[Par-reg] Chukat - questions for self study

Mon Jun 25 09:21:33 EDT 2012

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

     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]

          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag

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

                 PARSHAT CHUKAT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHERE DOES PARSHAT PARA ADUMA BELONG?

1.  Even though the laws of Para Aduma are
recorded in Parshat

Chukat, there is ample reason to assume that
these laws of

'tum'at met' [i.e. laws pertaining to
'spiritual

uncleanliness' caused by touching a dead
body] may have been

given at an earlier time.

     To prove this point, review Bamidbar
9:1-8, noting how

that event ('pesach sheni') took place before
the 14 of Nissan

and after the laws of tum'at met had been
given!       Is it

logical to assume that these laws were given
before the

mishkan was first erected?  Explain why yes
(or no).   [See

Ramban on 19:1.]

     Is it logical to assume that these laws
were given before

Matan Torah?  If so, explain why.

2.  See Rashi on Shmot 15:25.  According to
this Rashi, when

were these laws (re: para aduma) first given?
What, do you

think, leads Rashi to this conclusion?

  What is problematic with this conclusion,
based on Bamidbar

19:4.  [See also Ramban.]

3.  Finally, see Rashi at the conclusion of
Bamidbar chapter

19 (i.e. after he completes his commentary on
19:22) - where

he quotes Rebbe Moshe ha'darshan, providing
an alternate

commentary for the entire chapter which
emphasizes the

thematic connection between the laws of "para
aduma" the

events at "chet ha'egel"

  After reading this commentary [which is
simply a

masterpiece], explain how it would affect our
understanding of

when and why these laws were first given, and
why they are

recorded at this specific point in Sefer
Bamidbar!

4.  In our introductory shiur to Sefer
Bamidbar, we discussed

the unique style of Sefer Bamidbar (where its
ongoing

narrative is periodically 'interrupted' by
parshiot of

mitzvot).  Would you consider these laws of
para aduma (i.e.

chapter 19) typical of this style?

     If so, what is the narrative that
precedes these laws and

what is the narrative that follows them?

     Do any of these two narratives involve
death?  Do any of

these parshiot relate to the responsibilities
of the kohanim?

     Based on your answer to question #1, how
could this

explain why the Torah chose to record this
parsha here, even

though these laws were actually given at a
much earlier time?

     [See Rashi on 20:1 ['va-tamot sham
Miriam'...].  What

leads Rashi to this conclusion?]

5.  In what year do the events recorded in
Bamidbar chapters

16 thru 18 [i.e. the story of Korach's
rebellion] take place?

     Would it make more sense if they took
place soon after

the sin of the 'meraglim'?  [See Ibn Ezra &
Ramban on 16:1.]

     Assuming that Korach's rebellion took
place soon after

the sin of the meraglim, and the Mei Meriva
incident took

place in the fortieth year, approximately how
many years

elapse in between these two events?

  What is recorded in Chumash between these
two events?  Are

there any narratives?

     In your opinion, could parshat para
aduma (and its laws)

relate to this time-period?  If so, how?

6.  Re: other commentators on this topic:

  See Ibn Ezra on 19:1 (and Ramban on 19:1 /
about 15 lines

down) where they discuss why this parshia is
recorded here.

     See also Chizkuni on 19:1. In what
manner is his peirush

similar and in what manner is it very
different from Ibn Ezra

and Ramban's?        Then, see Rashi on 20:1
[d.h. 'va-tamot

sham Miriam'].  How is Rashi's peirush
different from all of

the others?

BETWEEN SEFER BAMIDBAR & DEVARIM

1.  Review the story of how Bnei Yisrael
doesn't enter the

territory of Edom (and why) in 20:14-21 and
their journey and

ensuing war with Sichon & Og in 21:10-35.
Then, review the

parallel account of these events in Devarim
2:1 thru 3:22.

     Attempt to explain why each account
emphasizes different

aspects of these events, based on the primary
theme of [this

section of] Sefer Bamdibar in contrast to the
purpose of Moshe

Rabeinu's speech to the nation in Sefer
Devarim [i.e. the 'pep

talk' to the nation before they embark on
their battle to

conquer the land/  see TSC shiur on Parshat
Devarim].

THE LAST STOP

1.  Review the final pasuk of Parshat Chukat
(i.e. 22:1).

Notice how if forms the final pasuk of entire
'parshia', yet

on the other hand, it's considered the first
verse of chapter

22!  In your opinion, which division makes
more sense, i.e.

the chapter division - considering 22:1 as
the beginning of

the Balak story; or Chazal's division,
considering this the

conclusion of Bnei Yisrael journey that began
after Aharon's

death in (see 21:4)?

2.  Note how Bnei Yisrael arrive at Arvot
Moav in 22:1.  To

the best of your recollection, when is the
next time the Bnei

Yisrael travel, and where do they travel to,
and where is that

story recorded?

     Did you ever notice before, that this is
the last 'camp

site' that Bnei Yisrael set up during their
forty year

journey?   To appreciate the importance of
this site, make a

list of all of the events that take place in
Arvot Moav, from

the stories in Parshat Balak until the end of
Sefer Devarim.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for
weekly shiur)

     THREE SHIURIM!!

SHIUR #1 - Moshe's 'sin' at Mei Meriva

1.  How many different opinions can your
recall, which explain

what Moshe did wrong at the Mei Meriva
incident?

     Which opinion do you consider the most
logical?

     What ever it may have been what he did
wrong; in your

opinion - was his 'sin' intentional, or'
unintentional'?

2.  What was Moshe Rabbeinu's punishment for
this sin?  [Keep

note of your answer for later reference.]

  Do you think that the punishment that Moshe
received was

'fair'?  If not, explain why not.

  [Did you ever hear an explanation for why
he was punished so

  severely for such a small transgression?]

3.  To begin our study, let's go to the
'crime scene' - i.e.

begin your study with a quick review of
20:7-11 - the psukim

that describe this 'sin', noting how they
first describe God's

commandment to Moshe & Aharon, followed by
how they fulfilled

[or didn't fulfill] that commandment.

     Review God's commandment to Moshe in
20:8, noting how it

includes a long list of instructions.   List
each command that

Moshe is instructed to perform. [Be sure that
you can identify

each of these five commands.  /If it's not
Shabbat, it would

be helpful if you write down each command,
leaving a space

between each one, for later reference.]

4. Based on these five commands, is it
perfectly clear (from

these commands) precisely what Moshe is
supposed to do?

  For example, what is supposed to say to the
rock?

    Why is he commanded to take the staff?

    Is he supposed to take water out of the
rock, or is the

    water supposed to flow out by itself?

     Did you notice any apparent
contradiction between the

third and fourth commands (in 20:8)?

5.  Next, carefully read 20:9-11, noting how
Moshe fulfills

(or doesn't fulfill) each of these five
commands.  [If you are

writing them down, then insert them into the
list you began

above.]

     Is it easy to pinpoint precisely what he
did wrong?

     How do you know for sure that he did do
something wrong?

In your own opinion, did he do anything
wrong?  If so, which

command (or commands) did he not fulfill
properly?

     In your opinion (if he did something
wrong), was it

because he didn't understand what God's
command was; or did he

understand - yet disobeyed intentionally?

     [If you have time, see Ramban on 20:7
where he summarizes

all of the various opinions.  Note how your
answers to these

questions should help you understand all of
the various points

raised by Ramban.  Which opinions does Ramban
refute, and

which opinion does he prefer?

6.  Return now to 20:9.  To the best of your
recollection,

which (or whose) 'mateh' did Moshe take?
Based on this pasuk,

how do we know for sure that he indeed took
the proper mateh?

     Where does he take this mateh from and
why?  Is this what

God instructed him to do in 20:8?

     Now, review Bamidbar 17:16-26, noting
especially 17:25!

How would this explain which mateh Moshe was
instructed to

take in 20:8?  What other textual and
thematic connections can

you find between the events at Mei Meriva and
the story of

Korach's rebellion?  Note 16:14, 16:19, &
17:27-28; compare

with 20:4, 20:6, & 20:3!  [See Chizkuni on
20:8-9, noting how

he deals with many of the questions raised
above!]

7.  Next, review the story that sets the
background for

Moshe's 'sin' by studying 20:1-6, carefully
comparing these

psukim with a similar event that took place
in Shmot 17:1-8.

     Based on this parallel, what do you
think should have

been Moshe & Aharon's initial reaction to
Bnei Yisrael's

complaint for water (as described in 20:2-5)?

     How did Moshe & Aharon react to the
people's complaint at

Mei Meriva?  In your opinion, was their
reaction proper?  What

was their reaction to the similar complaint
raised by the

nation as recorded in Shmot 17:1-5?

  How are Moshe and Aharon's reaction to Bnei
Yisrael

complaint in 20:2-5 similar to their overall
reaction to the

various other complaints raised by Bnei
Yisrael in Sefer

Bamidbar?  Could this explain the reason for
Moshe & Aharon's

'punishment'?

8.  Review 20:12-13.  What was Moshe &
Aharon's punishment?

Be precise!  Does this punishment relate in
any manner to

their 'leadership', or was it a personal
punishment?

     Does this punishment relate in any
manner to their 'sin'?

     In other words, are Moshe & Aharon
punished as

individuals or as national leaders?  Explain
your answer.

9.  In addition to the Ramban on 20:7-10
(where he discusses

just about all of the opinions of the various
Rishonim on the

topic of Mei Meriva), see also Abrabanel at
the end of chapter

one of Sefer Devarim where he explains that
Moshe does not

actually sin at Mei Meriva, rather is
punished due to chet ha-

meraglim [and Aharon because of chet
ha-egel].

  Note in his peirush that he brings down
about TEN different

explanations of Moshe's sin at Mei Meriva and
disproves each

one! As you study this Abrabanel, relate it
to the above

questions.

=====

SHIUR #2  - WHEN DID MEI MERIVA TAKE PLACE?

1.  To the best of your recollection, in what
year do the

events of Mei Meriva (see Bamidbar 20:1-13
take place?

Similarly, when do the events in Bamidbar
20:14-29 take place?

     [Base your answer on Bamidbar 33:37-39
in relation to

20:22-26.  See also Ibn Ezra on 20:1]

     Based on the psukim alone, is it
possible to reach a

definite answer to this question?  [Explain
why yes or why

not.]

     From a thematic perspective, is there
any reason to

prefer an explanation that puts (or doesn't
put) these events

in the fortieth year?

     Can you explain why the Torah (in 20:1)
only informs us

in regard to the month, yet prefers not to
tell us the year!

How does the fact that this event takes place
in the first

month affect our understanding of what
transpires in the

ensuing story (i.e. in 20:2-6) in regard to
the lack of water,

and why they fear death?

2.  According to Bamidbar 20:1, the incident
of Mei Meriva

takes place at Kadesh in Midbar Tzin.

     Where is Midbar Tzin located?

     [For those of you familiar with the map
of Israel today,

take a look on the map where the road to
Eilat from Beer Sheva

meets the road to Eilat from the Dead Sea
(below the 'machtesh

ha-katan' - the small crater).  You should be
able to find

there 'nachal tzin'.]

     In your opinion, is this the same
location as Kadesh

Barnea in Midbar Paraan, the site from where
the meraglim were

sent?  (Be sure you understand where Midbar
Paraan is located

in relation to Midbar Tzin.)  Note Yehoshua
10:41 & 15:3, and

Bamidbar 34:4 in their context.

     [To find that Kadesh [Barnea], look on
the map on

Egyptian side of the Israeli-Egyptian border
in the Negev,

left of the Rimon Crater area.]

3.  Do you think that Kadesh was the original
name of this

site at Midbar Tzin (mentioned in 20:1), or
was it named

Kadesh because of the incident of Mei Meriva?
Relate to

Bamidbar 20:13 and 33:36!

     Relate this to the nature of Moshe's
punishment (20:12-

13)!

     Are there any other cities in Israel (or
nearby) that are

called Kadesh, or have the word Kadesh as
part of their name?

[See Shoftim 4:6!  Note as well Breishit 14:7
& 16:14;

Yehoshua 12:22, 15:23, 19:37, 20:7 & 21:32.]

     Based on these sources, would it be
logical to assume

that Kadesh Barnea and Kadesh Midbar Tzin
could be (and should

be) two different places?

4.  Carefully read Devarim 1:40 - 2:14,
paying careful

attention to the chronology of the events.
Pay special

attention from 1:45 thru 2:3.  Be sure that
you can identify

(within these psukim) when the 38 year 'gap'
transpires.

[Note again 2:14.]

     Attempt to correlate those psukim with
the events

described in Bamidbar chapters 20 and 21, as
well as in

Bamidbar chapter 33.  [Btw, this is a very
difficult question

- but necessary preparation to follow the
shiur.]

     Relate your answer as well to Shoftim
11:15-17 (note by

chance, it is quoted in this week's Haftara)!

5.  In Devarim 1:46, the Torah informs us
that Bnei Yisrael

encamped in Kadesh - 'yamim rabim' - for many
days (most

likely this implies many years / see Rashi
1:46).

     In your opinion, which Kadesh is this
pasuk referring to:

Kadesh Barnea or Kadesh Midbar Tzin?  What do
you base you

answer on?  Can you bring support for both
opinions?

6.  After the sin of the meraglim, were Bnei
Yisrael supposed

to stay in Kadesh Barnea, or were they
instructed to leave?

If so, why?  [Relate to Devarim 1:40 and
Bamidbar 14:25.

     See Ibn Ezra on Devarim 1:46 & Bamidbar
20:14.

          Do you agree with his
interpretation?  Explain!

7.  If Kadesh mentioned in 1:46 is indeed
Kadesh Midbar Tzin,

and not Kadesh Barnea, what possibility
arises in regard to

when (i.e. in what year) Bnei Yisrael may
have first arrived

at that site?

     If so, what possibility would arise in
regard to when the

events at Mei Meriva may have taken place?

8.  See the Netziv [Emek Davar] in his
lengthy commentary to

Devarim 1:46.  Note how his commentary
relates to many of the

points raised by the above questions.  Be
sure you understand

what leads him to conclude [nevertheless]
that Mei Meriva took

place in the fortieth year!

=======

SHIUR #3 -  PARSHAT PARAH

1.  Review Bamdibar chapter 19, i.e. Parshat
Parah.

     How did you translate the phrase 'chukat
ha-torah', and

in your opinion, what does this phrase mean?

     In general, what does the word "torah"
usually refer to

in Sefer Vayikra & Bamidbar?  [Relate to
Vayikra chapters 6 &

7, and Bamidbar 5:29-30 & 6:21.]

  What does the word 'chok' usually refer to?
[Relate to Shmot

12:14, Vayikra 18:1-5 & 23:14,21,31 & 41.]

2.  Based on Bamidbar 5:30, clearly the word
"torah" can infer

a certain type of 'procedure'.  As you review
Bamidbar chapter

19, see if you can identify a 'procedure',
i.e. a set of

instructions for how to make 'something'.
How many

'procedures' did you find , and what would
you title each one.

[In other words, what is the end result of
each procedure?]

     If you found more than one procedure,
how does each

procedure relate to the next one?

3.  Review this parshia once again, this time
looking for

special laws or 'consequences' when
performing these

procedures.  Do these laws share anything in
common?  If so,

can you explain why?  Relate your answers to
questions #2 & #3

to question #1.

4.  Based on chapter 19, attempt to summarize
the various laws

of "tum'at met" [spiritual uncleanliness
contracted by contact

with a dead body].  Clarify the various
manners how one can

contract tum'at met, and the procedure that
one must follow to

'get rid' of it.

     Relate your answer to the above
questions.

5.  Based on your answers, how would you
define a 'chuka' (or

chok) and how would you define a 'torah' in
this parshia?

[Relate to the definition of a torah in
Parshat Tzav.  Relate

as well to the word chok in Shmot 12:14 and
Shoftim 11:38-40!]

     How could this help explain what chukat
ha-torah means?

====

PART IV - PARSHANUT

EVERYONE or EVERYBODY?

1.  Read 20:1, note the use of the phrase
'kol ha-eida' = the

entire 'eida'.  In your opinion, what does
the word 'kol' add

to this pasuk?

     In other words, how would the pasuk have
a different

meaning if the word kol was not included?
Can you recall any

other times in Chumash when this phase kol
ha-eida has been

used?  If not, try Shmot 16:1 & 17:1 and
Bamidbar 14:1 & 17:6,

and 20:27-29.  Attempt to explain in each of
these instances

what the word kol adds to the pasuk?

2.  Now see Rashi on 20:1.  What detail does
Rashi learn for

the word kol?  Why?  [Note Ibn Ezra as well.
How does this

relate?]

     Finally, see Ramban.  How and why does
he disagree with

Rashi?  How does he explain kol here and in
all of the other

instances noted above?  How does he relate to
Rashi's peirush

concerning when the last members of the first
generation died?

     In your opinion, which peirush is
'pshat', Rashi or

Ramban's?

A 'SARAF' OR A 'SERPENT'

3.  Review the story in 21:1-10.  Note that
God tells Moshe to

make a 'saraf' (see 21:8), but in 21:9 -
Moshe makes a

'nachash nechoshet'.  Can you explain why?

     Based on the story, is there any logical
reason that this

'symbol' should be a nachash?  Is there any
reason that it

should be made out of copper?

     First, see Rashi on 21:8-9.  Which of
the problems

(discussed above) does Rashi deal with?

     Next, see Seforno on 21:8-9.  Which of
the problems

(discussed above) does he deal with?

     Finally, see Ibn Ezra on 21:8.  Note
that he makes a very

bold, but important statement in regard to
understanding

miracles of this nature.  In your opinion,
does this Ibn Ezra

contradict anything in the commentaries of
Rashi or Seforno?

WHO'S THE "BAM"?

1.  Review 20:13 (the final pasuk of the Mei
Meriva incident),

noting its final phrase "va'ykadesh BAM".  In
your opinion,

who (or what) does the word "bam" refer to?
What did you

base you answer on?

  [In other words, does "bam" refer back to
"heyma mei

  meriva", or to "bnei Yisrael" that were
mentioned earlier in

  20:13, or to "Moshe & Aharon" mentioned in
20:12?]

2. See Rashi on 20:13.  [Read it carefully!]

     How did Rashi answer our above question,
and how does he

reach his conclusion?

     Then see Ibn Ezra , noting how he offers
a different

interpretation [even though he and Rashi both
bring a proof

from the pasuk "b'krovei akadesh" from
Vayikra 10:3, but for

different reasons.]

3. Next, see Rashbam & Chizkuni, noting how
the disagree with

Ibn Ezra, yet seem to agree with Rashi - even
though they

provide a different reason.

     Then see Seforno, noting how he offers a
similar

interpretation, yet once again, based on a
very different

reason!

4. Finally see Ramban, noting how he quotes
Rashi, yet

disagrees.  Study this Ramban carefully,
noting the logic

behind each stage of his commentary.   Note
he bases his

interpretation on the context of the word
"bam" in this pasuk;

but also takes into account what transpired
in Refidim in

Shmot chapter 17.

                  be-hatzlacha,

                   menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukatq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36686 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20120625/01a7868b/attachment-0001.pdf 