Chukas, Bamidbar 19:2. Zos Chukas Hatorah, Fasting Erev Parshas Chukas

The Magen Avrohom in 580:9 (brought in Mishneh Brurah) brings a minhag to fast on Friday, the day before Shabbos Parshas Chukas, because that is when the twenty wagon-loads of Gemaros were burned in France. This is the only commemorative day I know of that is not tied to the calendar, but rather to a specific day of a specific week. He says that a early sefer called the Tanya says that the date of the taynis is erev parshas Chukas, not the day of the month (which happened to be the ninth of Tammuz), because this was the instruction delivered in answer to a she’eilas chalom, and that the first words in Onkelos, “Doh gzeiras Oraiso,” was the remez used in the chalom that they should commemorate it and that it should be on that specific day. The sefer Shallal Shel Torah also brings from a talmid of Rabbeinu Yonah that years before the French burned the Gemaros, we had burned the Rambam’s Moreh on that same spot, and when the French burned the Gemoros, the leaders realized that they were being punished for burning the Rambams. (They say that Rabbeinu Yonah wrote his Sha'arei Teshuva in penance for the burning of the Rambam. I don't believe it. If this were so, he would have made some allusion to the event, or at least would have warned others to not do such things or similar things. In fact, though, nowhere in the Sha'arei Teshuva is there any reference to the event or the concept.)

What is the connection to Parshas Chukas? It seems that the connection is so strong that it transcends and surpasses the usual calendrical association to a date. If so, there has to be a very strong connection to the Parsha, so that the fast must take place on the day before reading Parshas Chukas.

I belive that Parah Adumah at the beginning of the parshah is really a distraction. There is no reason the connection has to be to the first words of the Parsha. It could be that the connection to the parshah is not to Parah Adumah, but instead to another event related in the Parsha, the story of Mei Me’rivah. The lesson of Mei M’rivoh is that a religious leader who needs to correct a mistake in hashkafa or middos should indeed carry a stick, but he should do everything in his power to influence his community with words and persuasion. Violence is an extreme step and should be the last resort when dealing with theological problems. You may have problems with the Moreh Nevuchim, and those problems may indeed by serious and require resolution. But don’t deal with it by burning them in public. Deal with it with words; Say it is wrong and bad and people shouldn’t have it in their houses. But don’t burn it in public.

As Chazal say, Talmidei Chachamim Marbim Shalom Ba'olam: not that they are passive and phlegmatic. On the contrary, talmidei chachamim are contentious and argumentative and prone to coming up with strange ideas. The point is that conflict resolution is a skill that talmidei chachamim are experienced at-- argue, convince, debate, but never argue ad hominem, and never resort to physical persuasion.

A minor, though interesting, support for this approach is the similarity of the words in Moreh N’vuchim and “Shim’u noh haMorim.” If you don't like the Morim, the Moreh Nevuchim, then Shim'u nah-- explain to the people why you don't like it. Don't hit it with a stick.

The Kedushas Levi here in 20:8 says a very similar thing. He brings that Rashi says that the aveirah was hitting the rock. The Ramban brings from the Rambam in Shmoneh Prakim that the problem was Moshe's inappropriate deprecation of Klal Yisroel, telling them that they were unfaithful ‘Morim,’ when in fact the least of them had seen greater gilui Shechina than the Navi Yechezkel who saw the Maaseh Merkavah. (The Ramban rejects both pshatim and says that the aveira was the slight implication of his, and Aharon's, words, that the miracle was brought about by their own powers and wisdom - נוציא.) The Barditchever says that both Rashi and the Rambam are saying pointing to the same mistake. Both pshotim are true. There are two kinds of leaders. One kind leads by yesurim and warnings and intimidation, and the other by example and teaching and being a role model. These leaders have the zechus of Klal Yisroel helping them to be meshaneh the tevah in a manner reflecting their style of leadership. Hashem wanted Moshe to be the latter, so he could be meshaneh the tevah by talking to the rock. But once Moshe called us ‘Morim,’ which was a departure from his usual leadership method of example and persuasion, he momentarily lost the ability to be meshaneh the tevah by dibbur, and could only do it by hitting the rock. This is the lesson of Parshas Chukas– that if you don’t like the Moreh Nevuchim, put up a kol korei or write a reasoned response. Don’t call it intemperate names and don’t throw it into a fire.