimri, they should have killed him themselves! Why didn't they gang up on him? (Or maybe Zimri even in the midst would see people dying all around him and realize he was wrong, and stop). So why did no-one else act?

I think that the issue was that almost no-one else saw what was happening or why it was happening, and what needed to be done. Maybe what chazal say about forgetting a halachah is that M"R and Aharon forgot 'shaat hadchak, eys la'asos', and were paralyzed, since actively killing one person to save other is generally forbidden, unless they are a rodef, and in this case it was Hashem who was doing the killing, not Zimri.

In any case we know from the recent parshos that in general M"R had reached the end of his ability to lead.

So why didn't the Jews themselves kill Zimri to stop the plague!? I think the answer is that no-one really 'saw' what was happening. it was like the sneh, people walking by no 'seeing', except M"R. The plague was a divine-human interaction, not visible to all (like the malach was not visible to Bilam).

M"R saw the sneh, not everyone else did, it was a form of nevuah due to his special level, and so the story is told in a nevuah-style narration, poetic:

"Asurah na ve'er'eh,

es hamr'eh hagadol hazeh,

lamah lo yiv'ar ha'sneh!"

So too Pinchas saw what was happening, that there was a magefah, and he understood why it was happening, and what had to be done to stop it, and he acted, and it stopped. Bnei Yisrael did not realize what was happening, why it was happening, let alone what needed to be done to stop it.

This is my interpretation of what it means that Pinchas was a 'kanai': It was not 'kano-ous' in the sense of "I am a kanai, I know the halacha, I will kill him since he is evil" (and make a brocho and hineni muchan), but rather this: it was because Pinchas really "kine et kin'ati" internally emotionally-spiritually, in other words he did not have ego interfering, [and see my claim that he was actually "ish shalom". [I just saw something similar in the name of the Chabad Rebbe, Pinchas is a man of peace, who did what he did with the sole aim of “turning away My wrath from the children of Israel.”, wanting to be like his Zeideh Aharon - וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן" - who made peace between people.

Pinchas overcame his inclination and desire to be a man of peace, lowering his sense of self and taking an action that was actually against everything he believed in, like Avrohom Avinu, Ya;akov, M"R]; he was motivated only by 'lishmoh' (pure intent to do God's Will), that's why he was able to 'SEE', (like M"R saw the sneh) and to understand WHY, and what needed to be DONE, and also why he had the clarity to take action (ז וַיַּרְא,..וַיָּקָם .. וַיִּקַּח ... וַיָּבֹא .. וַיִּדְקֹר ) himself (וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה) :.

The shvatim were sure they were acting lishmah, chazal present reasons for a sanhedrin to judge Yosef and apply the death penalty. But hashem tells us in the chumash something that no-one else could know, that the shvatim themselves were not consciously aware of (and that maybe was first revealed to humanity at the time the chumash was given) - that they were motivated by hatred and jealousy! They would have laughed at anyone accusing them of such a childish and base motivation. And they would have felt themselves sincere in that. But Hashem knows our inner heart and motivation. And Hashem tells us the Pinchas's motive was purely leshem shamayim.

Moral: When someone judges their fellow, especially if it involves enacting judgement with physical consequence on someone, I believe that we are allowed to 'judge' them by assuming that the motivation is negative; even if at the conscious level the "kana'i" is sure they are a tzadik doing it all leshem shamayim, my assumption is that we should not be supportive of it unless they are considered by all of klal Yisrael (not just by themselves) to be even greater than the Shvatim.

.............................................................................................

Matos: Bil'am is killed. But one cannot just kill a figure like that using a sword in ordinary attack, it has to be part of Hashem's plan and with the right spirituallevel backing. MR had finished his tafkid, and gave it over to the new generaiton, Yehoshua, and now Pinchas. Pinchas was placed in charge of the war against Midian (after the znus event), and was the one who enbaled Bil'am to be killed (whehter directly by Pinchas, or at Pinchas's command:[There are various versions of how Bilam actually was killed. According to the Zohar, Pinchas commanded Tzilaya to kill Bilam on the spot with a magical sword upon which was inscribed the likeness of a snake. Another midrash says Pinchas himself drew a sword and killed Bilam. The Talmud(Sanhedrin 106b) relates that Pinchas brought Bilam for trial before Moshe and the Sanhedrin(Jewish court). He was found guilty and was executed with all four kinds of death penalty given by Torahcourts.http://www.torahtots.com/parsha/bamidbar/matot3.htm]

It was specifically Pinchas who could cause his death because Pinchas went beyond himself, and so was able to be like MR, and Bilam was on a level with M"R but let himself be led by his nature instead of overcoming it, so Pinchas at the level he went up to, could defeat Bilam at the level he went down to.

Pichas was willing to be moser nefesh to take the step of killing Zimri, he knew he could be killed by the Jewish people, or MR or by God as a result, but he acted, and this reduction of ego made him the counterpart to Bilam who was led by ego.

"Ruchot/Ruach": M"R asks Hashem "elokei haruchot" to delegate to someone else, and Hashem chooses Yehoshua, "ish asher ruach bo". But it is not only the ruach which is special, Yehoshua is also an Ish....

.............

Masa'ei: earlier we were told of Aharon;s death, but it is mentioned agian here. Why? to let us understand that the aron (like aharon) did not rise to make Bnei Yisrael move during the mourning period of aharon at hor ha'har

Why did aharon deserve this? berc wandering is galut which is from sinat chinam and aharon worked to reverse the sin'at chinam among others.

35:33 don't corrupt justice.

35;34 "ha'aretz asher ani shochen betochah"

35:34 pasuk deliberately mispeads us, we think we know the last phrase but it is a switch: ani shochen... we think it will be "ani hashem shochen betoch haaretz" but instead it is "shochen betoch bnei yisrael".

So if you corrupt justice, you are disrespecting god.

.....

bil'am and Yonah etc (Parshas Balak)

Inbox

x

Avi Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 2:03 AM

to me

2018: Said this at Machlis (Fri night):

B and lehavdi Yonah: both countermand G's will, are saved by an animal, and the story highlights the irony in that the animal is a more faihtful sevant of it s master)

From the story we can figure out the reaosn for bilam's action - he obvioulsy was concerned for his people and wanted to stop the BY , so his acitons are understandable even though he is a navi, and so this sheds light on Yonah, whose reason is not understood form the story, but the parallel to B aloows us to deduce that he had the same motive, ie my vort of paralles supplies a backing or makor for chazal's statment that the reason for yonahs relsuctance was the future destruciton of BY by Ninveh (Ashur? Bavel?), ie it is a 4th paralele - their motive in flouting H's will despite thei r being prophets..

Of ocurse Yonah could have concluded that if BY would so teshuvah, they too would be saved from their fate, as were the people of Ninveh, so the perceived threat as seen by Yonah was not necesarily so, it was up to them, the BY, whiose actions would decide future events .And the same re bil'am, the BY wre'nt really a threat to Moav and Midyan, so the enmity was uneccesary - so this is a fifth parallel.

And of course, since BY could have avoided the destruciton at th e hands of ninveh later on by doing tshuas as Ninveh had, that's why chazal (much later, presumably) made sefer yonah the kri'ah for YK!

So I can present it as: Two stories in Tanach: two nevi'im, regarding a mission did the opposite of what God wanted them to do. God arranges for them to die, but to be saved by an animal, which opens its mouth at God's behest. The prophet eventually realizes and accepts responsibility but still does not perform wholeheartedly what God wants..... and the reason for this is that what God wants seems to the prophet to be hastening the destruciton of his own people.

2017: I said most of the above at Brodt S Shlishis:

and added most of this: hakorat hatov to Bi'am for the borcho of ma Tovu, it is a brocho not just his opinion, or a prayer we adopted - to activate the brocho, make it apply we can 1. give hakorat hatov, especially by dan lekaf zchut as above, and 2. we be dan lekaf zchut our fellow Jews even when we see them doing acitons that seem to make them a rosho , but like seeing bilam as acting ok rather than as a rosho we can try to see our felow jews in a positive light, and this activates the brochoof 'ma tovu' (chazal say it is connected to how we are concerned for each other's rprivacy etc, so this is somewhat related, don;t look into anothers tent = don;t try to see in them what you are not meant to see).

.......

Bil'm and lehavdil M"R: both see somehting remarkable and argue with god, or countermand G's order; but M"R is openly astonished at the remarkable, whereas B seems obtuse, at least at first. M"R is humble, doesn;t want anyhting for self, B is greedy, even if only for kavod, that;s the difference.

...........

Avi Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:37 PM

to me

1. words in the snake story reminiscent of other stories.

snake eden, hu yeshufcho rosh.... akev --> ekev, esav... so parallel to edom, went round to avoid, this borught companint and then war loss

etc

........

2 . When he said 'hamin hasela hazot notzie lachem mayim', it was sarcastic, and 'notzie' means he and Aharaon, or he and God!? and so this all was a sign that MR was not able to fulfil anymore his task of being God's appointed 'sanegor of klal yisrael' against God's self. So therefore MR was not needed anymore on Earth, and was 'recalled'. So he had mavet neshikat elokim, like Aharon.

M was burned out, used up (like my idea re Avraham Avinu was after akeda so no more conversaitons between him and God), and so his mission was over and Yehoshua took over, based on the transmission to him of the power from MR, voluntarily. No 'sin', no 'punishment'.

.........

3. previous time M"R was indeed instructed to hit it, so now he did too, not a big deal perhaps...

God often told MR 'daber el bney yisrael', and now it is 'daber el haselh'. interesting.

Maybe this caused part of the reason MR speaks "ha min hasela..."

.....

4. Said at Machlis

I want to defend M"R, lelamed zchut, in return for his having ben melamed zchut so many times for us in the midbar etc.

And it is also a form of dan lekaf shut, interpreting in a positive way somethign that seems bad:

Perhaps M"R was defending Bnei Yisroel: as indicated by the similar opening, "daber el", H intended via all this to contrast the behavior of the stone to that of BY, ie even a stone does H's bidding when asked, no need to hit, but BY on the other hand didn;t do H;s will, they were complaining now about water etc.

(So it is like Bil'am and the aton, next parsha, the aton see the malach but the grea tprophet Bil'am does not! And it does H;s will, and Bil'am does not. So too BY don;t but the stone does!... So M"R refused, and hit the stone instead. Last time he was told to hit it, and by not hitting it this time, just talking to it, it would have been even a bigger miracle as perceived, but this was exactly what M"R wante dto prevent, even at great cost to himself for disobeying H (like lehavdil Bil'am disobeyed)