Chukas, Bamidbar 20:12. Moshe Rabbeinu's Inevitable Fall

Hashem told Moshe that because he struck the rock, he would not bring his people to the promised land.  

יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל  לכן לא תביאו את הקהל הזה אל הארץ אשר נתתי להם.  

Rashi brings from the Tanchuma that Hashem wanted it made clear that it was this sin, and this sin alone, that sealed Moshe's fate.

גלה הכתוב שאלולי חטא זה בלבד היו נכנסין לארץ, כדי שלא יאמרו עליהם כעון שאר דור המדבר, שנגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו לארץ, כך היה עון משה ואהרן 

The natural way to read this is as a tragic mistake, judging by the high standards of Moshe Rabbeinu, a flawed decision that bore bitter fruit.  If only Moshe hadn't done this!  He would have led Klal Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael, and history would have been entirely different!

But Rashi in Devarim brings a Sifrei that casts an entirely different light on this episode.

Rashi in Vezos Haberacha (Devarim 33:8) says the following:

 וללוי אמר תמיך ואוריך לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה תריבהו על מי מריבה.

Translation:   And of Levi he said: "Your Tummim and Urim belong to Your pious man, whom You tested (teriveihu) at Massah and whom You tried at the waters of Merivah.

                 Rashi:

תריבהו וגו': כתרגומו. דבר אחר תריבהו על מי מריבה נסתקפת לו לבוא בעלילה, אם משה אמר (במדבר כ, י) שמעו נא המורים, אהרן ומרים מה עשו:

Translation:  and whom You tried…: As the Targum renders it.  Another explanation: “Teriveihu” — You brought about a pretext against him [Levi], for even if Moses [was punished with death and not permitted to enter the Land of Israel because he] said to Israel, “Listen now, you rebels!” (see Bamidbar 20:10), but [how do we understand why] Aaron and Miriam [were also punished with death and were not permitted to enter the Land of Israel] — what did they do [to deserve this]?- [Sifrei 33:8]

What does the Sifrei mean? What does עלילה mean?  In what sense was it a "pretext?"

It appears that for Moshe Rabbeinu, his inability to enter Eretz Yisrael was a foregone conclusion that was waiting for a cause.

Chazal discuss this in several places, but I have to warn you that their explanation leaves us with as many questions as we came with.  At the end of this discussion, I bring a safer alternative from the Maharitz Chayos.

For clarity, I'm labeling each source, starting with the Tanchuma.

I

The Tanchuma in Parshas Vayeishev (4), that says that Moshe Rabbeinu had absolutely no chance of entering Eretz Yisrael.  If he hadn't struck the rock, he would have done something else.  If he lived a perfect life and was absolutely blameless, perhaps someone he was responsible for would have done something wrong.  The point is that the reality of his not entering Eretz Yisrael was determined  long before he struck the rock at Meriva.   


The Tanchuma says that certain human choices and/or the consequences of those choices are preordained.  Hashem ensures that they come to pass through subtle manipulation.  There is no suppression of free will, and Hashem does not force people to act in certain ways.  Instead, Hashem puts people in positions where the likely result will be behavior that will move history in the desired direction, or that Hashem chooses a Middah (Din or Rachamim) that generates the intended consequences from a human action.  The story of Mankind is teleological; certain events must ultimately occur, and seemingly unrelated or random events will inevitably lead to those ends.    Here is the Tanchuma.

ויוסף הורד מצרימה, 

זש"ה לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים נורא עלילה על בני אדם תהלים כה

א"ר יהושע בן קרחה אף הנוראות שאתה מביא עלינו בעלילה את מביאן, 

בא וראה כשברא הקדוש ברוך הוא את העולם מיום הראשון ברא מלאך המות מנין א"ר ברכיה משום שנאמר וחושך על פני תהום (בראשית א) זה מלאך המות המחשיך פניהם של בריות, ואדם נברא בששי ועלילה נתלה בו שהוא הביא את המיתה לעולם שנאמר כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות, 

מלה"ד למי שמבקש לגרש את אשתו כשבקש לילך לביתו כתב גט נכנס לביתו והגט בידו מבקש עלילה ליתנו לה, אמר לה מזגו לי את הכוס שאשתה, מזגה לו, כיון שנטל הכוס מידה אמר לה הרי זה גיטך, אמרה לו מה פשעי, אמר לה צאי מביתי שמזגת לי כוס פשור, אמרה לו כבר היית יודע שאני עתידה למזוג לך כוס פשור שכתבת הגט והביאתו בידך, אף כך אמר אדם לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עד שלא בראת עולמך קודם שני אלפים שנה היתה תורה אצלך אמון שכך כתיב (משלי ח) ואהיה אצלו אמון ואהיה שעשועים יום יום ב' אלפים שנה וכתיב בה (במדבר יט) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל אלולי שהתקנת 

מות לבריות היית כותב בה כך אלא באת לתלות בי את העלילה הוי נורא עלילה על בני אדם, 

וכן אתה מוצא שא"ל הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה (דברים א) אם יראה איש באנשים האלה הדור הרע הזה את הארץ הטובה וגו', איש זה משה דכתיב (במדבר יב) והאיש משה ענו. האיש המסויים באנשים, וכן אתה אומר (שמואל א יז) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים, וכן הוא אומר (שמות ו) עתה תראה אשר אעשה לפרעה במלחמת פרעה אתה רואה ואין אתה רואה במלחמת שלשים ואחד מלכים, וכיון שאמר להם שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ) א"ל הקב"ה לכן לא תביאו את הקהל הזה, הוי נורא עלילה, 

וכן הוא אומר ביוסף ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם על ידי לשון של ארגמן שעשה לו כתונת פסים נכתב עליו ד' אונאות, פסים פ' פוטיפר ס' סוחרים י' ישמעאלים מ' מדינים בשביל כתונת פסים גרם לכל השבטים לירד למצרים, וא"ר יודן היה הקדוש ברוך הוא מבקש לקיים גזירת ידוע תדע, והביא עלילה לכל דברים אלו כדי שיאהב יעקב את יוסף וישנאוהו אחיו וימכרו אותו לישמעאלים ויורידוהו למצרים וישמע יעקב שיוסף חי במצרים וירד עם השבטים וישתעבדו שם, הוי ויוסף הורד מצרימה אל תקרי הורד אלא הוריד את אביו והשבטים למצרים, א"ר תנחומא למה"ד לפרה שמבקשין ליתן עול בצוארה והיא מונעת העול מן צוארה מה עשו נטלו את בנה מאחריה ומשכו אותה לאותו מקום שמבקשין בו לחרוש והיה העגל גועה, שמעה הפרה בנה גועה הלכה שלא בטובתה בשביל בנה כך הקב"ה היה מבקש לקיים גזירת ידוע תדע והביא עלילה לכל אלו 

הדברים וירדו למצרים ופרעו את השטר לכך נאמר ויוסף הורד מצרימה הוי נורא עלילה וגו':

II

Then there is the Medrash Rabba (in MR Breishis 85:1 on Breishis 38:1) 

ויהי בעת ההוא: רבי שמואל בר נחמן פתח (ירמיה כט, יא): "כי אנכי ידעתי את המחשבת" שבטים היו עסוקין במכירתו של יוסף, ויוסף היה עסוק בשקו ובתעניתו, ראובן היה עסוק בשקו ותעניתו, ויעקב היה עסוק בשקו ובתעניתו, ויהודה היה עסוק לקח לו אשה, והקדוש ברוך הוא היה עוסק בורא אורו של מלך המשיח.

III

And the Bach in his Sefer on Rus, משיב נפש.

 וא״ר יוחנן ביקש (יהודה) לעבור וזימן לו הקב״ה מלאך שהוא ממונה על התאוה א״ל יהודה היכן אתה הולך מהיכן מלכים עומדים מהיכן גדולי׳ עומדים ויט אליה אל הדרך בעל כרחו שלא בטובתו   ומעין זה היתה דעת נעמי כי הלא ראתה ברוח הקודש שלא נמצא אז במשפחת יהודה צדיק וטוב שהוא גדול יוחר מבועז שממנו יצא שרש ישי אלא שהמשיך ידו מרות שעל כן לא היה מהדד אחריה ועל כן היתה היא ממצאת עצמה אליו לשכוב מרגלותיו כדרך שעשתה תמר באופן שהמלאך הממונה על התאוה יאמר אליו מהיכן מלכים עומדים כו׳ עד שבעל כרחו שלא בטובתו יבא אליה לבראות אורו של משיח

IV

gU directs us to the parsha of involuntary manslaughter and Ir Miklat. 
Shemos 21:13:

 ואשר לא צדה, והאלקים אנה לידו--ושמתי לך מקום, אשר ינוס שמה.

Translation:  But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make for [him] a place to which he can flee.
Rashi:  

אנה לידו: זימן לידו, לשון לא תאונה אליך רעה (תהלים צא י), לא יאונה לצדיק כל און (משלי יב כא), מתאנה הוא לי (מלכים ב' ה ז), מזדמן למצוא לי עילה:

Translation:  brought [it] about into his hand: Heb. אִנָּה, made it ready for his hand, an expression similar to “No harm will be prepared (תְאוּנֶּה) for you” (Ps. 91:10); No wrong shall be prepared (יְאוּנֶּה) (Prov. 12:21); [and] “he is preparing himself (מִתְאַנֶה) against me” (II Kings 5:7), [meaning that] he is preparing himself to find a pretext against me.
Next Rashi:

והאלקים אנה לידו: ולמה תצא זאת מלפניו, הוא שאמר דוד (שמואל א' כד יג) כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני מרשעים יצא רשע, ומשל הקדמוני היא התורה, שהיא משל הקב"ה שהוא קדמונו של עולם. והיכן אמרה תורה מרשעים יצא רשע, והא-להים אנה לידו. במה הכתוב מדבר, בשני בני אדם, אחד הרג שוגג ואחד הרג מזיד, ולא היו עדים בדבר שיעידו, זה לא נהרג וזה לא גלה, והקב"ה מזמנן לפונדק אחד, זה שהרג במזיד יושב תחת הסולם, וזה שהרג שוגג עולה בסולם ונופל על זה שהרג במזיד והורגו, ועדים מעידים עליו ומחייבים אותו לגלות, נמצא זה שהרג בשוגג גולה, וזה שהרג במזיד נהרג:

Translation: but God brought [it] about into his hand: Now why should this go out from before Him? That is what David said, “As the proverb of the Ancient One says, ‘From the wicked comes forth wickedness’” (I Samuel 24:14). The proverb of the Ancient One is the Torah, which is the proverb of the Holy One, blessed is He, Who is the Ancient One of the world. Now where did the Torah say, “From the wicked comes forth wickedness” ? [This refers to:] “but God brought [it] about into his hand.” To what is the text referring? To two people, one who killed unintentionally and one who killed intentionally, but there were no witnesses who would testify to the matter. This one [who killed intentionally] was not executed, and that one [who killed unintentionally] was not exiled [to the refuge cities]. So the Holy One, blessed is He, brings them [both] to one inn. The one who killed intentionally sits under a ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally is ascending the ladder, and he falls on the one who had killed intentionally and kills him, and witnesses testify about him and sentence him to exile. The result is that the one who killed unintentionally is exiled, and the one who killed intentionally was killed. -[From Mechilta, Makkos 10b]

V

Chaim B points out something that has to be addressed.  Reb Meir Simcha in his introduction to Sefer Shemos asks, what does it mean that Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu וגם בך יאמינו לעולם?  But Moshe was a human being, and capable of making choices, good or bad, righteous or wicked.  How could Hashem tell him that he would be forever trustworthy?  Reb Meir Simcha answers that indeed at that point, Moshe Rabbeinu's bechira was taken away.  He had reached the perfection human beings are capable of, and there was no point in his retaining his bechira.  Reb Meir Simcah's words, with some ellipses, are

ועל כרחין שהשי״ת שלל ממנו הבחירה לגמרי ונשאר מוכרח כמלאכים שמשה שמצר עצמו עמל ויגע כל כך עד שהעלה עצמו למדרגה הגבוה שבמדרגות האנושי השלימית היותר האפשרי לכן וכה שיבעל ממנו הבחירה א״כ זה עיקר תכלית הבריאה לזכך החומר עד שישיב בשרו גם לרוחני 

....

אבל כל ישראל שהמה לא היו ראוים למדרגה ונבואה כזו, רק כדי לקיים הדת - שלא יבוא שום מבהיל להכחיש דבר אחד על ידי אות ומופת, הוכרחו לעלות למעלה רמה כזו לשמוע קול אלקים

....

אח"כ, הלא שבו לבחירה, שאם לא כן אין תכלית תו בברייתם, כיון שזכייתם שסרה בהם הבחירה - והיה השכלתם בהירה בלי עירוב דמיון וגשם כלל, עד כי הוכרחו כמלאכים שמוכרחים מצד שכלם, שעל זה נאמר (שבת פח, א) "כפה עליהם הר כגיגית", שהיו מוכרחים מצד שכלם והשגתם לקבל עליהם התורה - והיה ענין מקריי, היינו שהיה רק להיות מאמינים בנבואת משה לא מצד האותות, ויאמינו בד' לעולם. אם כן, מה שיותר מן ההכרח, הלא נאות לפניהן לשוב אל הבחירה. ובלא בחירה הלא לא היה להם שכר על קיום התורה, שעל הכרח אין שכר, כיון שלא מצד עמלם והכנתם היה סר מאתם הבחירה.

וזה שאמר: "שובו לכם לאהליכם", היינו לבחירה ולכוחות הגוף, המוקף באלפי כוחות דמיונות ההטעאה שקריות תאוות חשק וכיו"ב, וזה ה"אוהל", שהגוף הוא אוהל הנפש, שבעת מתן תורה יצאה נשמתם (שבת פח, ב), הוא שהחומר לא היה חוצץ מאומה. "ואתה פה עמוד עמדי", שזהו אצלו בטלה כל כוחות הגוף וחומריותו, והשגתו צלולה ובהירה, ונעדר בחירתו ונשאר משכיל מעוצם השגתו מוכרח להשלימות היותר נעלה.

So how does Reb Meir Simcha understand the episode of Mei Meriva?  According to Reb Meir Simcha, then, we have to say that whatever decision Moshe Rabbeinu made at Meriva, it was a fulfillment of Hashem's will.  If so, the idea of the Tanchuma and Sifrei, as applied to Moshe Rabbeinu at Meriva, is certainly true.

But, as I point out in the comments, this makes it hard to read the criticism in the passuk, לא האמנתם בי להקדישני .  Rabbi Kupperman in his notes to his edition of the Meshech Chochma asks this question, and he says that Moshe Rabbeinu was not entirely bereft of bechira; he was like a Malach, and even a Malach has some degree of Bechira, and can be punished for failure, as he cites from the Medrash Rabba on Bereishis 19:13, where the Malachim said  כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, and they were punished either for revealing a secret or for saying "we," not "Hashem."  The Medrash there says that their punishment was they were Nidcheh from their Mechitza-

מלאכי השרת ע"י שגילו מסטורין של הקדוש ברוך הוא, נדחו ממחיצתן מאה ושלושים ושמונה שנה. 

אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא: על שנתגאו ואמרו כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה 

This is supported by a similar discussion in the Ramban (Devarim 30:6), who says that being without Bechira is the state of Adam before the sin.  And, of course, Adam Harishon did sin.

 "ומל ה' אלהיך את לבבך - זהו שאמרו (שבת קד א) הבא לטהר מסייעין אותו, מבטיחך שתשוב אליו בכל לבבך והוא יעזור אותך. ונראה מן הכתובים ענין זה שאומר, כי מזמן הבריאה היתה רשות ביד האדם לעשות כרצונו צדיק או רשע, וכל זמן התורה כן, כדי שיהיה להם זכות בבחירתם בטוב ועונש ברצותם ברע. אבל לימות המשיח, תהיה הבחירה בטוב להם טבע, לא יתאוה להם הלב למה שאינו ראוי ולא יחפוץ בו כלל. והיא המילה הנזכרת כאן. כי החמדה והתאוה ערלה ללב, ומול הלב הוא שלא יחמוד ולא יתאוה. וישוב האדם בזמן ההוא לאשר היה קודם חטאו של אדם הראשון, שהיה עושה בטבעו מה שראוי לעשות ולא היה לו ברצונו דבר והפכו, כמו שפירשתי בסדר בראשית ב:ט:

So whatever it was that Moshe Rabbeinu decided, it was good and righteous.  As far as human perception, as far as משפט, what Moshe Rabbeinu did was kulo tov ve'yashar.  By the standards of pure middas hadin, by the standards of חוקת התורה, even a good and righteous decision may not be adequate.  

Or you could answer that his not having Bechira was limited to certain parameters, namely, where the wrong choice could affect his reliability vis a vis יאמינו לעולם, Klal Yisrael's trust in Moshe Rabbeinu.  

******************************************************************

This is absolutely unrelated to the concept of ידיעה ובחירה, Hashem's knowledge of future events, as the Rishonim explain regarding the actions of the Egyptians, (except, perhaps, that the Raavad's assessment there might apply to this discussion- אני אומר שהם דברי נערות.)  The Tanchuma is saying that Hashem takes an active role as events progress; Hashem decides what needs to happen, and He ensures that it does happen, either by indirectly manipulating human behavior until the desired act occurs, or by applying Middas HaDin where Middas HaRachamim might otherwise have applied or vice versa.



VI
See Divrei Dovid in Shemos 4:13, who says that Moshe Rabbeinu already knew in Mitzrayim that he most likely would not be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael.  See also Netziv here in 33:8.

************************************************************

Dr. Stone reminds us of the Gemara in Sanhedrin (111a) that says that Moshe's fate was sealed all the way back in Mitzrayim, when he said mei'az basi el Pharaoh heira la'am hazeh.

תניא אמר ר' אלעזר ברבי יוסי פעם אחת נכנסתי לאלכסנדריא של מצרים מצאתי זקן אחד ואמר לי בא ואראך מה עשו אבותי לאבותיך מהם טבעו בים מהם הרגו בחרב מהם מעכו בבנין ועל דבר זה נענש משה רבינו שנא' ומאז באתי אל פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה אמר לו הקב"ה חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין הרי כמה פעמים נגליתי על אברהם יצחק ויעקב באל שדי ולא הרהרו על מדותי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך אמרתי לאברהם קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה כי לך אתננה בקש מקום לקבור את שרה ולא מצא עד שקנה בד' מאות שקל כסף ולא הרהר על מדותי אמרתי ליצחק גור בארץ הזאת ואהיה עמך ואברכך בקשו עבדיו מים לשתות ולא מצאו עד שעשו מריבה שנאמר ויריבו רועי גרר עם רועי יצחק לאמר לנו המים ולא הרהר אחר מדותי אמרתי ליעקב הארץ אשר אתה שוכב עליה לך אתננה ביקש מקום לנטוע אהלו ולא מצא עד שקנה במאה קשיטה ולא הרהר אחר מדותי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך ואתה אמרת לי מה שמך בתחלה ועכשיו אתה אומר לי והצל לא הצלת את עמך עתה תראה (את) אשר אעשה לפרעה במלחמת פרעה אתה רואה ואי אתה רואה במלחמת שלשים ואחד מלכים 

************************************************************

This discussion as presented above might not be useful for a drasha.  One reason; it provides an excuse for every avaryan.  It's not my fault!  Hashem made it impossible for me to avoid the aveira!  Second reason: people are מיאש, and they say, if no matter how high you climb, it is made impossible for  you to make the right decision, if Moshe Rabbeinu, without Bechira, didn't satisfy what was expected from him, what's the point of even trying.  לפום גמלא שיחנא, and if the strong donkey is punished for not carrying his heavier load just as severely as the weaker one is punished for not carrying his lighter load, then why bother becoming a stronger donkey?  
Both reasons are devarim beteilim, but I personally know several people that would walk away with either one or both of these reactions.

So one needs to bear these in mind, and arrange the drasha to anticipate and prevent these reactions.  For those people, perhaps you should just stick with the Maharitz Chayos  on the Gemara (Sukkah 5a) מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה.  He says

נ"ב בדרך דרוש יש לכוין בזה אמרם הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה אשר מורים על העיקר שהבחירה חפשית ביד האדם וגם כאן אומר דברשות האדם אין השכינה מתערבת במעללותיו ובפעולותיו . והך דלא עלה משה ואליהו למרום, היינו אע"פ שעלו לרקיע, בכל זאת לא נתהפכה טבעם כמלאכים כמו שאמרו פרק ר"ע מה לילוד אשה בינינו, וכן אליהו היה עדיין שכיח בישיבת חז"ל בצורת איש

Everyone that reads this knows that you can't compare the Maharitz Chayos to Reb Meir Simcha, but in Hashkafa there are few hard and fast rules, and, as I said, the Maharitz Chayos is much safer.

Chukas, Bamidbar 19:11. Tuma Without a Source

If you are not familiar with the basic laws of Taharos, I would advise you to not read this.  It is best to leave some twists of halacha on the side until you have a firm context in which to place them.  But I have to admit I'm gratified that this post elicited positive remarks from several Very Hard to Please Customers.

Tuma is normally incurred under two circumstances.

1.  Tuma resulting from an intrinsic state or condition; Inherent Tuma- טומאה עצמית.  Examples:
a. Being a Metzora
b. Being a Ba'al Keri (SEE END NOTE)

2.  Tuma transferred by interaction with an object that is intrinsically tamei; Transferred Tuma- טומאה מועברת.  Examples:
a. Touching a Metzora or a Sheretz
b. Sitting on the bed of a Nida or Zava
c. Carrying a neveila

There is a third category which at first glance seems impossible, but after a moment's thought turns out to be surprisingly common.

3.  Interaction with certain objects which are not tamei at all, which I call טומאה ע"י גרמא.

Where do we find such a thing?  Where do we find that interaction with an object that is not tamei at all causes tuma in a person or thing?

We find it in the Yalkut here on passuk 19:11.
הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.  One who touches any dead human body will be tamei seven days.

This is the most famous type of Tuma, טומאת מת, that which is incurred through interaction with a dead human body.  This might be contact, or carrying without contact, or ohel, or heset.  Remarkably, the Yalkut here, quoting the Sifri Zuta here, says the following:

הנוגע במת, נוגע במת טמא ואין מת עצמו טמא. נוגע במת טמא ואין בנה של שונמית טמא. אמרו בנה של שונמית כשמת כל שהיה עמו בבית טמא שבעת ימים, וכשחיה היה טהור לקודש. חזרו ונגעו בו וטמאוהו הם. הרי זה אומר מטמאיך לא טמאוני ואתה טומאתני. השורף פרה ופרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים מטמאין בגדים, והן עצמן אין מטמאין בגדים. הרי זה אומר וכו'. האוכל מנבלת עוף טהור מטמא בגדים אבית הבליעה, והוא עצמו אין מטמא בגדים. הרי זה אומר וכו

We glean certain insights from this Sifri.  First: that a dead human body- the epitome and paradigm of Tuma- is not tamei.  One who touches it, or is under the same roof, becomes tamei, but the body itself is not tamei.  When the son of the Shunamite woman was brought back from the dead, he was not tamei at all; the people who were in the house with him when he was dead are tamei because they had been exposed to his body when he was dead, but he himself is not tamei.  When Elisha touched him after he was brought back to life, Elisha made him a Rishon Le'Tuma
.

This sounds remarkable and incomprehensible.  But as it turns out, it is rather common, as the Sifri Zuta very tersely points out.  It shakes out like this:

There are five Tumos that are incurred without any change of state and without any exposure to or involvement with an object that is tamei.

1.  All persons that are involved (The Tzafnas Pa'anei'ach here brings two Yerushalmis that are metamei even the shomer) in the transport out of Yerushalayim and the burning of those "korbanos" which are intended to be burned outside of Yerushalayim, are tamei.  The "korban" they're involved with is not tamei at all.  

Examples:

a. Parah Adumah.

b. The Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kippur.

c. The Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.
See Rambam 5 Para Aduma 4.  Although certainly Para Aduma is very different from the rest in this group, they all come under the rubric of "parim use'irim hanisrafim" for our purposes, as evident in the Rambam.

2.  The person that is involved in taking the Sa'ir Hamishtalei'ach to be killed.

3.  A person who touches or carries the water/ash mixture that is made with the burned Parah Adumah  without using it for its intended purpose.

4.  A person who swallows a kezayis of the ne'veila of a kosher-type of bird. 

5.  A person who has interaction with a dead human body.

כשתמצא לומר, closer thought will show that numbers 1 and 2 are identical.  Both deal with the effect of a "korban" that changed into a "non-korban" on the person who is doing the non-korban avoda.  It so happens that the "non-korban avodah" is destructive- burning or pushing off a cliff, but that's irrelevant, I think. (I've heard from Reb Chaim that that they change from korban to non-korban, but I don't know where he says it.)

A person might quibble with number 4.  Who says that neveilas ohf tahor is not tamei?  Maybe it's tamei, but only transfers tuma to one who eats it, and only at the point of the beis habliya.   To that person, I say two things.  First of all, the Sifri itself brings this case to illustrate how interaction tuma can exceed tuma in the source.  The whole point of the Sifri is that sometimes Tuma does not come from העברה but instead from התעסקות.  Second, I say that if נבלת עוף טהור is not me'tamei people or food by touch, it is not tamei at all.  It seems to me that if it were a transferred tuma, then if you would put it on your head and carry it around all day you ought to be tamei.  (I'm not sure any more if I'm right.  The Gemara in Krisus 21a says about neveilas ohf tahor היא גופה טומאה היא, and also calls it סופו לטמא טומאה חמורה.  I'm not saying I'm wrong, just that it needs yishuv hadaas.
UPDATE:  See notes at end of this post.)

So what do we have?  Four common examples of what I call טומאה ע"י גרמא, something that at first glance seemed impossible or, at the most, singular.

1.  A person who is involved in carrying out (tarti mashma) the required avoda of a korban that becomes a non-korban- פרים ושעירים הנשרפים ושעיר המשתלח.

2. A person who touches מי חטאת without using it for its intended purpose.

3. A person who eats נבלת עוף טהור.

4. A person who touches, carries, leans over, etc., a אדם המת.

Every one of these is an example of an action that brings tuma despite the fact that no tuma is present at all.  Interaction with certain objects which are themselves tahor imposes tuma on the actor.

NOTES
1. The Sifri Zuta is here in Chukas.  I brought it from the Yalkut because everyone has a Yalkut.
2. I first heard about this Sifri from Rav Rudderman, when he said something about the pirush there, the Ambuha De'Sifri.  The Ambuha D'Sifri was written by one of the Gerrers, a contemporary of Reb Menachem Ziemba and Reb Meir Don Plotzki, named Reb Yakov Zev Yoskovitz, who, I believe, was a mechutn of the Imrei Emes.
3. The Ambuha D'Sifri asks a lot of questions on the Sifri Zuta, and Harav Tzvi Hirsch Meisels (the Veitzener Rov) in his first volume of his Mekadshei Hashem, in the Dvar Tzvi on page reish nun zayin, does an amazing job explaining the Sifri and answering all the famous kashes.  Rabbi Meisels was a beautiful man, an exemplary Adam Gadol; brilliant, kind, humble, and warm.  I remember once in the early sixties he was in my house and said that he just came back from a weeks long din Torah in which he and Reb Moshe sat on the Beis Din.  He said he could say eidus that there is not a Se'if in the four parts of Shulchan Aruch that Reb Moshe doesn't have on his fingertips.  A young **** interrupted and said "But the Chazon Ish said there is nobody like that bizman hazeh!"  Rabbi Meisels answered "It could be that because of the kavod of the Chazon Ish, Reb Moshe doesn't remember one se'if, but when he needs it, he remembers it; or, pashut, the Chazon Ish didn't know Reb Moshe."
4.  The achronim discuss why the Ben Hashunamis is not tamei because his live self touched his dead self at the moment of death or at the moment of his revival, as might be the pshat in the Mishna in Keilim 27:10, but see Rashi Chulin 72b DH Aval Tamei.  And see Eli's comment about Reb Akiva Eiger in Keilim there.

5. It's not the Sifri, it's the Sifrei.  I prefer my pronunciation, even if it's wrong.
6. With the Sifri Zuta, we have another answer to the Rav Ami's question (Moed Kattan 28a) למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה.  The Smichus is because they are share the characteristic of tuma through התעסקות with  דבר שאינו טמא.
7.  Regarding נבלת עוף טהור .  Above, I brought the SZ that listed this case among the unusual ones that generate more tumah than they themselves have.  I used it as an example of an object that itself is not tamei at all but causes tumah, and then I said I wasn't sure if that was true.  It turns out that this might be a machlokes; some hold the tuma of n'veilas of tahor is a din in maga, some hold it's a din in ma'aseh achilah.  If it's a din of ma'aseh, then for sure I'm right.  If it's a din maga, it's still not clear.
Reb Chaim in Avos Hatumah, who holds that nivlas of tahor is metamei on the basis of contact when achilah is happening, and the Minchas Chinuch 161 and the Chazon Ish and the Asvon d'Oraysa, who hold that it is a pure din of ma'aseh achilah.  Reb Chaim is based on the Rambam that is going like the Sifra that holds there's no din of toch kdei achilas pras on nivlas of tahor, and the Minchas Chinuch seems to be going like the Gemara in Menachos 70a that associates tumas of tahor with what's called a ma'aseh achila, and the Gemara in Zevachim 70a where Reb Meir needs a pasuk that more than shiur achilas pras by oh tahor will not be metamei, so obviously he holds that it is metamei if you eat it toch achilas pras.  Another raya to the second approach is from Sanhedrin 7b that says that it is not a tumas maga. Rashi there - 

דלאו בר נגיעה. שאינו מטמא בנגיעה אלא בבית הבליעה על ידי אכילה כדכתיב (ויקרא יז) אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה וכבס בגדיו ומוקמינן לה בנבלת עוף טהור בתורת כהנים ואמרינן התם יכול תטמא במגע ת"ל לטמאה בה אין לך אלא האמור בה שאין לה טומאה אלא אכילתה: 

8.  This is another example of הכל בחזקת סומין עד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מאיר את עיניהם.  
~

END NOTE:
I mentioned in the beginning that Tumas Baal Keri stems from an event, not from contact.  I used this Tuma as an example, a paradigm.  As it turns out, it's not that simple.  While saying the Daf in 2012, I saw that this is a machlokes Rabbah and Rav Huna in Nidda 22a.   See there, and Rashi D"H למימרא דנוגע הוי.  But Poletes certainly is an example, because it's beis hastarim.

Chukas, Bamidbar 20:1-2. The Life and Death of Miriam: Role and Recognition

Two powerful observations from Reb Berel Povarsky (Ponevezh) about the role of women in our spiritual life, and the vital need to recognize what they do.  As always, when I quote, I take liberties.


I
Moed Kattan 28a– Why is the death of Miriam next to the parsha of the Parah Adumah?  Because just as the Parah brings foregiveness, so, too, the death of a Tzidkanis (or Tzadik) is mechapeir.

Rabbeinu Chananel there says that from the fact that the Parah is called a Chatas it is evident that it must be a mechapeir.  This is how we know that it brings kapparah, and so the contiguity to the death of Miriam acquires a message of Kapparah. 


Reb Berel Povarsky, in his Bahd Kodesh, asks, so why put Miriam next to Parah Adumah, whose aspect of forgiveness is obscure, when the message of Kapparah would be so much more clear if it were placed next to regular Korban Chattas?  If Rabbeinu Chananel has to address the problem that there really is no apparent kappara in Parah Adumah, why make the smichus to Parah Adumah and have to go hunting for din kappara?

He answers that Parah Adumah was outside the Mishkan, but it was done “nochach pnei Ohel Mo’eid,” on Har Hazeisim, far from the Beis Hamikdash- it was vital that the sacrificial service of the Para Aduma be done facing the entrance of the Ohel Moed.  The work of nashim tzidkanios is not in the Beis Medrash, it is in the home and in the street, but it is  nochach pnei Ohel Mo’eid, it is done for the purpose of chizuk hatorah ve’hayir’ah.

He makes an excellent tzushtell: Horios 13a– “Yekarah hee mi’pninim (Mishlei 3::15)”, "it" is more  precious than the avodah of the Kohen Gadol who goes into the pnim, the kodesh kadashim, the sanctum sanctorum.  Now, the "it" in that Gemara refers to limud hatorah, but he makes a tzushtell to all avodos that are done outside the kodesh but whose purpose is to lay the groundwork and create the environment for kedushah.  These preparatory and supportive and foundational works are more precious than the actual service that is done in Pnim, in the Beis Hamikdash.

We can say that הִיא means the avodah that is associated with women.  יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים  The Avodah of women, albeit outside the Beis Hamikdash, albeit quiet and without ceremony and publicity, that avodah is more precious than the cynosure of Avodah, the avoda of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur.

II
20:1-2.  Vatamas sham Miriam...velo hayah mayim la’eidah.  Miriam died....the populace had no water.  Rashi (from Taanis 9a)– the well that had previously supplied their needs, the be’er, was in the merit of Miriam.

Kli Yakar here: the be’er disappeared because they didn't eulogize her properly: when Moshe and Aharon died, (Bamidbar 20:29, Devarim 34:8) it says “vayivku...” but not when Miriam died.

Reb Berel Povarsky asks: if the be’er was in the zechus of Miriam, how can the Kli Yakar say that it disappeared because they weren’t maspid properly?  It disappeared because she died!  It was only there because of her, and with her death, the zechus that brought this miraculous well was no longer there!

He answers that the idea of a proper hesped is that by deep consideration of the life of a Tzadik, one gains an understanding and appreciation of what the Tzadik was, and is motivated to emulate them as well as possible,  and thereby brings forward in this world their life and influence.  It ties the life of the tzadik to the life of the living world.  If they had been maspid Miriam properly, her zechusim would have continued to benefit the generation.  Unfortunately, they just wiped away a tear, and said goodbye, and left her in her grave.  She was no longer tied to this world, and her zechusim no longer were able to benefit them.

III
A comment was sent in, and I like it so much that I'm putting it into the post.  Yasher Koach!
I appreciated this insight into the Gemura in Moed Kuton, and I thought that the homiletic reading of to the Gemura in Horios was also a nice touch. Thanks for sharing this.

I tucked it away in the back of my head for a year, and then I was asked to speak to a group of camp counselors last week, Parshas Chukas. (In my small town, we have a day camp, and every year we bring girls in from "the city" to help out.)

Anyway, I mentioned this insight, and I amplified it by describing the intricate arrangement that was needed to make the pura adima possible (See the Mishna in Pura about the cave in NE Yirushaloyim where women went to give birth and raise their childern in a state of taharah until they were big enough to ride on top of the doors strapped onto the backs of oxen ...).

I said "Who were these women? These children?" We don't know. Their names aren't recorded. But every avodah in the Beis HaMikdash was made possible by their mesiras nefesh outside.

I also pointed out that while the kohen gudol was sequestered for seven days prior to Yom Kippur, and sprinkled on the first and seventh day, the person who burned the pura adima was sprinkled each of the seven days. I said that the avoda outside the BH"M, which is the preparatory work without which the avoda inside the BH"M would not be possible, is more precious and more sensitive to taharah. The mishna says that even those who carried the clay jugs to the cave for the children to carry became tamei after handing them over. Our dealings with gashmius, when dedicated to making possible dealings with kedisha, are the arena of tuma and tahara in our lives.

Chukas. Amram and Yocheved's Children, Whiskey, Worms, and Snakes

From the archive:


This week's post has two parts.  The first part discusses Amram and Yocheved's family.  The second part discusses the issur of Whiskey that was owned by a Jew on Pesach, and the issur of fish that contain Anisakis parasites.

PART I

Taanis 9a:  The "moving well" that provided water for the Jews in the desert was in the merit of Miriam; the clouds that protected them, in the merit of Aharon; and the Manna in the merit of Moshe. Miriam died, and the well disappeared, but it returned in the merit of the two remaining brothers.  Aron died, the clouds disappeared, but they returned in the merit of Moshe.  Moshe died, and all three disappeared, never to return to that generation.

ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר שלשה פרנסים טובים עמדו לישראל אלו הן משה ואהרן ומרים וג' מתנות טובות ניתנו על ידם ואלו הן באר וענן ומן באר בזכות מרים עמוד ענן בזכות אהרן מן בזכות משה מתה מרים נסתלק הבאר שנאמר (במדבר כ) ותמת שם מרים וכתיב בתריה ולא היה מים לעדה וחזרה בזכות שניהן מת אהרן נסתלקו ענני כבוד שנאמר (במדבר כא) וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד מה שמועה שמע שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה לו רשות להלחם בישראל והיינו דכתיב (במדבר כ) ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן אמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו כדדריש ר"ל דאר"ל כי משמש בארבע לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא חזרו שניהם בזכות משה מת משה נסתלקו כולן שנאמר (זכריה יא) ואכחיד את שלשת הרועים בירח אחד וכי בירח אחד מתו והלא מרים מתה בניסן ואהרן באב ומשה באדר אלא מלמד שנתבטלו ג' מתנות טובות שנתנו על ידן ונסתלקו כולן בירח אחד

Korach accused Moshe Rabbeinu of unilaterally allocating power and glory to himself and to his own family,  I hate to ask a question that might seem reminiscent of Korach's, but my question is actually very different.  I was wondering.  How is it that these three people, Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam, two brothers and a sister, were the ones in whose zechus the three staffs of life in the Midbar existed?  Yes, of course we know that Moshe Rabbeinu was unique.  But were there no others in that generation that equaled Aharon or Miriam?  Why, when Hashem told Moshe that he would be the instrument of Yetzias Mitzrayim, and Moshe tried to decline, did Moshe suggest that Aharon be chosen?  Why was Aharon the automatic alternative to Moshe Rabbeinu?  Was there nobody more qualified, or equally qualified?  Evidently, there were not. 

Obviously, the fact that Aharon and Miriam were singled out proves that they were uniquely qualified; that they, and they alone, were worthy to be Moshe Rabbeinu's peers.  As Rashi says in Shmos 4:10, Aharon was a navi for a long time in Mitzrayim before Moshe Rabbeinu was chosen by Hashem.  Miriam also was a nevi'ah, who said that the savior of Klal Yisrael would be born to her parents.  So the question is, how did it happen that the three greatest people of the generation were siblings?      Why did this greatness strike one family three times?

This is not a statistical anomaly, that the three greatest people of the generation just so happened to be brothers and sisters. Obviously, there was something about the family that generated these great people.  What special quality was it that manifested itself in these three great scions?  And in what respect were they so different?

As proof that the question is valid, see Yoma 47a.  There was a woman, Kimchis, who had seven sons that were Kohanim Gedolim.  The Gedolim of the time asked her what was it that she had done that manifested itself in having such great children, and she answered that she was very modest even when at home.  So the fact that Chazal asked her what she had done to merit such great children proves that this is a question that is worth asking.  And, by the way, the answer was not a generic "I was very holy."  Apparently, general holiness is not a good answer.  Chazal, and Kimchis, knew that there was some specific trait that laid the foundation of her great children.

Is it because Yishai, their father, was so holy?  He is (Bava Basra 17a) among the four people who died only because of the decree of human mortality, not because of any sin.  But what of the other three on the list?   The four are Binyamin, Amram, Yishai, and Kil'av.  OK, Yishai had chosheveh sons.  What do we know about the children of Binyamin?  Nothing, other than that were ten of them:  Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Geira, Naaman, Eichi, Rosh, Mupim, Chupim, and Ard.  But do we find that they were supremely gifted?  Were they unusually accomplished?  Not that I know.  And Kil'av?  We know zero about him, other than the fact that he didn't try to kill his father or seize the malchus.  In fact, the Chasam Sofer says that the reason we know so very little about these four great people is because they preserved their perfection by not engaging in everyday life with the community, which is not what the Ribono shel Olam wants (though obviously it's not a sin.)

I don't think we're looking for a superior trait, as the Gemara says about Kimchis, that she was unusually modest.  I think we're looking for something singular, something unique to Amram and/or Yocheved. 

I saw an interesting comment in a sefer called Ein Yaakov (from Reb Yaakov Karliner, author of Mishkenos Yaakov, who, if you don't recognize his Mishkenos Yaakov happens to be the Keren Orah's brother), here.  He brings from the Daas Zkainim in Parshas Pinchas on the passuk

וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת עַמְרָם יוֹכֶבֶד בַּת-לֵוִי אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי בְּמִצְרָיִם וַתֵּלֶד לְעַמְרָם אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-מֹשֶׁה וְאֵת מִרְיָם אֲחֹתָם.

that Levi's wife's name was Ossah (despite the Mapik Hei,) and that is why it says Asher yaldah ossa le'levi be'Mitzrayim.  He explains that the name Ossah showed that this woman was an Os, Os Hashem, she was seen as an amazingly great woman.  Similarly, the name of Yocheved means she was honored with Godly gifts, kah kavod.  The passuk in Pinchas stresses the names of the mother and grandmother of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam, to let us know that their singular gadlus stemmed from these great women.

But that doesn't really answer the question.  Great mother and grandmother.  And a great father too, no doubt.  But were they unique?  And in exactly what way were they so great?

Here's a pshat that directly addresses the question.  The answer given by the Mesilos Chaim, who develops something the Sforno said.  The Mesilos Chaim was written by Rav Chaim Elazary; he calls it a Mussar-oriented sefer of Drush:  here's his bio, with information from Reb Manny Saltiel here, with corrections and additions from a letter I received from Rabbi Elazary's grandson- whose son is named Chaim.

Rav Chaim Moshe Reuven Elazary was a student of the Slobodkeh Yeshiva, first in Europe and then in Chevron. He was in Chevron at the time of the massacre in 1929 (was saved by an Arab).  Rav Elazary's brothers, Rav Betzalel and Rav Yisrael, were among those murdered in the 1929 Chevron massacre.  He went to Yerushlayim with the rest of the yeshiva, got married in 1932 (the woman he married was born in the US, but went to Palestine in 1931 to look for a shidduch from the Chevron yeshiva), moved to the Bronx in 1936.  He began his rabbinic career there, and also taught at a yeshiva in Brooklyn.  He succeeded his father-in-law, Rav Ephraim Pelcovitz, as rabbi of Congregation Agudas Achim in Canton, Ohio in 1938 or 39.   (His father had been in Canton since 1914, and in 1929 moved to Bridgeport, Connecticut.) In 1972, Rav Elazary settled in Petach Tikva. He left numerous published and unpublished works and articles, many of them exhibiting the influence of Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel, the Alter of Slobodka.   

I'm copying his drasha from here on hebrewbooks.org, and I don't have the time or patience to fix the OCR and format errors.  Figure it out yourself. 

אלה ראשי בית אבתם וגוי  (Shemos, 6:14)

כתב הספורנו  ״בדין מנה את אלה שרים על ישראל, כי הם היו נכבדים מכל האומה, וזה, כי ראובן בכור ישראל ולא היו מצאצאיו אנשים ראוים להקרא בשם זולתי בניו הנזכר, שהיו מכלל ע׳ נפש שכבר מתו וכר, וכך היה מבני שמעון. אבל לוי שהאריך ימים על כולם גדל גם את בני בניו להבין ולהורות, וכן קהת ועמרם, באופן שיצאו מהם משה ואהרן ומרים״, הרי איפוא, שמה גרם להם לבני עמרם שיהיו נכבדים מכל האומה, זה שהיו קרובים יותר אל אבותיהם. ושורשו של דבר הוא,שהואיל ולפי התהליך הטבעי הדורות הולכים ומתמעטים. עד שחדל בדורותיהם כבר קבעו את הכלל *אם ראשונים בני מלאכים אנו בני אנשים ואם ראשונים בני אנשים אנו כחמורים״ וכוי (שבת קי׳׳ב, ע״ב) לפיכך כבל שמרבה האדם להכיר את הדורות הקודמים לו הריהו זוכה ממילא גם לראות מדרגות יותר נשגבות בפרישות וקדושה. וכמובן שעובדה זו מטביעה דושם על הנוכו והתנהגותו. משום כך, אי שהאריך ימים יתר על כל השבטים ובני בניו גדלו על ברכיו, בנגוד לאהיו שלא הספיקו לגדל אלא את בניהם בלבד, זכה עמרם בן בנו להעמיד את מנהיגי ישראל, משה, אהרן ומרים

The gist of his answer is that Levi outlived all his brothers, and raised his grandchildren, among whom was Amram.  It was this exposure to and education by this great man from an earlier generation that resulted in Amram raising his three great children, the leaders of their generation.  Our spiritual gifts, our relationship with Hashem, are rooted in our great ancestors.  Amram was raised to adulthood and educated by the last surviving son of Yaakov; he became, in a sense, the repository of the gadlus of Yaakov; and he gave over that heritage to his children.  .

Please note a very cool thing: The essence of this answer is very similar to the answer suggested by Anonymous, the first commenter:

Maybe it has to do with the fact that Amram married his aunt who was much older than he, for starters. This trait demonstrated by Amram of not using age as a factor when picking his wife merited the zechus of having such special children. Also considering that Yocheved was a daughter of Levi meant that the inherent kedusha of one of the original Shivtei Yisroel was present in his granchildren at yetzias Mitzrayim not diluted by further space between the doros. Yocheved saw the way Levi ran his household and passed it down directly to her children without dilution of time.
This shows the power of the influence of parents and grandparents on children, and the powerful effect they can have for good or bad.

Rabbi Elazary discusses Amram's close connection with the previous generations, and Anonymous mentioned the fact that Yocheved, having been born 'bein hachomos,' was not only a living memory of the generation of the twelve shvatim, she was an actual remnant of that generation- a connection even stronger than that of Amram!  The two teirutzim work together much more effectively than each one alone: after all, Yocheved was not unique, there was also Serach bas Asher; Amram was not unique, there were all the other grandchildren of Levi.  BUT!  This family was unique in that both parents, both Amram and Yocheved, were raised and educated by Levi himself.  Coincidentally, or not coincidentally, Mr. Anonymous was raised fifty years later than and fifty miles north of Rabbi Elazary's rabbanus.

To better understand this teretz, another point is important.
R’ Chaim Shmuelevitz says (Sichos Mussar, #40, pages 169-170) that when Chazal say "Ke'Shmuel bedoro kach Yiftach be'doro," the pshat is not that we have no choice because the earlier gedolim are not available. The pshat in tosfos in R”h that says “ein lecha shofeit she’hayah b’yamecha” is he is the right one for you. Then he brings from Koheles Rabbah 1:4:4 that if Aharon lived in the time of Yehoyadah and Tzadok, they would have been greater than Aharon– because for that generation Yehoyadah would have been more fitting. Then he brings the story of Choni in Taynis 23a, and asks, why didn’t Choni show them his gadlus in Torah? The answer is that his pshotim and teirutzim would not have made sense to them. (ahd kahn R' Shmuelevitz.)

The superior leaders are those who incorporate the spiritual level of the previous generation in a form and a language that is intelligible to the new generation. Yes, the Navi Shmuel himself would have been a failure as a leaderin the generation of Yiftach; but a man of Shmuel's stature, who could understand the people of Yiftach's generation, and could talk to them in their language, would have been the greatest possible leader.
An excellentcomment from Rav Yehudah  Oppenheimer. -The Rambam in his Hakdama goes through the 40 doros from Moshe until Rav Ashi. After Hillel goes Reb Yochanan Ben Zakai, despite the fact that he was the smallest of Hillel's Talmidim. Perhaps the greater ones were unable to bring the Torah down to the level of the next dor.

Another connection to this week's parsha:  In the war against Og, the king of Bashan, it says that Moshe Rabbeinu was afraid.  Rashi explains that he was afraid that Og had a zechus, as it says "Vayavo hapalit," that the refugee from the battle came to Avraham to tell him that his nephew, Lot, had been captured.  The simple meaning of the Rashi is that Og had done a favor for Avraham, and this was a zechus.  But Chazal do say that Og's intention was to kill Avraham, or to have Avraham die in the battle he would join, so that Og could take Sarah for a wife.  Some favor!  What kind of zechus is this?  But we can say pshat a little different (based on the Gemara in Chagiga 5a about the zechus of seeing tzadikim.)  Og was the last man on earth that saw Avraham Avinu.  That alone was a fantastic zechus.  It was this zechus that frightened Moshe Rabbeinu.  Similarly, the Gemara in Bava Basra 121b says that seven people spanned all of history: Adam was seen by Mesuselach, who was seen by Shem, who was seen by Yaakov, who was seen by Amram, who was seen by Achiyah Hashiloni, who was seen by Eliahu, who is still alive.  Amram was the last man to have seen Yaakov, and that is a great zechus.

Tangentially, I say that having such great parents certainly can lead to extraordinary achievement, with a caveat.  Obviously, there are no guarantees.  Amram was not the only grandchild that Levi raised, and Moshe, Aharon and Miriam were not his only great-grandchildren; but they apparently absorbed the lessons better than the others.  It is not easy for a young tree to grow in the shade of a great oak; the ones that attempt to grow on their own and outdo the towering oak remain stunted and resentful.  The smart ones graft their root system into that of the great oak from which they descended, and not only are they not stunted by their great predecessor, they are doubly well-rooted and doubly well-nourished.


PART II
Since I mentioned the Mishkenos Yaakov:
There has been an uncontroverted declaration by the umbrella organization comprising the heads of all the respected Hashgacha organizations in the United States to this effect:  Since whiskey that was owned by a Jew on Pesach is assur, the products of any whisky companies and distributers that are Jewish and who don't sell their Chametz, are forever assur.  This includes Pappy Van Winkle since 2003. 

I am not a drinker, so I don't personally care about this tempest.  But as Pastor Niemöller said, "They came first for the Romaine lettuce, and I didn't speak up because you can check Romaine lettuce once a year, no big deal.  Then they came for the brocolli, and I didn't speak up because I can do without brocolli.  Then they came for the strawberries, and I didn't speak up because I can eat frozen strawberries.  Then they came for water, and I didn't speak up because there's always whiskey.  But then they came for the whiskey, and my throat was too dry to speak up."

So I'll have you know that while we must all respect and follow our poskim and Hashgacha organizations, there are very chashuveh poskim that hold like the Mishkenos Yaakov in YD 34, that learns in the Rivash that Zei'ah is not really assur outside the case of Yayin, and even though the Mishkenos Yaakov is machmir unless its a hefsed merubah, there are very chashuveh poskim that apply his hetter to all cases of whiskey that is Chametz she'avar alav hapesach, because the Torah requires a limud to prohibit ta'aroves on Pesach itself.

I'm not telling you who the matirim are, because the vast majority of past and current poskim hold that whiskey is prohibited if avar alav hapesach.  Also, it's important to follow our community leaders and support our Hashgacha organizations, which benefit us in so many ways.  I'm certainly not belittling the great poskim who hold that this is problematic.  But it's important to know that America was not discovered yesterday, and that earlier poskim were perfectly aware of the issue - and were mattir. 

Same thing with the anisakis business.  As Rabbi Belsky said, there is a mesora to be mattir in all cases, and the earlier poskim were well aware of the issues, and were mattir based on the invisibility of the parasites when ingested by the kosher fish.

Let's put it this way:  if you are machmir on whiskey and wild salmon without direct instruction from your poseik, you are transgressing a serious issur- not the issur of chametz and shratzim, but instead the issur of Poretz Geder through zilzul talmidei chachamim.  What do Chazal say about Poretz Geder?  And with that, we bring this post back to this week's parsha, which talks of the plague of poisonous snakes-

Poretz Geder Yishchenu Nachash.  (Koheles 10:8, as applied in Shulchan Aruch OC 410:11.)

~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~

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.

Chukas, Bamidbar 20:8. Mei Merivah.

(Based in part on the Tzitz Eliezer and the Aruch Hashulchan.)

Mei Merivah is what we call the calamitous event when Moshe was told to bring forth water by speaking to the rock, but instead, he struck the rock. This was the error that finally and irreversibly prevented Moshe from entering Eretz Yisroel. Why, then, when we pray for rain in T’fillas Geshem on Sukkos, do we say regarding Moshe Rabbeinu “Ahl hasela hoch vayeitzu mayim, betzidko chon chashras moyim.” We ask Hashem to remember the time that Moshe struck the stone and brought forth a great cascade of water, and we ask that in that merit may we, too, be blessed with an abundance of water. This was not a good day for Moshe Rabbeinu. On the contrary, it was because of this act that his tragic fate of not entering Eretz Yisroel was sealed. Why would we recall this tragic error when we should be invoking merits and remembering zechusim?

The obvious answer is, that "ahl haSelah Hoch" refers to the first time he brought forth water from a stone, in Parshas Beshalach, when he did exactly as he was commanded.

The obvious answer is, as usual, wrong. The stone in Parshas Beshalach was called צור, ‘tzur,’ and only here, at the second event, is the stone called סלע, ‘selah.’ So when we say ‘ahl haselah,’ we’re not talking about the first time.

The correct answer begins with the Gemorah in Tainis 25b.

There was once a drought in Eretz Yisroel, and R’ Eliezer davenned during the tainis and nothing happened. R’ Akiva got up, said two ‘Ovinu malkeinus’ and it began to pour. This shocked the observers, because at that time R’ Eliezer was the godol and z’kan hador. So a bas kol was heard that said “lo mipnei shezeh godol mizeh, elloh shezeh ma’avir ahl middosov v’zeh eino ma’avir ahl middosov.” It is not because this one is greater than the other, but because this one is forgiving to personal affronts, he does not bear a grudge against those that are disrespectful to him.

R’ Yisroel Salanter asks, well, in that case, the ma’avir ahl middosov was greater, wasn’t he? Doesn’t this story show that the prayers of the forgiving soul are more precious? Doesn’t this story show that forbearance is a worthy trait? He answers that it is clear from this Gemorah that ‘ma’avir ahl middosov’ is not necessarily the only or even the best way to serve Hashem. One can be a makpid ahl middosov and be equal to or greater than a ma’avir ahl middosov, as we see in the case of Shammai and Hillel.

We know Shammai and Hillel behaved differently. Shammai was not ma’avir ahl middosov, while Hillel was. Did this prove that Hillel was a greater man than Shammai? No. Shammai chose the derech of a sar, a melech, and Hillel chose the derech of an eved. In fact, you could argue that Shammai was greater, as we see that it took a long time to pasken like Beis Hillel despite their majority, because Beis Shammai was mechadedi tfei, they were the greater lomdim. In fact, as the Aruch Hashulchan says in Hilchos Tefillin, the halacha will be like Beis Shammai in the times of Moshiach. But when it comes to asking for Hashem’s chein, when you are asking for grace, for something you don’t really deserve, you need a ma’avir ahl middosov to ask Hashem to be ma’avir ahl middosov.

The Leiv Aharon on Chulin and the Oruch Hashulchon both say that a person cannot be punished for an innocent misunderstanding. If, however, his misunderstanding was motivated by something within him that is wrong, then he can be punished for the misunderstanding. This is not because the underlying motivator is wicked or evil or even wrong, but simply because a motive, even a good one, even an indirect one, makes a person responsible for his behavior. It is no longer called an “oneis.” This explains why Moshe was punished for what happened at Mei Merivoh.

Moshe was punished at Mei Merivoh because although it was a misunderstanding that resulted in his action, his misunderstanding was motivated by something within him, and he was liable for it. Moshe knew that the first be’er was in the z’chus of Miriam, and the second was in his z’chus. When Hashem told Moshe to talk to the stone, Moshe thought, “what does Hashem mean by ‘talk.’ Does He mean only talk? But then this would be a public demonstration of my superiority to Miriam! I am not superior to her! I am her younger brother, she saved me, etc. Hashem must mean talk and strike, as He meant with the first stone, which was in the zechus of Miriam. Moshe came to this conclusion because he was the greatest ‘ma’avir ahl middosov.’ In fact, though, Hashem did mean only talk. (1. Tzitz Eliezer 17:41– because Moshe was greater, and for him the neis would have been a complete lema’alo miderech hateva, with no physical aspect at all, unlike Miriam’s which involved some small element of teva. 2. Oruch Hashulchon– because Miriam’s z’chusim were mitzvos ma’asios, while Moshe’s zchus was Torah, which is dibbur. 3. Taam Vodaas from Rav Shternbuch– because the ‘dibbur’ required here was the pronouncement of the Sheim Hameforash, which Klal Yisroel was not worthy of prior to Mattan Torah, but they were worthy of at this point.)

So Moshe was wrong. It was a mistake, but the mistake was motivated by his being a ma’avir ahl middosov. It was a mistake, but it was a sublime mistake, a glorious mistake. In fact, it was the middah of ma’avir that resulted in the water flowing from the rock despite the fact that striking the rock was wrong! So although Moshe got into trouble for it, it still expresses that middah of anivus and ma’avir ahl middosov, and it is that middah we stress when asking for Hashem to give us the chein of brocho and geshem and parnossoh, as we see in the story of R’ Eliezer and R’ Akiva.. We are far from perfect; even in the light of middas harachamim, we are embarrasingly far from what we should be.  But we mean to do the right thing.  We desire to serve the Ribono shel Olam.  We ask that even when we're wrong, please recognize that our motives are good.  That is ‘betzidko chon chashras moyim.”