Chasidut sobre Números 20:35
Mevo HaShearim
When the Temple stood, the world of Asiyah and Malkhut was at the level of Tiferet and the world of Yetzirah, and there was a true unification. After the destruction of the Temple, Malkhut and the world of Asiyah descended. See Etz Hayyim III:2, “This is the secret of ‘He threw down earth from heaven,’231Lamentations 2:1, describing the destruction of the first Temple. for Tiferet Israel, which is Zeir Anpin, threw down Malkhut, which is called ‘earth,’ which had been its Tiferet [state] which is called ‘heaven…’232This passage from Vital is cited to source the notion that the destruction of the physical Temple was correlated with a ‘descent’ of more supernal elements of the godhead down to lower levels of existence. This why there were two types of prophets. The forty-eight drew down light from the supernal worlds and the prophets of each generation raised up the world of Asiyah so that it could receive the light. This was in the sense of the companions of the King and the companions of the Matroness;233I.e., the divine Presence [Shekhinah]. Moses was like the former, and Aaron, who was closer to the people and rectified them so that they could receive, was like the latter. That was why “the entire house of Israel cried for Aaron.”234Numbers 20:29.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 20,8. “you are to speak to the rock in full view of them, etc.”, “because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in full view of the Israelites.”
Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” people, i.e. שמעו נא המורים, whereas the other sage claims that Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.
I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.
Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing His people performing His will. When the people listen to this kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to accept the yoke of heaven.
The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away from doing evil and do good instead.
The difference between these two methods is that the first method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing how an obstinate rock has to be treated.
[I believe that the author assumes that one of the rocks Moses faced was the one which had before Miriam’s death, reported earlier, always supplied the Israelites with water. If this were not so the symbolism is lost on me, as stones bringing forth water were unheard of. Ed.]
Since G’d a) had not instructed Moses to berate the people for demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.
Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” people, i.e. שמעו נא המורים, whereas the other sage claims that Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.
I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.
Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing His people performing His will. When the people listen to this kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to accept the yoke of heaven.
The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away from doing evil and do good instead.
The difference between these two methods is that the first method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing how an obstinate rock has to be treated.
[I believe that the author assumes that one of the rocks Moses faced was the one which had before Miriam’s death, reported earlier, always supplied the Israelites with water. If this were not so the symbolism is lost on me, as stones bringing forth water were unheard of. Ed.]
Since G’d a) had not instructed Moses to berate the people for demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 20,8. “you are to speak to the rock in full view of them, etc.”, “because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in full view of the Israelites.”
Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” people, i.e. שמעו נא המורים, whereas the other sage claims that Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.
I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.
Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing His people performing His will. When the people listen to this kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to accept the yoke of heaven.
The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away from doing evil and do good instead.
The difference between these two methods is that the first method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing how an obstinate rock has to be treated.
[I believe that the author assumes that one of the rocks Moses faced was the one which had before Miriam’s death, reported earlier, always supplied the Israelites with water. If this were not so the symbolism is lost on me, as stones bringing forth water were unheard of. Ed.]
Since G’d a) had not instructed Moses to berate the people for demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.
Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” people, i.e. שמעו נא המורים, whereas the other sage claims that Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.
I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.
Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing His people performing His will. When the people listen to this kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to accept the yoke of heaven.
The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away from doing evil and do good instead.
The difference between these two methods is that the first method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing how an obstinate rock has to be treated.
[I believe that the author assumes that one of the rocks Moses faced was the one which had before Miriam’s death, reported earlier, always supplied the Israelites with water. If this were not so the symbolism is lost on me, as stones bringing forth water were unheard of. Ed.]
Since G’d a) had not instructed Moses to berate the people for demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
When the Talmud in Sanhedrin 110 begins by stating that the people of the generation who had left Egypt have no share in the hereafter, the word אין, normally translated as “not”, means that these people considered themselves as totally insignificant, devoid of ego; since this was so, the very fact that they had acquired this level of humility qualified them for an afterlife. The word מדבר used there in the Talmud, usually translated as “desert,” is not used by the sages there in that sense, but is derived from medaber,” they were only speaking,” i.e. their worship of G’d expressed itself through their mouths, prayer, praise and thanksgiving, and the word יתמו in the quotation from Numbers 14,35 does not refer to their “expiring,” but is derived from תמים, “perfection,” the Torah testifying that these people had, as a result of their grievous sin rejecting the land of Israel as their future domicile, realized that they had sinned and had accepted their fate without protest.
They had tried to perfect their personalities by refining their speech so that no improper words should cross their lips. When the Torah adds in Numbers 14,35 שם ימותו, normally translated as “there they will die,” [which would be a repetition of what the Torah had already said, Ed.], the meaning is that they had achieved while on earth what the average person achieves only by reason of his soul leaving its body behind on earth. Moses had hoped that the men he had chosen to explore the goodness of the land of Canaan would approach their task in a spirit that would place them beyond material considerations that are commonplace on earth. G’d was aware of Moses’ lofty aspirations, but did not feel that He should deprive Moses of the opportunity to realize his high hopes for his people. When the Torah writes that the mission proceeded על פי ה', this does not literally mean “at the command of G’d,” but rather: “in the spirit of G’d.” It would be quite wrong for us to give G’d part of the blame for the failure of these men to live up to the trust Moses had placed in them.
The author proceeds to remind us that the sages have said that wherever the Torah associates the death of a person with the word שם, as in Numbers 14,35, this is an allusion that the person or persons concerned died by means of a heavenly kiss, i.e. a kiss from G’d. Rashi spells this out in connection with the death of Miriam, reported in Numbers 20,1, שםwhere the Torah, having already told us of the location where this took place, adds the word שם twice.
[Rashi adds that the reason the Torah did not make this clear beyond doubt by writing: על פי ה', “by the mouth of G’d,” as we find when Moses died in Deuteronomy, 34,5, is seeing that G’d is masculine, it would have given some blasphemer an opportunity to read a sexual nuance into that.” Ed.]
At any rate, we are entitled to understand the words ושם ימותו in Numbers 14,35 as promising each one of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults but did not get to the Holy Land that they would be given a Divine “kiss” when their souls would leave their bodies.
Whereas it is true that Moses had not had clear proof that these men had already enjoyed a “heavenly” assist, as does every Jew on the festivals we have discussed, he felt that they were of the caliber that could generate this by their own efforts seeing that the mission for which they had been selected was of such significance.
They had tried to perfect their personalities by refining their speech so that no improper words should cross their lips. When the Torah adds in Numbers 14,35 שם ימותו, normally translated as “there they will die,” [which would be a repetition of what the Torah had already said, Ed.], the meaning is that they had achieved while on earth what the average person achieves only by reason of his soul leaving its body behind on earth. Moses had hoped that the men he had chosen to explore the goodness of the land of Canaan would approach their task in a spirit that would place them beyond material considerations that are commonplace on earth. G’d was aware of Moses’ lofty aspirations, but did not feel that He should deprive Moses of the opportunity to realize his high hopes for his people. When the Torah writes that the mission proceeded על פי ה', this does not literally mean “at the command of G’d,” but rather: “in the spirit of G’d.” It would be quite wrong for us to give G’d part of the blame for the failure of these men to live up to the trust Moses had placed in them.
The author proceeds to remind us that the sages have said that wherever the Torah associates the death of a person with the word שם, as in Numbers 14,35, this is an allusion that the person or persons concerned died by means of a heavenly kiss, i.e. a kiss from G’d. Rashi spells this out in connection with the death of Miriam, reported in Numbers 20,1, שםwhere the Torah, having already told us of the location where this took place, adds the word שם twice.
[Rashi adds that the reason the Torah did not make this clear beyond doubt by writing: על פי ה', “by the mouth of G’d,” as we find when Moses died in Deuteronomy, 34,5, is seeing that G’d is masculine, it would have given some blasphemer an opportunity to read a sexual nuance into that.” Ed.]
At any rate, we are entitled to understand the words ושם ימותו in Numbers 14,35 as promising each one of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults but did not get to the Holy Land that they would be given a Divine “kiss” when their souls would leave their bodies.
Whereas it is true that Moses had not had clear proof that these men had already enjoyed a “heavenly” assist, as does every Jew on the festivals we have discussed, he felt that they were of the caliber that could generate this by their own efforts seeing that the mission for which they had been selected was of such significance.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Mei HaShiloach
In the Book of Numbers, it is hinted that no living being will be exculpated before Him, that even precious souls, "there is no righteous in the land who does good and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20), as in this portion it is written "consuming at the edge [katze] of the camp"(Numbers 11:1)—the elite [ketzinim] of the camp (see Sifri Numbers 85), and in parashat Shelah is written the sin of the scouts "all of the men being heads of the Children of Israel,"(Numbers 13:3) who were "mistaken hearted... and not knowing the ways [of God]" (Psalms 95:10), and so, in the section of the gatherer [of sticks of Shabbat], and in parashat Korach, "who was clever... and his eyes misled him” (Bamidbar Rabba 18:8, Midrash Tanhuma Korach 5, Rashi on Numbers 16:7), and in prashat Hukat is written “the waters of conflict” (Numbers 20:13) about Moses and Aaron, and in parashat Balak about Zimri ben Salu [who was killed for improper relations with a Midianite woman] that he was a chieftain (see Numbers 25:14). This hints to what was said “Remember, do not forget how you angered God your God in the wilderness”(Deuteronomy 9:7) because ‘wilderness’ indicates the destruction and the desolation that is in every individual, as how there were worlds that were destroyed before the world of building (see Kohellet Rabba 3:11:1, Zohar 3 292b:2). And this hints to the strength of humans over the demonic and wild forces within them that want to mislead them in youthful sins, and thus also in all lofty matters, are found deriving from the force of the wilderness, as the wilderness indicates the whole world, because before the creation of the form of humanity the whole world was a wilderness, because settlement [the alternative to wilderness] is only from people, and anything before the complete finishing of the formation of humanity is called wilderness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy