@@@@@@
Introducing Mr. Tum’ah
Tum’ah is unseen. As radiation and radio waves which cannot be seen nor felt, so Tum’ah. It works in specific ways, and has its own laws, yet cannot be seen or felt.
Four hundred years ago a man may have told a friend “You know, that mad dog bite may not seem like much today, but is in fact deadly. The only thing for you is to eat moldy bread. That is the only thing that can save you!” His friend just pities him. Poor fellow’s lost his marbles!
Yet that fellow would be 100% correct, both in analysis and treatment. He knows a thing or two about microbe behavior.
We may wonder at the strange laws of Tum’ah, for we do not understand its nature. And feel lucky that the Torah leaked its secret to us!
***
@@@@@@
(Swinging) At The End Of His Rope
The Midrash tells of a wicked man who set an exorbitant price for the Parah Adumah – the red heifer – he had in his barn. While they went to bring the money, he secretly worked the heifer, disqualifying it for service. The sages inspected the heifer and discovered his deception. They were very sorry, they said, but could not purchase the heifer from him. Impressed, he exclaimed ‘Blessed is the G-d of Israel!’.
Then he hung himself on a tree, frustrated at losing the deal.
What is the lesson here?
Some of the kids said this teaches us how wise the sages were. I suggest a life lesson: the man with the heifer happily swung in his hammock, enjoying himself. Then he gained a parah adumah. Then he lost it. Mathematically, he is back to where he started; enjoying life. Why hang himself?
He was frustrated losing all that money, and it was his own stupid fault. That killed him, Yes. But that is missing perspective.
Watch out! Losing perspective can kill. We will get anything destined to us. If we screw up, move on. Life is too great to be failed…
***
@@@@@@
The Rock Hit
Moshe was commanded to speak to the rock, so that it may give water. He became angry at the people, hitting the rock twice instead, which produced water. Hashem said that Moshe did not sanctify Him, and would die in the Desert.
What was his sin??
1) Perhaps it was hitting the rock twice. If you type a command into a computer and it doesn’t react, will typing it twice help? If it didn’t go the first time, it won’t go the second time either. Only a physical reaction, like cracking a rock, is done with multiple blows.
Moshe hit the rock again and again. This expressed that bringing water of a rock was physical, or semi-physical; not a miracle. Removing the miracle destroyed the kiddush Hashem: “You have not sanctified Me!”
2) Rashi says that Moshe ought to have spoken to the rock, not hit it. Had he spoken the Jews would have inferred that if a rock heeds Hashem, certainly ought they. By hitting the rock, they forfeited the lesson.
The Ramban asks that for a rock to produce water on being hit is a miracle too. What difference is there between hitting a rock and speaking to it?
Two thoughts:
One: Forty years previously, Moshe hit the rock and produced water for the people. The Jews learned to live with that, soon unimpressed with the daily miracle they saw. When water was now needed again, Moshe was now instructed to speak to the rock. They hadn’t seen that miracle yet, and therefore would be impressed by it. Hitting it instead missed the opportunity.
[Moshe told the Jews that Hashem punished him because of them, for had they not been so calloused, they would have appreciated the miracle in hitting the rock, and things would have worked out.
The lesson; never cease to wonder at life’s marvels. Allow it to stay magical. Appreciate the manifold miracles we live by!]
Two: The rock responded when hit. That is merely reactive. A juvenile may not do anything on its own; others act upon him, lead him and position him this threats. An adult, by contrast, doesn’t need being pushed; rather he is tasked, and fulfills.
The Jews had been shepherded up until then. Hashem wanted to upgrade them to a new level; now they would be spoken to and they would fulfill, without threat of punishment, as the rock was to have shown. Moshe lost this opportunity.
3) Becoming angry when challenged signals insecurity. Someone completely secure responds calmly. Instead of Moshe responding coolly to their request for water, Moshe yelled at them. This exhibited suspicion that perhaps things indeed would not work out.
Had Moshe displayed absolute trust in Hashem and answered the Jews unperturbed, Moshe’s powerful faith would effect the people. This was lost. Hashem said to Moshe; “You didn’t trust Me, to sanctify Me before the Jewish people!”
***
@@@@@@
Stop Panic
The Jews continuously doubted Moshe and Hashem – despite sign after sign, proof upon proof, reverting back to claim that Moshe had taken them out on his own, leading them to their deaths in the desert. Why did they doubt?
The Nation lived on the edge of panic. If something went wrong, they were in the middle of nowhere. There was no security; no foreseeable source of help.
They were far from the trust that would one day allow them to look looming disaster in the eye and not flinch. That stage would come in time; it was developing right now.
The people were slowly gaining the backbone they needed. The learning process was to square off against death, panic again and again, until they eventually learned to stop. Such is the process of bravery.
A brave man fears danger. Only a fool does not. But the brave can face danger and not flinch. That happens when one learns to handle fear. And it always involves a learning period – when one does not handle fear well at all…
The path to the lake goes through the mud. It always does.
***
@@@@@@
…And Is It Kosher?
“If you give this nation to me, I will consecrate their cities” [- the Jews’ vow on the eve of war].
Where did this come from?
The Midrash teaches that Yaakov originated it. (It states here ‘Vayidor Yisroel’ – a reference and hint to Grandfather Yisroel). Yaakov had vowed: ‘If Hashem will be with me and return me to my father;’s home, give me clothes to wear and food to eat, then Hashem will be my God and this stone will be an alter, and all that He will give me I will tithe for Him’.
Yaakov had made a conditional vow – If Hashem does this, then I will do that: a deal with Hashem.
One may cut a ‘deal’ with Him.
(I wonder if this applies to anything other than tzeddaka. Tzeddaka is considered ‘lending Hashem’ – something Hashem takes as a personal debt and favor; something He will repay. But other mitzvos are for our own good, to help us gain olam habah or greatness. What leverage do we have there – “Uh, Hashem, I’ll do a mitzvah for my own good and you give me xyz in return, okay?” Perhaps the concept only applies to Tzeddaka or other Hashem-directed mitzvos.)
There is an issue with this: The Mishna teaches that we ought to do mitzvos for their own sakes – not reward. Moreover, someone giving charity only so that his son recover from illness, – if indeed that’s his only intention – is deemed a sinner in the gemarrah. What difference is there between someone giving money so that his son recover and someone making a vow on condition of victory?
The Rishonim answer that if there was an upfront condition to the vow, as in the case of Yaakov and the Jewish people, they clearly stipulated that they vowed only on condition of Hashem helping them. There was no a-priori obligation to give that tzeddaka, so it would be alright to stipulate a condition on ones giving.
However the fellow donating so that his son recover had not stipulated the recovery as a condition to the vow, (his son’s recovery was only the stated goal, the impetus for giving) therefore regret of the vow when his son dies is backtracking on his promise. He is therefore considered a sinner.
Today, it has been popularized to donate money to charity for a specific dividend, such as finding a mate or meriting children. As per above, this may be permitted.
***
@@@@@@
In Quest Of imPerfection
A Parah Aduma must be totally red. Therefore, says Rashi, two black or white hairs disqualify it.
Well, if it needs to be totally red, why doesn’t even one hair disqualify it?
There is no perfection. Just as one off is acceptable in gematria, so too is one black hair acceptable in a Parah Aduma. Nothing is perfect. Only significant imperfection counts; two hairs.
So your spouse/kids/boss is imperfect? Welcome to the club…
***
@@@@@@
Non-Compete Clause
The Jewish People to Edom: ‘From your brother Israel: You know the great hardship we endured; Our fathers descended to Egypt, and lived there awhile, but Egypt turned on us. We called out to Hashem, G-d of our fathers, who answered us by sending a messenger to redeem us from Egypt. We are now at Kadesh, at your borders’.
What was the point in all this?
Approaching Edom, the Jews chose not to be confrontational. They described how they had not enjoyed much success, rather they were beaten up. Edom need not be jealous, to say the least.
They positioned themselves as nebechs, redeemed only through the grace of G-d. This caught their Edomite relatives up to their triumphant situation while maintaining themselves as a non-competitor, not a threat.
We would do well to follow this. Life is not all about competition!