Questions for Va'eschanan 2026

1.  Generally, when we refer to Hashem as ykvk, Hashem, it implies the attribute of rachamim, and when we say elokim it impliesthe attribute of justice. Where in our parsha is this not necessarily true, that it says ykvk but it means din.

2.   The definition of Tefilla is asking the Ribono shel Olam for something. When you know there is no chance of being answered, you should not daven- the Gemara calls it a "Tefillas Shav." Moshe did not ask to be let into Eretz Yisrael as long as he thought Hashem had made an oath to not let him in . There are two pesukim in the parsha that tell us what the purpose of tefilla is. Is there a difference between the intention of Tefilla and the purpose of Tefilla?

3   Although Hashem forbade Moshe to enter the land of Israel, He did allow him to see the entire land, commanding him (3:27) to ascend to the top of a mountain, ראש הפסגה, and raise his eyes westward, northward, southward, and eastward in order to take in the entire land. As Moshe was standing to the east of the land of Israel, why did Hashem command him to also look to the east, as the land he would see in this direction wasn’t part of Israel?

4  Where does it say that if a person forgets his Torah learning out of indifference, he is risking his very life.

5.   In parshas kerias shema we see the mitzva to teach your torah to your children- ולימדתם אותם את בניכם. Does a grandparent have a mitzva to teach his grandchild?

6. Back in Beshalach, three days after they left Mitzrayim, they came to a place called Marah, and the passuk says (Shemos 15:25)

 שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ

Gemara in Sanhedrin 56b-

עֶשֶׂר מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמָרָה, שֶׁבַע שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְהוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן דִּינִין וְשַׁבָּת וְכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם.

It's hard to know why these mitzvos were given seven weeks before Mattan Torah, three days out of Mitzrayim. But where do we see in this parsha a statement that two of the three mitzvos mentioned were given before Mattan Torah. 

7  Where do we see that for repaying a debt, you are rewarded as if you did the greatest of mitzvos.

8.    The Medrash here (29:4) says that with each dibbur, the people’s souls left their bodies (פרחה נשמתם ) and Hashem had to bring them back to life, with תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש.

שני דברים שאלו ישראל מלפני הקדוש ברוך הוא שיראו כבודו וישמעו קולו והיו רואין את כבודו ושומעין את קולו שנאמר (דברים ה, כא) ותאמרו הן הראנו ה' אלהינו את כבודו ואת גדלו וכתיב (שם) ואת קולו שמענו מתוך האש ולא היה בהם כח לעמוד שכיון שבאו לסיני ונגלה להם פרחה נשמתם על שדבר עמהם שנאמר (שיר ה, ו) נפשי יצאה בדברו אבל התורה בקשה עליהם רחמים מלפני הקדוש ברוך הוא יש מלך משיא בתו והורג אנשי ביתו כל העולם כולו שמחים ובניך מתים מיד חזרה נשמתן שנאמר (תהלים יט, ח) תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש

In the Gemara  (Shabbos 88b) it says יצתה נשמתן

ואריב"ל כל דיבור ודיבור שיצא מפי הקב"ה יצתה נשמתן של ישראל שנאמר (שיר השירים ה, ו) נפשי יצאה בדברו ומאחר שמדיבור ראשון יצתה נשמתן דיבור שני היאך קיבלו הוריד טל שעתיד להחיות בו מתים והחיה אותם שנאמר (תהלים סח, י) גשם נדבות תניף אלהים נחלתך ונלאה אתה כוננתה

Prove to me that whatever פרחה נשמתם and יצתה נשמתן  mean, it does not mean they died.

9.   The Rambam says there is a mitzva to know there is a Ribono shel Olam. We know there is a mitzva to have faith. Many people have argued that faith and knowledge are incompatible. Faith means belief in something you can not prove. Mark Twain said "Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true."  Where do we see in our parsha that Yediah, rational certainty, and Emunah, emotional certainty, are not mutually exclusive, but instead work together.

1.  Generally, when we refer to Hashem as ykvk, Hashem, it implies the attribute of rachamim, and when we say elokim it impliesthe attribute of justice. Where in our parsha is this not necessarily true, that it says ykvk but it means din.

Right in the beginning, in 3:23-24

וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל יְהֹוָה בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר׃ 

אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה אַתָּה הַחִלּוֹתָ לְהַרְאוֹת אֶת־עַבְדְּךָ אֶת־גׇּדְלְךָ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ הַחֲזָקָה

The ykvk is pronounced Elokim, so it might mean justice, not mercy. That's what Rashi says. The Ramban says no, here too it means mercy, because that's how it is written.

The machlokes, in my opinion, relates to Reb Moshe's teshuva in OC I:32 6   and OC IV:24 page מא (where he brings the Brisker Rov al haTorah here) about kri/ksiv in general and when you read ykvk and pronounce it adnus do you have to see the word when you read it. 

The Pr"M in E"A 141:9 says you can read it baal peh, but the Shaarei Ephraim Shaar 3:3 says the contrary, that you have to look inside. 

2.   The definition of Tefilla is asking the Ribono shel Olam for something. When you know there is no chance of being answered, you should not daven- the Gemara calls it a "Tefillas Shav." Moshe did not ask to be let into Eretz Yisrael as long as he thought Hashem had made an oath to not let him in . There are two pesukim in the parsha that tell us what the purpose of tefilla is. Is there a difference between the intention of Tefilla and the purpose of Tefilla?

I think the purpose of tefilla is to become close to Hashem by asking that Hashem relate to you through Middas HaRachamim. I say this because otherwise, what is the point of telling us that Moshe davened 515 times, and did not get what he wanted.  It must be that the purpose of tefilla is to bring middas harachamim, and even the greatest middas harachamim is not necessarily what you want. In Moshe’s case, the rachamim was that he was allowed to see the land, and that his talmid Yehoshua would carry his legacy forward.

Example: the Zohar here:

(דברים ד') ויאמר יי' אלי רב לך אל תוסף וגו'. אמר רבי חייא, אמר ליה קודשא בריך הוא למשה, משה, רב לך דאזדווגת בשכינתא, מכאן ולהלאה אל תוסף, רבי יצחק אמר, רב לך בנהירו דשמשא דהוה גבך, אל תוסף, דהא זמנא דסיהרא מטא, וסיהרא לא יכיל לאנהרא, עד דיתכניש שמשא. אבל וצו את יהושע וחזקהו ואמצהו. אנת דהוא שמשא, בעי לאנהרא לסיהרא, והא אתמר.

Also, in 4:7 it says

כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרבים אליו כה' אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו

Not that we get what we ask for, but that Hashem is close to us when we daven.

However, that connection only happens when you think there is a chance of the tefilla being answered.

 

3.    Although Hashem forbade Moshe to enter the land of Israel, He did allow him to see the entire land, commanding him (3:27) to ascend to the top of a mountain, ראש הפסגה, and raise his eyes westward, northward, southward, and eastward in order to take in the entire land. As Moshe was standing to the east of the land of Israel, why did Hashem command him to also look to the east, as the land he would see in this direction wasn’t part of Israel?

I think the simple answer is that he was on the west side of Gilad, the area they already conquered, and he was told to look at the entirety of Eretz Yisrael- what they had already taken, which was behind him, to the east, and what they were about to conquer.

Some say it does not mean eastward, it means look at the east side of Eretz Yisrael. Divide the land into three; north, central, and south, and central subdivided into east and west.

Rav Sorotzkin in Oznayim L’Torah says- because the lands of the Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni, were not given to us at the time of Yehoshua.  We will not take them until Mashiach comes. It is on that area that Moshe Rabbeinu looked.

Breishis 15:19-

ביום ההוא כרת יהוה את אברם ברית לאמר לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדל נהר פרת

את הקיני ואת הקנזי ואת הקדמני

ואת החתי ואת הפרזי ואת הרפאים

Rashi

"את הקיני" - (ב"ר) עשר אומות יש כאן ולא נתן להם אלא שבעה גוים והשלשה אדום ומואב ועמון והם קיני קניזי וקדמוני עתידים להיות ירושה לעתיד שנאמר אדום ומואב משלוח ידם ובני עמון משמעתם (ישעיהו יא)

Rav Sorotzkin’s pshat is great, and I wish it were correct, but it is not.  He forgot a Gemara in BB 56a which says clearly that Moshe did not gaze upon that part of the land which would only be given in the time of Mashiach.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל גכל שהראהו הקב"ה למשה חייב במעשר לאפוקי מאי לאפוקי קיני קניזי וקדמוני

The Sifri in Vezos Habracha that he mentions only says “עד הים האחרון” means that Hashem showed him all the future held until bias HaMashiach. He extrapolates so that it means Hashem showed him the eastern lands that will be part of Eretz Yisrael in Yemos HaMashiach. The Gemara clearly says that Hashem did not show him the eastern lands of K, K, and K.

 4  Where does it say that if a person forgets his Torah learning out of indifference, he is risking his very life.

4:9

רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך ופן יסורו מלבבך כל ימי חייך

Avos 3:8

רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ דָּבָר אֶחָד מִמִּשְׁנָתוֹ, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד) רַק הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ וּשְׁמֹר נַפְשְׁךָ מְאֹד פֶּן תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ תָקְפָה עָלָיו מִשְׁנָתוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם) וּפֶן יָסוּרוּ מִלְּבָבְךָ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ, הָא אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּשֵׁב וִיסִירֵם מִלִּבּוֹ:

 Question: Can you think of why forgetting is such a sin, but not learning in the first place is not?

5.   In parshas kerias shema we see the mitzva to teach your torah to your children- ולימדתם אותם את בניכם. Does a grandparent have a mitzva to teach his grandchild?

4:9-10

וְהוֹדַעְתָּ֥ם לְבָנֶ֖יךָ וְלִבְנֵ֥י בָנֶֽיךָ׃

י֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָמַ֜דְתָּ לִפְנֵ֨י ה' אֱלֹהֶ֘יךָ֮ בְּחֹרֵב֒

6. Back in Beshalach, three days after they left Mitzrayim, they came to a place called Marah, and the passuk says (Shemos 15:25)

 שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ

Gemara in Sanhedrin 56b-

עֶשֶׂר מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמָרָה, שֶׁבַע שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְהוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן דִּינִין וְשַׁבָּת וְכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם.

It's hard to know why these mitzvos were given seven weeks before Mattan Torah, three days out of Mitzrayim. But where do we see in this parsha a statement that two of the three mitzvos mentioned were given before Mattan Torah. 

5:12

שָׁמוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ  יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃

5:15

כַּבֵּד אֶת־אָבִיךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ

7.   Where do we see that for repaying a debt, you are rewarded as if you did the greatest of mitzvos.

5:16

כבד את אביך ואת אמך כאשר צוך ה' אלהיך למען  יאריכן ימיך ולמען ייטב לך על האדמה אשר ה' אלהיך נתן לך

ירושלמי פרק א דפאה 

כבד את ה' מהונך ממה שחננך מפריש לקט שכחה ופאה ומפריש תרומה וכו' ועושה סוכה ולולב שופר ותפילין וציצית ומאכיל את העניים וכו', אם יש לך אתה חייב בכולן ואם אין לך אין אתה חייב באחת מהן, אבל כשהוא בא אצל כיבוד אב ואם בין שיש לך הון בין שאין לך כבד את אביך ואת אמך, ואפילו אתה מסבב על הפתחים

מהר"ם שיק (חלק או"ח סימן שלא)

דדווקא במצוה שאינה נגד אחרים, אבל במצוה שהיא נגד אחרים הוי ליה כבעל חוב ומניה ואפילו מגלימא דעל כתפיה. וזהו הטעם דכיבוד אב ואם צריך לחזור על הפתחים, משום דהוי ליה כפריעת חוב

 Kibbud Av v'Eim is just paying them what you owe them - and still, the Torah says that for Kibbud you are rewarded with long and good years in Eretz Yisrael.

8.   The Medrash here (29:4) says that with each dibbur, the people’s souls left their bodies (פרחה נשמתם ) and Hashem had to bring them back to life, with תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש.

שני דברים שאלו ישראל מלפני הקדוש ברוך הוא שיראו כבודו וישמעו קולו והיו רואין את כבודו ושומעין את קולו שנאמר (דברים ה, כא) ותאמרו הן הראנו ה' אלהינו את כבודו ואת גדלו וכתיב (שם) ואת קולו שמענו מתוך האש ולא היה בהם כח לעמוד שכיון שבאו לסיני ונגלה להם פרחה נשמתם על שדבר עמהם שנאמר (שיר ה, ו) נפשי יצאה בדברו אבל התורה בקשה עליהם רחמים מלפני הקדוש ברוך הוא יש מלך משיא בתו והורג אנשי ביתו כל העולם כולו שמחים ובניך מתים מיד חזרה נשמתן שנאמר (תהלים יט, ח) תורת ה' תמימה משיבת נפש

In the Gemara  (Shabbos 88b) it says יצתה נשמתן

ואריב"ל כל דיבור ודיבור שיצא מפי הקב"ה יצתה נשמתן של ישראל שנאמר (שיר השירים ה, ו) נפשי יצאה בדברו ומאחר שמדיבור ראשון יצתה נשמתן דיבור שני היאך קיבלו הוריד טל שעתיד להחיות בו מתים והחיה אותם שנאמר (תהלים סח, י) גשם נדבות תניף אלהים נחלתך ונלאה אתה כוננתה

Prove to me that whatever פרחה נשמתם and יצתה נשמתן  mean, it does not mean they died.

Because in 5:20 it says

ותאמרו הן הראנו ה' אלהינו את כבדו ואת גדלו ואת קלו שמענו מתוך האש היום הזה ראינו כי ידבר אלהים את האדם וחי

If they died and were brought back to life, it would not make sense for the passuk to say that we saw Hashem's glory and heard His voice and lived. 

9.   The Rambam says there is a mitzva to know there is a Ribono shel Olam. We know there is a mitzva to have faith. Many people have argued that faith and knowledge are incompatible. Faith means belief in something you can not prove. Mark Twain said "Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true."  Where do we see in our parsha that Yediah, rational certainty, and Emunah, emotional certainty, are not mutually exclusive, but instead work together.

 4:39

וידעת היום והשבת אל לבבך כי ה' הוא האלהים בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד 

You see that there are two separate, but related, mitzvos: Daas of the mind, and Daas of the heart. One without the other is imperfect- it happens very often that a person professes a belief, but realizes that he never really believed it when he is under pressure.  Sometimes Emunah peshutah is stronger, and sometimes the strict philosophy of reason and logic is stronger.  See, for example, the famous diatribe of the Chasid Yaavetz describing the mesiras nefesh of those with emunah peshuta during the Inquisition, as opposed to the shameful capitulations of the famous philosophers. 

I recommend Reb Chaim Brown's excellent posts, and the valuable comments, on the idea of Emunah and Yedi'ah, to be found here

https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/02/emunah-knowledge-or-belief.html

and here

https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2009/02/emunah-and-yediya-recap.html

Tehillim on Tisha B'Av After Chatzos

I am posting this because it might be useful to readers.  My wife, who, like her grandfather, is a very very serious Tehillim sayer, asked me this morning whether she can say Tehillim after Chatzos on Tisha Ba'av. I don't know why after all these years she asked me. I would have preferred that she not have asked me, because the benefit I get from her Tehillim far outweighs the risk that she might be doing the sin of saying Torah on Tisha B'av. But once it was out of the box, I had to tell her that her grandfather said she may not.  

Reb Moshe is quoted by his talmid Rav Ephraim Greenblatt in Rivevos Ephraim  (and in Shmaitsa d'Moshe,) as saying one may not say Tehillim on Tisha b'Av. 

The Dirshu in 554 sk13 brings from Rav Shmuel Vosner that general Tehillim is assur, but for a specific Choleh it is muttar. 

I can not say that Rav Vosner's svara is pashut. If people say Tehillim derech bakasha, then sure, you would be mattir for a choleh or in time of danger, not because choli is docheh issurim or Chazal were not gozer taanis bemakom choli, because that is only for refuah derech hateva, not zechusim, but because you would be saying those sections that express distress and fear and the hope for yeshua, obviously not to Hallel or Hodu or Mizmor l'Soda. But if people say Tehillim because they hope the zechus of saying Tehillim will bring a yeshua, then you can not be mattir even for a choleh. You could say the same about all limud haTorah, and obviously we do not say that.

The Dirshu (554 end of note 13)  also brings that Rav Chaim Kanievsky said that the psak of the Chazon Ish is not clear and therefore those who quote him as having paskened one way or the other are not correct. 

ולענין דעת החזו"א בזה ראה בארחות רבנו (ח'ב עמוד קמ'ב) וראה דעת הגר"ח קניבסקי (קרא עלי מועד הערות הגר"ח קניבסקי אות ל'ד) שאין בזה הכרעה ברורה מהחזו"א.

On the other hand:

The Magen Avraham (sk 6) is pretty clear, to me, that he is mattir all Tehillim. Obviously the above osrim hold that he is only talking about the Shir shel Yom, but I do not see how that is possible. 

מותר לקרות וכו'. בפוזנא נוהגין שא"א תהלים ושיר היחוד רק למחרתו או' של אמש ושל היום (לבוש) ובמדינ' זו נוהגין לאמרם במנח' אף על גב דאסור בת"ת כל היום צ"ל דס"ל כיון שאומר' דרך בקש' שרי לאומרו במנחה ומה"ט מקילין בתפילין במנחה:

The Mishna Berura is also not clear. In sk 7 he says

ופרשת הקרבנות ומשנת וכו – 'דלא גרע כל זה ממה שקורין בתורה ומפטירין בנביא, והכל מפני שהוא סדר היום. ונוהגין לומר תהילים ושיר היחוד במנחה, אף על גב דאסור בתלמוד תורה כל היום, צריך לומר דסבירא לן כיון שהוא דרך בקשה שרי. ובפוזנא נוהגין לומר למחרתו של אמש ושל היום, וכן נכון. ומעמדות בודאי אין לומר. ועיין לקמן סימן תקנ"ט ס"ד ,דאין לומר פיטום הקטורת, שאינו מסדר היום. וכל שכן שאין לומר סדר הקרבנות הכתוב בסוף סימן א' .ומה שכתוב בשולחן ערוך ופרשת 

הקרבנות ,היינו פרשת התמיד

but in the Shaar Hatziyun in 554 sk 8 he says that it is evident from the Derech HaChaim that it is assur. I cannot find it in the Derech HaChaim.

Rav Yaakov Emden in Siddur Beis Yaakov seems to say it is muttar, but he is no more clear than the Magen Avraham. Pashtus, he is being mattir generally. But it can be read to mean only what you would normally say as part of Tefillas Shachris. Again, I find that hard to believe, because then he would just say Shir shel yom.

סידור בית יעקב שער הסור שער הדלק דלת ב חלון ד אות א

חלון ד. למנחה

(א) מתעטפין בציצית ומניחין תפילין ומברכין עליהם. ואז יש לומר גם כן ברכת עוטר ישראל. ונוהגין להשלים אז מה שחסרו לומר בשחר. כגון תהלים, שירים ומזמורים:

Back to the Chazon Ish; although I quoted the Dirshu earlier that Reb Chaim K said he has not hachra'ah on the issue, Reb Chaim B sent me this from Rav Shteinman in the name of the Chazon Ish:

אמירת תהלים | נשים יכולות לומר תהלים בט"ב רבנו הוסיף שהחזו"א התיר לאחותו )הרבנית קניבסקי( לומר תהלים, וכנראה טעמו כי לנשים אין עוד מה לומר מלבד זה ויתכן שההיתר הוא רק לנשים ולא לאנשים עכ"ד רבנו. ועי' אילת השחר שבת קיט, ב

But in his Sefer he is tentative about the Chazon Ish's shittah:

I would like to disagree with "simcha as a result of chiyuv." Who says? She makes a bracha on it, and the etzem Torah is mesamei'ach. It's not like an akum.

and this from Reb Chaim K

. האם מותר לומר תהילים בתשעה באב.

החזון איש התיר לנשים  (שיח התורה ח'א)

 Note:

1. It seems to me that if the person does not pay attention to what he is saying, there is no משמחי לב. I don't think that refers to spiritual joy, because that is not prohibited on Tisha B'av. It is simply the pleasure from the yashrus of the words. Could be you have schar for saying it, because it's Torah she'kiksav, but simcha, no.  (Tehillim is also Torah she'biksav; ש"ך יו'ד רמ'ה ס"ק ה' ט"ז ס"ק בת, not like Tos Tmr 14b.)  From what I've seen, many people recite Tehillim without any thought about the meaning of the words. I can not believe that would be a problem on Tisha b'Av. Still, it would be impractical to tell my wife "Yes, you can say Tehillim on Tisha ba'Av, but only if you have no kavana about what the words mean."

2. When I wrote that Chazal were not mattir for refuos that don't work with teva I was thinking about the story with Reb Shlomo Kluger and the Sar Shalom.  See this post.

Cadaver Fat for Cosmetic Enhancement

The question: Is the use of "harvested" human fat allowed al pi halacha for cosmetic procedures.  (We are talking about adipose tissue that has had the DNA scrubbed, leaving only the basic chemicals and the scaffolding. In this discussion we are going to call it 'fat.')

Not all poskim allow any invasive procedure for cosmetic purposes, including cosmetic surgery. Here, we are going to follow those who are mattir.

There are three kinds of fat implants: 

a. Autologous transfer, where fat is transferred from one part of the body to another. 

b. Heterologous transfer from a living person, where fat is taken from one person and transferred to another. For example, A is having fat reduction surgery and he allows the tissue to be used for such purposes.

c. Heterologous transfer from a cadaver.

Discussion.

a and b: Human body parts taken from a living person are not assur b'hana'ah.  But is there an obligation to bury them? 

Reb Moshe (אגרות יו'ד רל'א-ב) discusses whether flesh removed from a living person requires burial. He brings the Noda BeYehuda who says there is no such requirement. He says that while he disagrees with the Noda Be'Yehuda to the extent that he requires burial so that it should not be left in disgrace. If it is being used for an important purpose, he says there is nothing wrong with using בשר מן החי.  I assume that this reasoning is necessary to be mattir blood transfusions as well.

c: Fat taken from cadavers used for cosmetic procedures.  (The basic question can be asked about bone used for bone grafts, and cornea transplants. But as we will see, there is a difference in halacha between what can be done in case of medical need and what can be done for cosmetics.)   

Here's the article I read about it.

GLP-1s are shrinking bodies. Cadaver fat is plugging the gap

By  Leah Dolan

Jul 13, 2026

A buzzy new body contouring injectable is being made from donated cadaver fat. Doctors "haven't had to really explain it much." 

Sandra*, a 43-year-old media lawyer based in Los Angeles, had been toying with the idea of breast augmentation since her 20s, but was always put off by the pain of the procedure, the long recovery time and the idea of having “this kind of foreign sac in your body.”

So when Sandra, who wanted to protect her identity for privacy reasons, heard about a new injectable body contouring product last summer, she was intrigued. No synthetic fillers, no implanted sacs, no downtime.

“You hit a certain age and you decide, I’m going to do something for myself at this point,” she said. The product she found — alloClae, pronounced allo-clay like the earthy sculpting material — is quick to administer. Nicknamed the lunchtime boob-job, it often takes less than an hour to inject and doesn’t need general anaesthesia or a hospital setting. Plus, the aftercare instructions, Sandra said, were “shockingly easy.” The fact that alloClae uses fat harvested from donated dead bodies, or cadavers as they’re referred to in the scientific community, didn’t really pose an issue. “I was fine with that,” she said.

A growing number of people in the US appear to feel the same. Tiger Aesthetics, the company that manufactures alloClae, said more than 2,000 patients have been injected with it since May 2025. It’s a buzzy topic on Reddit’s popular plastic surgery page, as potential patients ask questions, seek reviews and swap doctor recommendations.

In 2026, it’s clear that what once might have been classed as body modification is now seen simply as body maintenance. It has never been easier, or more mundane, to drastically alter one’s physical form. Rib remodeling. Upper blepharoplasty. Lower blepharoplasty. Mid-facelift. Lower facelift. Deep-plane facelift. As science and surgical technique progress ad nauseam, so does our appetite for new curves, tighter skin, sharper jawlines.

AlloClae — one of the more inventive products in this category— is our latest reminder. But for every plastic surgery clinic calling the injectable a “next-generation” advancement, there’s an equal number of headlines branding it “zombie filler” or “corpse injections.”

If there is a boundary line in the pursuit of the perfect look, are we finally butting up against it? What does it mean if society widely embraces injecting cadaver fat in the service of beauty? Could alloClae become as common as Botox?

In the end, your opinion of alloClae might depend on your opinion of death.

The Ozempic effect

AlloClae was first released in the US in 2024 to board-certified plastic surgeons with a track record of working with fat, and since January to a wider net of doctors including “mid-level providers” like physicians assistants, nurse practitioners and aesthetic nurses. (Tiger Aesthetics said it trains nurse practitioners, who are not permitted to inject into the breast, on special injection technique.)

Dr. Luis Macias, a double-board-certified plastic surgeon in LA who was one of a select few doctors to receive alloClae early, has witnessed the product’s rising popularity first-hand. “I have to buy a lot of syringes at a time, and talk to the rep constantly about it,” he said in a phone interview. “I feel like I’m talking to my Porsche dealer… It’s ridiculous.” The price for one 12.5cc syringe of the soft tissue corrector can run up to roughly $2,250.

Marketed as “off-the-shelf” fat, or “bottled fat grafting,” as one PR email put it, alloClae is touted as an alternative to autologous fat grafting — where a patient’s own fat is removed via liposuction and transferred into another area.

It isn’t the first product in this area of cosmetics. Renuva, a similar shelf-stable cadaver fat injectable made by not-for-profit organization MTF Biologics, first launched around a decade ago. The key difference between the two, Macias said, is volume. Because Renuva’s maximum syringe size is just 3ccs, it was commonly used in smaller areas like the hands, face and neck, whereas the largest syringe of alloClae can hold around 22cc of more product. “It’s a little chunkier,” said Macias. “A little firmer.”

In the age of GLP-1s where bodies seem to be shrinking left and right, donated cadaver fat is plugging an emerging gap in the market. Around 11% of Americans are currently on medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy for weight loss, according to a report published this month. Macias says a number of his patients on GLP-1s are keen to add fat back into their bodies, now that they can spot treat areas and design their silhouette. “They want it back in the breast and buttocks, in the face,” he said. “Those are very common areas that we’re re-volumizing after we get rid of the excess skin.”

Caroline Van Hove, president of Tiger Aesthetics, agreed the rise in these drugs has been “complementary” to alloClae. “What these patients are finding is that as they’ve lost quite substantial amounts of weight, it’s also left them disfigured in certain areas where they have lost real targeted volume,” she said over Zoom. “In areas that, in their opinion, define their femininity.”

To meet the booming demand, Van Hove said the company is scaling up production, which might sound difficult for a company that relies entirely on the donation of dead bodies. Macias says he’s yet to see a patient bat an eyelid at where the fat comes from. “Maybe it’s because of the market I’m in,” he said. “Los Angeles, right?”

Cadaver ethics

Do families, and donors, know their bodies can be used in this way? The short answer is not always.

Organ and whole body donation are often understood as the ultimate selfless acts — a grieving family using their loss to improve someone else’s life, or further scientific research.

Organ donation is relatively straightforward — in the US it is tightly controlled by federal law. But whole body donation and non-transplant human tissue banks are a different story. Regulation varies by state and there is currently no mandatory federal accreditation or licensing requirement for either body donation organizations or non-transplant tissue banks, which are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. This means there is largely no federal oversight of the hundreds of facilities receiving tens of thousands of gifted dead bodies per year.

Still, Van Hove called whole body donation a “stringent and highly regulated area.” She said Tiger Aesthetics only has contracts with tissue banks connected with the Association for Advancing Tissue and Biologics — a voluntary accrediting body established in 1976 with the aim of increasing public trust by providing additional scrutiny to the donation process. Donors “have to complete a very extensive dossier releasing their consents,” Van Hove said, adding that it can take between 3 and 6 months to “clear” a donor’s medical record and approve the anatomical gift. “Obviously the form does not say ‘Do you want to donate your organs or tissue to alloClae?’” she said. “But it allows the donor to really indicate whether or not they want it exclusively for investigative research, medical research or if they’re also allowing for-profit purposes and so on, or if they have no restrictions at all.”

AlloClae is particularly popular with GLP-1 users, who want to add fat back into specific areas after weight loss.

AlloClae is particularly popular with GLP-1 users, who want to add fat back into specific areas after weight loss. Photo Illustration by Connie Chen/CNN

Whether it’s ethical is another question, especially since families of donors are not compensated for their loved one’s body. “It really is betraying altruism to make money,” Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine, said of the industry more generally in a video call. “I think that’s an ethics problem.”

In terms of increasing production, Tiger Aesthetics told CNN they are partnering with more tissue banks across the US to access extra cadavers and plan to widen the age criteria for eligible donors. But its efforts to scale were somewhat disrupted this summer when the New York State Health Department denied the product’s distribution. New York is one of the few states in the country which require non-transplant tissue banks and those distributing, processing, storing or collecting human tissue to hold a license. According to recent court filings, the Department of Health rejected a license for alloClae manufacturers in October 2024 on the grounds that it was “unclear” whether the injectable was “in compliance with FDA requirements” and again in May 2026 because “the tissue bank owners, controlling parties, medical director or tissue bank director do not have the character and competence to ensure that the facility is competently operated in accordance with the law.” Tiger, who insists its product is “lawfully regulated” by the FDA, has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health which it believes does not have the authority to block the product. The company is seeking damages of at least $500,000 for lost revenue and a declaration from the court that the “New York Tissue Bank regulatory scheme does not apply to adipose tissue-derived products” like alloClae, among other relief.

‘Oily, chunky and yellow’

When asked about the question of donated cadaver fat, Jackelin Cruz, a patient of Macias, said she initially found it “a little bit weird.” But she was comforted by the fact that, according to Tiger Aesthetics, the donor’s DNA is removed in the manufacturing process.

Cruz, a 60-year-old stay-at-home mom living in LA was waiting in Macias’ clinic for her usual Botox and lasers appointment when she saw a pamphlet for alloClae. She had already thought about adding volume to her buttocks — sometimes, she felt shy even walking in front of her husband and preferred to tie a sweater around her waist — but Macias told her she was too lean for a traditional Brazilian butt lift, also known as a BBL. Even if she had enough fat reserves, Cruz didn’t like the sound of the surgery’s recovery. Instead, she was “sold” on alloClae’s minimal downtime, and the idea that her desired shape could be built up slowly with the injectable over a few sessions. In the end, she had two rounds costing just under $50,000 altogether. She loved the result of her alloClae treatment so much, she’s considering using it in other areas of her body.

Sandra, meanwhile, spent $13,000 for 50cc of alloClae in each breast. She thought it was a good deal, thanks to a volume discount from her surgeon. But she ended up facing complications. Around two months after her breast augmentation, Sandra said her right side became painful, and the skin was turning yellow-brown and purple like a bruise. She said she could feel lumps in her breast, and was eventually told by her surgeon she had something called fat necrosis. The injected fat wasn’t able to vascularize — the process where new blood vessels form and increase blood supply to the area — and was now dying inside her body. One time after showering, Sandra said she noticed yellow fluid seeping out of the injection site of her right breast. “It very much looked like the alloClae,” she said. “It looked oily, chunky and yellow.”

According to Van Hove, Tiger Aesthetics does not have any confirmed cases of graft rejection or infection of alloClae. She said she could not comment on the details of Sandra’s experience, which would have been handled by the company’s quality assurance team, but added that injecting “technique is very important.”

Both Van Hove and Dr. Krishna Vyas, a plastic surgeon based in New York, said that standard fat grafting with your own biology also poses a risk of necrosis, though any further evaluation is difficult since there are currently no direct comparison studies between the two techniques. While Vyas noted that the product seemed “low risk,” he is hesitant to use it in his own practice before more robust clinical trials with long term follow-up data are published.

Sandra’s cysts were successfully aspirated, but she said she can still feel some lumps in her chest and was, ironically, told she may need surgery to remove any remaining alloClae.

Caroline Van Hove, president of alloClae's manufacturer Tiger Aesthetics, is behind some of the most recognisable injectables on the market. Her career includes PR for Botox and Juvéderm, two products that have been re-shaping faces for decades.

Caroline Van Hove, president of alloClae's manufacturer Tiger Aesthetics, is behind some of the most recognisable injectables on the market. Her career includes PR for Botox and Juvéderm, two products that have been re-shaping faces for decades. Photo Illustration by Connie Chen/CNN/berkpixels/fStop/Getty Images

The new Botox?

When he first began working with Renuva and alloClae, Macias steeled himself against what he expected would be widespread horror at the idea of “putting dead people’s fat into people.”

“For some reason,” he said. “I haven’t had to really explain it that much.”

Arabelle Sicardi, a cultural critic and author of “The House of Beauty: Lessons from the Image Industry,” called alloClae “horrifically convenient,” likening it to something in the universe of Coralie Fargeat’s 2024 body horror film, “The Substance.”

Sicardi thought the lack of downtime or recovery added to a kind of cognitive dissonance regarding the product’s ingredient list. “It says that we’re prioritizing convenience with materials of the dead,” Sicardi said. “This is just a new version of an ancient impulse. People used to eat dead bodies. Now we’re shooting them into our bodies.”

But Van Hove is confident about the injectable’s future success. And she has reason to be, having held a career at the forefront of the medical aesthetics industry for decades. She has helped to launch two of the most recognizable products in the cosmetics world: Botox and Juvéderm. Fillers, Botox, lasers, needling, “all those things at one point or another were considered extreme because they were new,” Van Hove said. “I think all of those products should be considered as they’re helping mental well-being and self-confidence.”

Rather than representing human expiration, she sees alloClae as a sort of cosmetic lifeblood. “People are also looking for ways to not only live longer and live better, but also to look and feel their very best as they’re extending their own life span,” Van Hove said.

“Why do everything possible to live a longer life when you feel that the outside doesn’t really project the inner youth that you’ve strived for.”

Halacha.

1. A human corpse is assur b'hana'ah. This might not apply to hair and skin, but it certainly applies to fat.

עבודה זרה כ"ט:  

ומת גופיה מנלן אתיא שם שם מעגלה ערופה כתיב הכא {במדבר כ-א} ותמת שם מרים וכתיב התם {דברים כא-ד} וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מה להלן אסור בהנאה אף כאן נמי אסור בהנאה והתם מנלן אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים:

2. Hana'ah from a meis is an issur deoraysa. There is a machlokes Rishonim and Achronim whether this issur is deoraysa applies to everyone, or only to Jews- If a non-Jew wishes to donate his body, the Torah allows him to do so. Even so, everyone agrees that there is at least an issure derabanan, that the Rabanan prohibited us from using it, even if he donated it willingly. 

שו"ע יו"ד שמט, א

איסור הנאה במת ובתכריכיו. ובו ד' סעיפים:

מת בין עובד כוכבים בין ישראל תכריכיו אסורים בהנאה ודוקא שהזמינם לצרכו ונתנם עליו אבל בהזמנה לבד אפילו עשאם לצרכו לאחר שמת לא נאסרו דהזמנה לאו מלתא וכן אם נתנם עליו ולא הזמינם לכך בתחילה עדיין לא נאסרו:

פתחי תשובה

בין עובד כוכבים. עבה"ט של הרב מהרי"ט ז"ל ועי' בתשו' אבן שהם סי' ל' שהעלה דמת ישראל אסור בהנאה מה"ת אבל מת עובד כוכבים אסור מדרבנן ומה"ט כתב שם באחד שחלה חולי שאב"ס ואמרו הרופאים שיקח עצם ממת לצורך איזה רפואה או מתכריכי המת דמותר ליקח עצם עובד כוכבים לזה כיון שאינו אלא מדרבנן ע"ש. ועיין עוד בתשו' צמח צדק סי' י"ג ובהג"ה שם. ובתשו' יד אליהו סי' ס"ו ובתשו' פרי תבואה סי' כ"ה ובספר ברכי יוסף להגאון מהר"ר חיד"א ז"ל ובשאילת יעב"ץ ח"א סי' מ"א ובשו"ת תשובה מאהבה ח"א סי' מ"ז ובתשו' הרב הגדול מהר"ר ברוך בעל טעם המלך:

Here is the Even haShoham. 

And here is the Mishneh LeMelech Eivel 14:21

שוב זיכני ה' וראיתי שדין זה מבואר בירושלמי דשבת עלה דמתני' דכזית מן המת דקא אמרי בפירוש דבשר עכו"ם מת מותר בהנאה. ואף שדברי הירושלמי שם הם צריכין ביאור מ"מ כל הישר הולך יראה בעיניו ולבבו יבין דלפי פשט הירושלמי עכו"ם מותר בהנאה וליראת האריכות לא הארכתי בביאור דברי הירושלמי. ולפי זה אני תמיה על הרשב"א והריטב"א והרא"ה שכתבנו למעלה משמם דס"ל דבשר העכו"ם אסור בהנאה איך לא השגיחו בדברי הירושלמי הללו:     

3. If the issur is derabanan for non=Jews, then at least for Ashkenazim the Rama allows using it for refuah even when there is no sakana, even for a חולה שאין בו סכנה.

יו'ד קנ'ה ג

בשאר איסורים מתרפאים במקום סכנה אפי' דרך הנאתן ושלא במקום סכנה כדרך הנאתן אסור יגשלא כדרך הנאתן מותר חוץ מכלאי הכרם ובשר בחלב שאסורים אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתן אלא במקום סכנה: הגה ועיין לעיל סימן קכ"ג י"א דכל איסורי הנאה מדרבנן מותר להתרפאות בהן טואפילו חולה שאין בו סכנה (ר"ן פכ"ש בשם י"א וריב"ש סי' מ"ה) ואפי' יין נסך טזבזמן הזה מותר להתרפאות בו יזולעשות ממנו מרחץ אע"פ שהוא כדרך הנאתן ובלבד שלא יאכל וישתה האיסור הואיל ואין בו סכנה וכל שכן יחדמותר לזלף יין על גבי אש דאפי' לבריא מותר דריחא לאו מילתא היא (ארוך כלל ל "ט) 

4. Reb Shlomo Kluger   האלף לך שלמה יו'ד רב  says that even by an issur deoraysa, חצי שיעור would be even more kal than a derabanan for a choleh. Now go figure out what Chatzi shiur is by organ  or tissue transplants.

5.  Also: Even if the issur is deoraysa, or in the case of a Jewish body, some (Reb Shlomo Zalman מנחת שלמה חלק ב סימן פד quoting Rav Unterman) say that because the tissue is biologically incorporated into a living person, it is no longer assur b'hana'ah, because it is no longer bassar hameis. This might not solve the obligation to bury the tissue.

So here is what I say from a halachic perspective. The use of cadaveric fat for cosmetic purposes is assur. The issur may be deoraysa, the issur may be derabanan, but assur it is. The application of Reb Shlomo Kluger's chatzi shiur and the Rama's hetter are useless where there is no medicinal need.

Here is what I say from an ethical perspective: The use of cadaveric fat for cosmetic purposes is a breath-takingly spectacular commodification of the human being, and is indistinguishable from using it for culinary purposes. 

NOTE: I don't think I would be dismayed by the idea of draining a cadaver's blood to use for transfusion, but that's because taking a live person's blood is not an assault on his bodily integrity.

Cadaveric blood can be and at one time was used for transfusion.

Speaking of commodification of the human body, I wish to point out that I do not believe that capital punishment treads on the same ground by any means. If anything, capital punishment emphasizes the importance of human life. 

I coincidentally saw the following opinion piece and letter in the WSJ on July 21 2026.

Can We Kill You for Your Organs, Please?

An academic paper raises a chilling new concern about assisted suicide.

By

Mary Marslender

July 20, 2026 

In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, three medical academics, two of whom are bioethicists, argue that the growing acceptance of voluntary euthanasia “warrants a recontextualization of the dead donor rule and assessment of the ethical principles involved.” Behind the obscurantist language is a horrifying proposal, which co-author Robert Truog described in an interview: Patients “would receive an anesthetic . . . and under anesthesia, the organs would be removed . . . while they’re still functioning.”

Assisted suicide raises enough ethical concerns as it is. The National Council on Disability, on which I served, noted in a 2019 report the longstanding concern that “if assisted suicide is legal, some people’s lives, particularly those of people with disabilities, will be ended without their fully informed and free consent, through mistakes, abuse, insufficient knowledge, and the unjust lack of better options.” Exploiting assisted suicide to increase the supply of donated organs would increase the likelihood that vulnerable patients will feel pressured to end their lives.

Apart from whether it violates state criminal statutes regarding euthanasia and murder, federal policy should forbid the ghoulish, macabre practice the authors call “death via organ donation” before it begins. The Trump administration should immediately issue guidance specifying that a 1997 law prohibiting federal funding of assisted suicide applies to any instances of death via organ donation. If Medicare, Medicaid and other federal insurance options and grant programs refuse to cover the costs of an organ transplant that is the product of assisted suicide, few hospitals will contemplate undertaking them.

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services should direct the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to adopt a policy explicitly prohibiting death via organ donation. The OPTN’s policies carry great weight because Section 1138 of the Social Security Act provides that transplant hospitals may participate in Medicare and Medicaid “only if . . . the hospital is a member of, and abides by the rules and requirements of” the OPTN. With all Medicare and Medicaid payments contingent on compliance with OPTN policies, a single instance of death by organ donation would put a hospital’s existence in jeopardy.

Ultimately, Congress should amend the National Organ Transplant Act to prohibit organ donations caused by assisted suicide, just as it already prohibits the interstate sale of human organs. A recent bicameral letter calling for monitoring of hospice patients regarding so-called aid in dying illustrates bipartisan concern that vulnerable patients could be pressured into ending their lives. That suggests there could be broad bipartisan support for a prohibition on death via organ donation, as there was for the 1997 law on assisted suicide and the 2023 law reforming the organ transplant system.

As a mother of a child with cystic fibrosis, I recognize the anguish that patients in need of a life-saving organ transplant face. But we can do better than killing people—even people who claim they wish to die—to harvest their organs.

And this, a letter to the editor in the WSJ, also on 7/21.

The ICC in Inaction: Chinese Organ Harvesting

The body’s failure to address allegations that Beijing is using detainees in this way is one of the most glaring instances of its ineptitude.

I applaud Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s July 14 op-ed “Why We’re Dismantling the ICC.” Regardless of the issues involving the International Criminal Court outlined by Mr. Rubio, there is one glaring omission in its portfolio which he doesn’t mention: its failure to address the evidence that China is subjecting detainees from ethnic minority and faith groups to forced organ harvesting.

The independent China Tribunal has investigated charges of Chinese forced organ harvesting, and concluded in 2020 that the Chinese Communist Party had “beyond reasonable doubt” committed this crime. Beijing denied the tribunal’s findings.

The ICC lacks a jurisdictional path over conduct occurring entirely within China, unless the United Nations Security Council refers the situation to the ICC. Such a referral likely hasn’t happened because China is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power.

Advocacy groups such as Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting, which I worked for the past two decades, have argued for years that the alleged forced organ harvesting could constitute crimes against humanity, but this hasn’t resulted in an ICC case or public investigation.

Mr. Rubio states that at its inception the ICC was proposed as a backstop against the gravest crimes. Most would agree that a country’s using its minorities as industrial merchandise for a booming transplant industry qualifies as a grave offense. Mr. Rubio is right, the ICC has outlived its usefulness—whatever that was.

Prof. Em. Lucia Dunn

Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

This will come to include the option of not only harvesting organs (optimally while the donor is still alive,) but also fat. Looking at the bright side, this will have the positive result of  improving the treatment of prisoners in China, à la Hansel and Gretel.

I wrote a letter to Dr Dunn, and she kindly answered me. 

Dear Dr. Dunn,

I write simply to thank you for raising the issue of forced transplants in China targeting "homo sacer." I'm sure the irony of a Marxist regime committing the ultimate commodification of human beings did not escape you. Coincidentally, there was an op-ed in today's paper titled Can We Kill You for Your Organs, Please?.  This follows upon the article in CNN last week titled "GLP-1s are shrinking bodies. Cadaver fat is plugging the gap"

So many fritter away their outrage on trivialities- some performatively, some because they are afraid to contemplate and confront the demons of true evil. Please continue your heroic fight for humanity. 

Eliezer Eisenberg 

Dear Mr. Eisenberg,

Thank you for your kind words.

It is indeed encouraging to see major news outlet taking up this topic.  The numbers of innocent victims of this horrific practice, which become known in some circles as early as 2006,  are believed to now run over a million.   I have honestly come to believe that if China “gets away” with this, it could well change the meaning of what it is to be human.

You are obviously not one who is “frittering away their outrage on trivialities,” and I greatly appreciate your concern and the sentiments you have expressed.

Best regards,

Lucia

Questions for Devarim Shabbos Chazon, 2026

1.  In 1:11, Moshe said

ה אלהי אבותכם יסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים ויברך אתכם כאשר דבר לכם

Many ask, but if כאשר דבר לכם  refers to the bracha to Avraham Avinu, it is not correct, it is weaker than the bracha to Avraham. The Bracha to Avraham was that we will be innumerable, like the sand on the shore. Multiplication by one thousand is nowhere near that.  Reb Akiva Eiger says that the question misunderstands the difference between ככם אלף פעמים and אלף פעמים ככם . What is the difference between the two brachos?

2.   Both Kaleiv and Yehoshua lived to enter Eretz Yisrael, but in 1:34-37, there is a clear distinction between them as to why they were the exceptions, in what merit they lived, and what their reward was.

What is the difference?

3.    There are those who believe that the Israeli flag exposes the Jewish plan to conquer all the land between modern day Israel and the Euphrates, including Lebanon, Syria, and much of Iraq. That is why you have the two blue lines with the Magen David between them, the top line being the Euphrates. As far as I can tell, this was absolutely not intended by the people who designed the flag, but it's probably true, at least after Mashiach comes. What passuk in our parsha gives credence to this interpretation?

4.   Four times in the Parsha that we are told that we have to banish our fear- not just to be brave in the face of fear, but to nullify our fear, to not be afraid. Another passuk says that fear can paralyze you and then you will make bad decisions. 

 5.  There is a mitzva to rebuke a person who sins, הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך.  Did Moshe Rabbeinu fulfill this mitzva in this parsha when he rebuked Klal Yisrael for their sins?

6.  We all know that the decree on Moshe that he could not enter Eretz Yisrael was a result of Mei Meriva, when Hashem told him יען לא האמנתם בי. So why does passuk 1:37 say it was because of the Meraglim?

 7.   Find a remez in the Torah that the creation of the modern Medinas Yisrael will be spearheaded by people who were not Shomrei Torah u’Mitzvos.  (Based on a speech given by Rav Shimon Shkop.)

8. The passuk in Yeshaya says

שִׂמְחוּ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם וְגִילוּ בָהּ כׇּל אֹהֲבֶיהָ שִׂישׂוּ אִתָּהּ מָשׂוֹשׂ כׇּל הַמִּתְאַבְּלִים עָלֶיהָ

The Gemara in Taanis (30b) says 

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַמִּתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ, (וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ.)

What does that mean, he is zocheh to see it in its simcha? Millions of people were misabel and did not see it. Does it mean he'll see it after techiyas hameisim? Does that mean that being misabel is a tnai in techiyas hameisim? (See Bahd Kodesh Moadim pages 245 and 253 for his answers.)

9.  Chazal say that the Churban HaBayis was set in motion by the episode of the Meraglim and the nation's reaction to their report. 

Every tishabav, the men under the Gzeira dug own graves and slept in them, as Rashi (Taanis 30b) brings from the Medrash (it's in the intro to Eicha Rabbah 33 and also a Yerushalmi.)

שכלו מתי מדבר דתניא כל ארבעים שנה שהיו במדבר בכל ערב תשעה באב היה הכרוז יוצא ואומר צאו לחפור והיה כל אחד ואחד יוצא וחופר לו קבר וישן בו שמא ימות קודם שיחפור ולמחר הכרוז יוצא וקורא יבדלו חיים מן המתים וכל שהיה בו נפש חיים היה עומד ויוצא וכל שנה היו עושין כן ובשנת ארבעים שנה עשו ולמחר עמדו כולן חיים וכיון שראו כך תמהו ואמרו שמא טעינו בחשבון החדש חזרו ושכבו בקבריהן בלילות עד ליל חמשה עשר וכיון שראו שנתמלאה הלבנה בט"ו ולא מת אחד מהם ידעו שחשבון חדש מכוון וכבר מ' שנה של גזרה נשלמו קבעו אותו הדור לאותו היום יו"ט:

Medrash Eicha

Where is this fate foreshadowed in the words of people's request to send Meraglim.

 

1.  In 1:11, Moshe said

ה אלהי אבותכם יסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים ויברך אתכם כאשר דבר לכם

Many ask, but if כאשר דבר לכם  refers to the bracha to Avraham Avinu, it is not correct, it is weaker than the bracha to Avraham. The Bracha to Avraham was that we will be innumerable, like the sand on the shore. Multiplication by one thousand is nowhere near that.  Reb Akiva Eiger says that the question misunderstands the difference between ככם אלף פעמים and אלף פעמים לכם . What is the difference between the two brachos?

יסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים  is ששים ריבוא  to 1000^th power, not   אלף פעמים ככם, which is simple thousand time multiplication.  600,000 to the thousandth power has 300 digits. Google is 10 to the power of 100 (10¹⁰⁰), which is a 1 followed by 100 zeros.

2.   Both Kaleiv and Yehoshua lived to enter Eretz Yisrael, but in 1:34-37, there is a clear distinction between them as to why they were the exceptions, in what merit they lived.

What is the difference?

וַיִּשְׁמַ֥ע ה' אֶת־ק֣וֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶ֑ם וַיִּקְצֹ֖ף וַיִּשָּׁבַ֥ע לֵאמֹֽר׃

אִם־יִרְאֶ֥ה אִישׁ֙ בָּאֲנָשִׁ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה הַדּ֥וֹר הָרָ֖ע הַזֶּ֑ה אֵ֚ת הָאָ֣רֶץ הַטּוֹבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִשְׁבַּ֔עְתִּי לָתֵ֖ת לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶֽם׃

זֽוּלָתִ֞י כָּלֵ֤ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה֙ ה֣וּא יִרְאֶ֔נָּה וְלֽוֹ־אֶתֵּ֧ן אֶת־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר דָּֽרַךְ־בָּ֖הּ וּלְבָנָ֑יו יַ֕עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִלֵּ֖א אַחֲרֵ֥י ה'׃

גַּם־בִּי֙ הִתְאַנַּ֣ף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר גַּם־אַתָּ֖ה לֹא־תָבֹ֥א שָֽׁם׃

יְהוֹשֻׁ֤עַ בִּן־נוּן֙ הָעֹמֵ֣ד לְפָנֶ֔יךָ ה֖וּא יָ֣בֹא שָׁ֑מָּה אֹת֣וֹ חַזֵּ֔ק כִּי־ה֖וּא יַנְחִלֶ֥נָּה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

It appears that Kaleiv was zocheh because of “Milei Acharei Hashem,” but Yehoshua was zocheh because he stood in place of Moshe Rabbeinu. The order is: Kaleiv will live and is rewarded with extra territory because "milei.."; Moshe is going to die; Yehoshua will lead them. Kaleiv was zocheh on his own. Yehoshua was zocheh because if Moshe is going to die, they need a leader, and Yehoshua is the best man to lead them.

Pashtus I would answer that the gzeira was on the whole dor, including those who did not want to go back to Mitzrayim. To be separated from the gzeira on the dor, it's not enough to not do the aveira, you have to have actively fought. We find that Kaleiv fought, but not Yehoshua. ויהס כלב את העם, not Yehoshua. This could be because everyone knew Yehoshua would side with his rebbi, so they ignored him, but the fact remains that Kaleiv was the one who fought the most with the Meraglim.

Also: Yehoshua's zechus for resistance was less, because he got a bracha and the sheim Hashem from Moshe. Kaleiv had to do it all on his own- he had a Ru'ach Acheres. 

The Malbim says that  רוח אחרת בו means that at first he sided with the meraglim, but then thought more carefully and realized how wrong they were. So simply not siding with them might not have been enough. Changing your mind publicly, that is a great thing.

See שמירת הלשון חלק השני פרק י"ט: The Chofetz Chaim says Kaleiv was a mole. He acted as if he agreed with them, and participated in their talk and plans, but when they came back, he revealed his true beliefs. Yehoshua stated his opposition from the beginning, as the greatest talmid and representative of Moshe Rabbeinu. Evidently, being  a sleeper agent and not changing your beliefs is a greater accomplishment.

 וְאַגַּב נְבָאֵר מַהוּ זֶה דִּכְתִיב {במדבר י''ג ט''ז}: ''וַיִּקְרָא משֶה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בֶּן נוּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ'', וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִּׁ''י שֶׁאָמַר לו {במדבר רבה פרשה י''ח}: ''יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ מֵעֲצַת מְרַגְּלִים''. וְלָמָּה לֹא בֵּרֵךְ גַּם לְכָלֵב, וְכִי מַשּׂוֹא פָּנִים יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר?

גַּם מַהוּ דִּכְתִיב {במדבר י''ג כ''ב}: ''וַיָּבֹא עַד חֶבְרוֹן'', וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ''י, שֶׁכָּלֵב לְבַדּו הָלַךְ לְשָׁם וְנִשְׁתַּטַּח עַל קִבְרֵי אָבוֹת, שֶׁלֹא יְהֵא נִסַּת מֵחֲבֵרָיו לִהְיוֹת בַּעֲצָתָם. מַדּוּעַ לֹא הָלַךְ גַּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

וְגַם מַהוּ שֶׁכָּתַב בְּסוֹף הַפָּרָשָׁה? {בַּמִּדְבָּר י''ד כ''ד}: ''וְעַבְדִּי כָּלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי'', מַדּוּעַ לֹא הִזְכִּיר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ גַּם כֵּן לְשֶׁבַח, שֶׁהוּא הָיָה מִתְנַגֵּד לְשִׁטַּת הַמְרַגְּלִים מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף?

אָכֵן, בֶּאֱמֶת נִיחָא הַכֹּל בַּחֲדָא מַחְתָּא, וְהוּא דְּיֵשׁ שְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ. בְּעֵת שֶׁמִּתְגַּבְּרִים כֹּחוֹת הַתּוֹעִים בָּעוֹלָם, וְאֶחָד מֵעובְדֵי ה' הֻכְרַח לַעֲמֹד עִמָּהֶם כַּמָּה שָׁבוּעוֹת, אִם יוֹצִיא אָז כֹּחוֹתָיו הַפְּנִימִיִּים לַחוּץ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁיְּפַרְסֵם שִׁטָּתו הָאֲמִתִּית לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְיָרִיב עִמָּם עַל דַּעְתָּם הַכּוזֶבֶת, אוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁתֹּק לְעֵינֵיהֶם, וְאֶפְשָׁר גַּם שֶׁיַּסְכִּים עִמָּהֶם לְפָנִים, עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא בָּרַבִּים לִפְנֵי קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָז יְבָרֵר אֶת שִׁטָּתוֹ הָאֲמִתִּית וּלְהֶפֶךְ אֶת דַּעְתָּם הַכּוֹזֶבֶת לְעֵינֵי כֹּל.

וְיֵשׁ בְּכָל דֶּרֶךְ מַעֲלָה וְחִסָּרוֹן. בָּאֹפֶן הָרִאשׁוֹן יֵשׁ מַעֲלָה, דְּאִם יִשְׁתֹּק כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן וְגַם יַסְכִּים עִמָּהֶם, לְאַט לְאַט הוֹלֵךְ כֹּחוֹ הַפְּנִימִי וְנֶחְלָשׁ, עַד שֶׁהֻתְּרָה אֶצְלוֹ דַּעְתָּם הַכּוֹזֶבֶת. וְדֻגְמָא, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹמֵד אָדָם בַּחֹרֶף בַּחוּץ בַּקֹּר הֶחָזָק זְמַן רַב, מִתְקָרֵר חֻמּו הַפְּנִימִי וָמֵת. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן אִם מִתְחַזֵּק בְּכָל פַּעַם נֶגְדָּם, לֹא יִתְקָרְרוּ כֹּחוֹתָיו הַפְּנִימִיִּים. אֲבָל בְּאֹפֶן זֶה יֵשׁ חִסָּרוֹן גַּם כֵּן, דְּיוּכְלוּ לְהִתְיַעֵץ יַחְדָּו נֶגְדּוֹ וּלְהַזִּיקוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ בְּמָמוֹנוֹ, וְצָרִיךְ לְרַחֲמֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁיַּצִּילוּהוּ מִיָּדָם. וּבָאֹפֶן הַשֵׁנִי יֵשׁ מַעֲלָה, שֶׁלֹּא יִתְיַעֲצוּ לְהַזִּיקוֹ, אַחֲרֵי שֶׁחוֹשְׁבִים שֶׁהוּא גַּם כֵּן אוֹחֵז בְּשִׁטָּתָם. וְעוֹד מַעֲלָה יְתֵרָה יוֹתֵר מִזֶּה שֶׁבְּבוֹאוֹ לִפְנֵי קָהָל וְעֵדָה הוּא וְהֵם, בְּוַדַּאי יִתְפָּאֲרוּ הַתּוֹעִים וְיאמְרוּ, שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי הַנִּכְבָּד אוֹחֵז גַּם כֵּן בְּשִׁטָּתָם, וְאָז יוּכַל לְבָרֵר שִׁטָּתוֹ הָאֲמִתִּית לְעֵינֵי הַכֹּל. וְהִנֵּה מֹשֶה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם יָדַע בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֶת כֹּחוֹתֵיהֶם, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָיָה כֹּחוֹ בָּאֹפֶן הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְעַל כֵּן הוּא צָרִיךְ לְּרַחֲמֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יִיעֲצוּ עָלָיו רָעָה, וּלְכָךְ בֵּרְכוּ: ''יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ מֵעֲצַת מְרַגְּלִים''. וְכָלֵב הָיָה כֹּחוֹ בָּאֹפֶן הַשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לִבְרָכָה.

וְהִנֵּה כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְחֶבְרוֹן וְרָאוּ שָׁם אֶת אַחִימָן שֵׁשַׁי וְתַלְמַי, וְנָפַל פַּחְדָּם עֲלֵיהֶם, תֵּכֶף הָיְתָה דַּעְתָּם לְהָרַע, וְהִתְבּוֹנֵן כָּלֵב אֵיךְ לְהִתְנַהֵג, וְהֻסְכַּם אֶצְלוֹ לְהַסְכִּים עִמָּהֶם בַּפֶּה כָּל אוֹתָהּ הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִהְיֶה בּוֹ כֹּחַ לְבַסּוֹף לְהַשְׁתִּיקָם וּלְבָרֵר לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁטָּה הָאֲמִתִּית, אַךְ הָיָה יָרֵא, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה יוּכְלוּ כֹּחוֹתָיו הַפְּנִימִיִּים לְהִתְחַלֵּף בְּמֶשֶׁךְ הַזְּמַן וְלִהְיוֹת נִסַּת לַעֲצָתָם, לְכָךְ הָלַךְ וְנִשְׁתַּטַּח עַל קִבְרֵי אָבוֹת, שֶׁיַּעַזְרוּהוּ בִּזְכוּתָם, שֶׁלֹּא יִתְקַלְקֵל בְּמֶשֶׁךְ הַזְּמַן. וְהִנֵּה בְּוַדַּאי כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ הַמְרַגְּלִים מִן הַדֶרֶךְ, אָמְרוּ: כֻּלָּנוּ נִשְׁלַחְנוּ לָאָרֶץ לָתוּר אוֹתָהּ וְלוֹמַר הָאֱמֶת, וְכֻלָּנוּ מַסְכִּימִים לְדֵעָה אַחַת לְבַד מֵאֶחָד וְהוּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְדֵעָה אַחַת כְּמַאן דְּלֵיתָא דַּמְיָא. וְהִנֵּה כְּשֶׁכָּלֵב רָאָה זֶה, הִתְחִיל לוֹמַר: וְכִי זֶה בִּלְבַד עָשָׂה לָנוּ בֶּן עַמְרָם? וּכְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִּׁ''י, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁכָּתַב: ''וְעַבְדִּי כָלֵב עֵקֶב הָיְתָה רוּחַ אַחֶרֶת עִמּוֹ וַיְמַלֵּא אַחֲרָי'', וּכְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִּׁ''י שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה הָיָה בּוֹ כֹּחַ לְהַשְׁתִּיקָם. וְהִנֵּה אֹפֶן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֹפֶן הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁנֵיהֶם דְּרָכִים יְשָׁרִים לִפְנֵי ה', כִּי אַף שֶׁבָּאֹפֶן הָרִאשׁוֹן הַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹתֵר מְשֻׁמֶּרֶת, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם אֹפֶן הַשֵּׁנִי כַּוָּנָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא גַּם כֵּן אֹפֶן טוֹב וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּכָלֵב. וּבָזֶה נִיחָא מַה דְּאִיתָא בַּתּוסֶפְתָּא, שֶׁלִּפְעָמִים הִקְדִּים הַכָּתוּב לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ וְלִפְעָמִים לְכָלֵב לְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִים. וְלִכְאוֹרָה הֲלֹא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּוַדַּאי הָיָה גָּדוֹל מִכָּלֵב, שֶׁמּשֶה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם מָסַר הַתּוֹרָה לִיהושֻׁעַ וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֶעֱמִידוֹ תַּחַת מֹשֶה, אֲבָל הַכַּוָּנָה לְעִנְיָן זֶה שֶׁשְּׁתֵּי הַדְּרָכִים צוֹדְקוֹת וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ: (הגהה)

3.    There are those who believe that the Israeli flag exposes the Jewish plan to conquer all the land between modern day Israel and the Euphrates, including Lebanon, Syria, and much of Iraq. That is why you have the two blue lines with the Magen David between them, the top line being the Euphrates. As far as I can tell, this was absolutely not intended by the people who designed the flag, but it's probably true, at least after Mashiach comes. What passuk in our parsha gives credence to this interpretation?

1:7

פנו  וסעו לכם ובאו הר האמרי ואל־כל־שכניו בערבה בהר ובשפלה ובנגב ובחוף הים ארץ הכנעני והלבנון עד־הנהר הגדל נהר־פרת

 

4.   Four times in the Parsha that we are told that we have to banish our fear- not just to be brave in the face of fear, but to nullify our fear, to not be afraid. Another passuk says that fear can paralyze you and then you will make bad decisions. 

1) 1:17. Moshe tells the judges to be fearless despite hatred and threats.  לא תגורו מפני איש

2)  1:21. Just prior to the sending of the spies, Moshe said אל תירא ואל תחת

3) 3:2. Hashem tells Moshe not to fear fighting Og Melech HaBashan. , the king of Bashan אל תירא

4) 3:22. Moshe tells Yehoshua not to fear the kings of Knaan.   לא תיראום כי ה' אלהיכם הוא הנלחם לכם

(There are three places in Breishis, too; one to each of the Avos. 15:1 to Avraham when Hashem told him Lech Lecha, 26:24 to Yitzchak about the Plishtim, and 46:3 to Yaakov who was afraid to leave Knaan and go to Mitzrayim.

5) 1:28, that they were paralyzed by their fear, even if they knew it was irrational.

אָנָה אֲנַחְנוּ עֹלִים אַחֵינוּ הֵמַסּוּ אֶת לְבָבֵנוּ לֵאמֹר עַם גָּדוֹל וָרָם מִמֶּנּוּ עָרִים גְּדֹלֹת וּבְצוּרֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם וְגַם בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים רָאִינוּ שָׁם.

 5.  There is a mitzva to rebuke a person who sins, הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך.  Did Moshe Rabbeinu fulfill this mitzva in this parsha when he rebuked Klal Yisrael for their sins?

No. The people he rebuked either were not among the sinners or had already died. Apparently he was just warning them to not be confident that they are immune from sinning. (Kol Rom on 1:1.)

I would add that it was a pre-emptive tochacha. Look, this is what happened to the Dor HaMidbar, to your fathers. You have the same weaknesses. Prepare yourselves emotionally and spiritually so that when you are faced with the same challenge, you will be able to overcome it.  So it's kind of a tochacha; not tochacha for a sin, but tochacha for middos that can lead to sin.  It may not be the “Av” of the mitzva of tochacha, but it certainly is a ‘toldah’

So I wonder why there is not a kal vachomer. If there is a din Torah to convince a person who sinned to do teshuva, kal vachomer there is a din Torah to prevent someone from sinning in the first place! If it is called tzedaka to feed a hungry person, isn't it no less tzedaka to teach him to earn a living so he will never be hungry?

There is certainly a difference between our respect for doctors who cure dire illnesses and professionals who teach how to avoid getting sick in the first place, between an MD and and MPH. I don't know if that is a reason to be mevatel the kal vachomer.

6.  We all know that the decree on Moshe that he could not enter Eretz Yisrael was a result of Mei Meriva, when Hashem told him יען לא האמנתם בי. So why does passuk 1:37 say it was because of the Meraglim?

גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבא שם

Ohr HaChaim-

והנכון הוא על פי דבריהם ז"ל (תענית כ"ט.) שאמרו בפסוק (במדבר י"ד א') ויבכו העם בלילה וגו' קבעו בכיה לדורות כי ליל תשעה באב היתה שבו נחרב הבית, ואמרו עוד (סוטה ט'.) שאם היה נכנם משה לארץ והיה בונה בית המקדש לא היה הבית נחרב שאין אומה ולשון נוגעת בו, ואמרו עוד (מדרש תהלים עט) בפסוק מזמור לאסף אלהים באו גוים וגו' וז"ל קינה מבעי ליה אלא על שהשליך חמתו על עצים ואבנים, מעתה אם היה נכנס משה לארץ והיה בונה בית המקדש ולהשליך חמתו עליו לא אפשר כנזכר ויחר אף ה' בשונאי ישראל ויהיה כליונם במקום חורבן הבית, לזה גזר ה' בגזרת המרגלים גם על משה שימות במדבר, והוא אומרו גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם פירוש בגלגול דברים שלכם כי אם לא היה עון המרגלים והיו נכנסים אפשר שהיה נכנס משה עמהם והגם שיבנה בית המקדש אין מיחוש כי לא נתגבר בחינת הרע והיו עומדים בצדקם בארץ, אלא מאמצעות עון מרגלים גברה יד רשעה וידע ה' כי לא יעמדו בצדק וצא ולמד משירת האזינו.

ואם תאמר והלא רואני שמיתת משה היתה על מי מריבה, כבר כתבתי שם שאם משה היה מקדש שמו יתברך היו ישראל חוזרים לטהרתם שהיו בו קודם חטא המרגלים באמצעות קידוש ה' הגדול והיה ה' מתיר שבועת משה והיה נכנס לארץ ובונה בית המקדש מכון לשבתו עולמים:

The sin of the Mergalim caused the Churban HaBayis. If Moshe would have entered Eretz Yisrael, the Mikdash he built could have been invulnerable, and if we sinned, Hashem’s wrath would have been spent on the people, not the Mikdash, and this threatened the existence of Klal Yisrael. So: Meraglim, therefore Churban, therefore Moshe cannot enter Eretz Yisrael. The instrumentality of preventing Moshe from entering EY was Mei Meriva, but the reason behind the reason was the Meraglim.

 Reb Moshe in Kol Rom says that even under strict Middas Hadin Moshe and Aharon would not have died if Klal Yisrael was worthy of having such great leaders. 

I'm not sure exactly what he means. His words-

דבשביל חטא מי מריבה לחוד לא היה אפשר לדונם במיתה אף לפי מדת הדין הגדולה. אבל בשביל שלא זכו ישראל שיהיו משה ואהרן אצלם דן אותם במיתה

7.   Find a remez in the Torah that the creation of the modern Medinas Yisrael will be spearheaded by people who were not Shomrei Torah u’Mitzvos.  (Based on a speech given by Rav Shimon Shkop.)

1:38-

וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה ובניכם אשר לא ידעו היום טוב ורע המה יבאו שמה ולהם אתננה והם יירשוה

8. The passuk in Yeshaya says

שִׂמְחוּ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם וְגִילוּ בָהּ כׇּל אֹהֲבֶיהָ שִׂישׂוּ אִתָּהּ מָשׂוֹשׂ כׇּל הַמִּתְאַבְּלִים עָלֶיהָ

The Gemara in Taanis (30b) says 

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַמִּתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ, (וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ.)

What does that mean, he is zocheh to see it in its simcha? Millions of people were misabel and did not see it. Does it mean he'll see it after techiyas hameisim? Does that mean that being misabel is a tnai in techiyas hameisim? (See Bahd Kodesh Moadim pages 245 and 253 for his answers.)

We saw in Nefesh HaChaim that the Mikdash, like man, is a microcosm that contains every aspect of the creation, and the purpose of the mikdash is to enable man to experience true hasraas haShechina, ושכנתי בתוכם, by understanding how the Mikdash brings the Shechina. I think this requires an actual Mikdash to see. The pshat in the Gemara, pshat in זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּשִׂמְחָתָהּ, is that being misabel on the Mikdash allows you to have the hashraas haShechina that normally would require the existence of a Mikdash. That is what the Rashi (Shemos 31:18) means when he says that the Mikdash is a kapara for the Eigel. The Nefesh HaChaim brings that at Mattan Torah פסקה זוהמתן, which means that their neshamos were pure kedusha, and therefore they could receive true hashraas haShechina. With the Eigel, we reverted to after the chet eitz hadaas. The kapara of the Mikdash means that we are able to receive the Shechina just as if there were no chet ha'eigel. That is what a person is zocheh to if he is misabel on the Mikdash. That is why is says זוכה, not יזכה.

שער א פרק ד

ולדרכינו י״ל ג״כ שר״ל אל תחשבו שתכלית כוונתי הוא עשיית המקדש החיצוני. אלא תדעו שכל תכלית רצוני בתבנית המשכן וכל כליו. רק לרמז לכם שממנו תראו וכן תעשו אתם את עצמיכם שתהיו אתם במעשיכם הרצויים כתבנית המשכן וכליו. כולם קדושים ראוים ומוכנים להשרות שכינתי בתוככם ממש. זהו ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם דייקא שככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן וגו'. תכלית כוונתי שכן  תעשו את עצמיכם.

9.  Chazal say that the Churban HaBayis was set in motion by the episode of the Meraglim and the nation's reaction to their report. 

Every tishabav, the men under the Gzeira dug own graves and slept in them, as Rashi (Taanis 30b) brings from the Medrash (it's in the intro to Eicha Rabbah 33 and also a Yerushalmi.)

שכלו מתי מדבר דתניא כל ארבעים שנה שהיו במדבר בכל ערב תשעה באב היה הכרוז יוצא ואומר צאו לחפור והיה כל אחד ואחד יוצא וחופר לו קבר וישן בו שמא ימות קודם שיחפור ולמחר הכרוז יוצא וקורא יבדלו חיים מן המתים וכל שהיה בו נפש חיים היה עומד ויוצא וכל שנה היו עושין כן ובשנת ארבעים שנה עשו ולמחר עמדו כולן חיים וכיון שראו כך תמהו ואמרו שמא טעינו בחשבון החדש חזרו ושכבו בקבריהן בלילות עד ליל חמשה עשר וכיון שראו שנתמלאה הלבנה בט"ו ולא מת אחד מהם ידעו שחשבון חדש מכוון וכבר מ' שנה של גזרה נשלמו קבעו אותו הדור לאותו היום יו"ט:

Medrash Eicha

Where is this fate foreshadowed in the words of people's request to send Meraglim.

1:22,  ויחפרו לנו את הארץ. The result of this episode us that we're going to dig our own graves.