ChukatArtscroll p.838 | Haftarah p.1187Hertz p.652 | Haftarah p.664Soncino p.898 | Haftarah p.911

Volume 31No. 45

1

In loving memory of Yehuda ben Yaakov HaCohen

“Speak to the Children of Israel, and they shall take to you a completely red cow, which is withoutblemish, and upon which a yoke has not come” (Bemidbar 19:2).

13 July 2019 10 Tammuz 5779

Shabbat ends London 10.16pmJerusalem 8.28pm

Sidrah Summary: Chukat

United Synagogue Daf HashavuaProduced by US Living & Learning together with the Rabbinical Council of the United SynagogueEditor: Rabbi Chaim Gross Editor-in-Chief: Rabbi Baruch Davis Editorial and Production Team: Rabbi Daniel Sturgess, Rabbi Michael Laitner, Joanna RoseAvailable also via email US website www.theus.org.uk ©United SynagogueTo sponsor Daf Hashavua please contact Danielle Fox on 020 8343 6261, or dfox@theus.org.ukIf you have any comments or questions regarding Daf Hashavua please email rabbigross@theus.org.uk

1st Aliya (Kohen) – Bemidbar 19:1-17

God tells Moshe and Aharon to teach the nationthe laws of the Red Heifer (Parah Adumah). Theunblemished animal, which has never had a yokeupon it, is to be given to Elazar, Aharon’s son, whomust slaughter it outside the camp. It is then to beburned by a different Kohen, who must also throwsome cedar wood, hyssop and crimson threadinto the fire. Both he and Elazar will become rituallyimpure (tameh) through this preparatory process.In contrast, the ashes of the Heifer, when mixedwith water, are used to purify someone who hasbecome tameh through coming into contact with acorpse.

Question: On which two days of the purifyingprocess must the tameh person have this mixture sprinkled upon them? (19:12)

2nd Aliya (Levi) – 19:18-20:6

After the ashes are mixed with water, a ritually pure person (tahor) sprinkles the mixture on thetameh person, using a bundle of hyssop. By doingso, the one who sprinkles becomes tameh. The Israelites come to the wilderness of Tsin,where Miriam, Moshe and Aharon’s sister, dies(see p.5 article). The people complain that theyhave no water and would have been better offstaying in Egypt.

3rd Aliya (Shlishi) – 20:7-13

God tells Moshe to take his staff and speak to arock in front of the nation, after which water willemerge from the rock. However, Moshe strikes the rock twice (instead of speaking to it). Althoughthe rock then produces abundant water, God tellsMoshe and Aharon that they will not enter theLand.

Point to Consider: Why was Aharon alsopunished if he did not strike the rock? (20:12)

4th Aliya (Revi’i) – 20:14-21

Moshe sends messengers to the king of Edom,asking him to allow the Israelites to travel from

Kadesh through his land. Despite Moshe’sassurances that they will not take any of hisresources, Edom refuses and comes out tothreaten the Israelites militarily. The Israelites turn away.

5th Aliya (Chamishi) – 20:22-21:9

The nation travels from Kadesh to Mount Hor.Upon God’s command, Moshe, Aharon and Elazarascend Mount Hor. Elazar dons Aharon’s specialKohen Gadol (High Priest) garments, after whichAharon dies. The nation mourns Aharon’s deathfor 30 days (see p.3 article). Israel is attacked bythe Cana’anites and defeats them. After the nationtravels on, the people again become thirsty forwater. After complaining, many people are killedby a plague of serpents. Moshe prays for thosewho have been bitten but have not yet died. Godtells him to fashion a copper snake, whichmiraculously heals anyone who looks at it.

6th Aliya (Shishi) – 22:10-20

The nation comes to the border of Moab, wherethey find a well. They compose a song about the well.

7th Aliya (Shevi’i) – 21:21-22:1

After denying the Israelites the right to passthrough his land, the king of Sichon wages waragainst them. The Israelites defeat him, beforedefeating Og, the mighty king of Bashan, who hadalso attacked them.

Point to Consider: Why did God have to tellMoshe not to fear Og? (see Rashi to 21:34)

Haftarah

From the Book of Shofetim (Judges), the haftarahrelates the promotion of Yiftach HaGiladi(Jephthah the Gileadite) to a leadership position.Yiftach tries in vain to negotiate peace with theking of Ammon, reminding him of the militaryvictories described in this week’s sidrah. Yiftachleads the battle against Ammon and secures aresounding victory.

2

3In memory of Yisrael Shmuel ben Yirmaya Yehoshuah

The Entire Assemblyby Rabbi Chaim Gross, Editor, Daf Hashavua

This week’s sidrah recordsthe moving death of Aharon.Moshe was instructed totake Aharon and his sonElazar up to Mount Hor, andto transfer the specialgarments of the KohenGadol from father to son.

Following Aharon’s death, the Torah states:“When the entire assembly saw that Aharon had perished, they wept for Aharon 30 days”(Bemidbar 20:29).

The nation also mourned Moshe for 30 daysafter his death, as recorded at the end of theTorah, in parashat Vezot Haberacha. Rashi notesa small but important change in the wording ofthe verse: “The nation of Israel bewailed Moshein the plains of Moab for 30 days” (Devarim34:8). Whereas after Aharon died the “entire”nation mourned, in Moshe’s case, the Torahdoes not mention this word. Why not?

Rashi answers that when Moshe died, only themen mourned him. However, as Aharon had thespecial role of trying to restore peace, whennecessary, between husbands and wives, boththe men and the women mourned him.

The Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Yehuda Loew1525-1609) questions Rashi’s statement. Moshewas everyone’s leader, both men and womenalike. He helped take everyone out of Egypt.Furthermore, it was in his merit that the mannafell from heaven, which provided sustenanceand nourishment for the entire nation. Surelyeveryone would have mourned Moshe too, evenif his role was not specifically as a peace-maker?

He therefore suggests a novel understanding.Certainly everyone mourned Moshe. However,something about Aharon’s work as a mediatormade the mourning for him different.

When two parties had a dispute of whatevertype, whether marital, social or financial, Aharon

did not get both sides together and urge them to make peace, conveying to them a singlemessage.

Rather Aharon approached each sideindividually. What typically brings parties toargue in the first place, explains the Maharal, is the difference in their makeup andpersonalities. Therefore, because of theirindividuality, each side needs to hear their own personalised explanation of why it is worth making peace and settling the dispute.Aharon would approach the parties separately,conveying a different message to each side. This was his very effective means of resolving all types of disputes.

In Moshe’s case, certainly everyone mourned,yet the feelings towards him were uniform. He meant the same thing to all people, so it wasone type of mourning. However, when Aharondied, because each individual had a differentexperience and relationship with him, his lossmeant a different thing to each person, such thatthe nature of the mourning was multi-faceted.

This understanding sheds new light on thedirective issued to us by the Mishnah in PirkeiAvot: “Hillel said: ‘Be among the disciples ofAharon, loving peace and pursuing peace’”(Ethics of the Fathers 1:12 – see green siddur, p. 527). Our ‘pursuit of peace’ has to be well-thought out and individually-tailored, possiblytaking us to more than one physical locationwhen speaking to the quarrelling sides.

4In memory of Yaacov ben Shmuel

A World Account by Rabbi Alan Garber, Shenley United Jewish Community

At the end of the sidrah, the Israelites successfullydefended themselves againstan attack from Sichon, theEmorite King. God helpedthe nation to wipe outSichon’s army and take overhis territory, including the

Emorite capital city, Cheshbon. Reflecting uponthis victory, the Torah states:

“Therefore those who speak in parables will say,‘Come to Cheshbon!’” (Bemidbar 21:27)

The word used for ‘those who speak in parables’is ‘moshelim’. Rashi (1040-1105), quoting aMidrash, writes that these moshelim were the prophet Bilam and his father. However, theTalmud (Bava Batra 78b) gives a homileticunderstanding of this verse:

The word moshelim can also mean ‘rulers’. TheTalmud puts this together with the name of thecity Cheshbon, which means ‘account’ inHebrew. This combination hints at the followinglesson: those who rule over (moshel) theirinclinations, say: “come let us consider theaccount (cheshbon) of the world; the lossincurred by fulfilling a mitzvah against the reward attained by its observance and the gainachieved by a transgression as against theresulting loss”.

We can easily relate to the everyday battles wego through with our good and bad inclinations.For example, we may face the question “How should I write my emails?” On the onehand, it will save me some time to be terse, but on the other hand it may come across asimpolite.

Why does the Talmud see these decisions as ‘anaccount for the world’? We can understand thatthe decisions of world leaders have an impact,but how do my everyday decisions affect theworld?

The Rambam (Maimonides 1135-1204) writesthat every person should see the world ashanging in the balance. Every action we take can tip the world either towards being ‘guilty’ or being ‘meritorious’. We have the power tobring positivity or negativity to the world througheach action we do.

In the last few verses of the sidrah, the Torahreports that the next king to attack the Israeliteson their way to the Holy Land was Og the king of Bashan. God instructed Moshe not to fearhim. Rashi points out that Moshe’s fear of Ogwas not because he was an awesome giant.Rather, Moshe was afraid of a merit that Og had earned many years ago. Og had informedAvraham that his nephew Lot had beenkidnapped in the War of the Kings (Bereishit14:13), so that Avraham was able to go and save Lot. Og’s intentions were far from pure –Rashi notes that Og was hoping to take Sarahaway from Avraham after he went off to battle.Nevertheless, even this superficially positiveaction had a huge effect, to the point that Moshefeared that its spiritual merit would hamper hishopes of defeating Og.

Let us never underestimate the impact we canhave with the positive actions that we do.

At the time of the death ofMiriam, the nation lost notonly their primary femaleleader and role model, butalso their primary source oflife, the miraculous well fromwhich they drew clean water.As a result, the people began

complaining about the lack of water to drink(Bemidbar 20:1-5).

Rashi (1040-1105), quoting the Talmud (Ta’anit9a), explains the connection between Miriam andthe well, from which, for 40 years, the nation hadbenefitted, solely in her merit.

When we first meet Miriam, in the book ofShemot, she is not mentioned by name butmerely referred to as “Moshe’s sister” (Shemot2:4). The Midrash describes the events that tookplace in the home of Miriam and her parents,before the birth of Moshe. Upon hearing aboutPharaoh’s decree that every baby boy should bethrown into the Nile, Amram, Miriam’s father,chose to divorce his wife Yocheved, to preventthe future death of any sons born. As Amram was a well-respected leader of the Israelitecommunity, other men followed his lead anddivorced their wives as well. Miriam, despite her young age, confronted her father, saying:“Your decree is worse than Pharaoh’s! His decreeis only on the boys, but your decree is on bothboys and girls”. Amram immediately tookYocheved back as his wife, and she eventuallygave birth to Moshe, who went on to lead thenation out of Egypt. As a “sister”, Miriam hadbeen the catalyst for Moshe’s birth.

The next part of the Midrash describes anotherpart of Miriam’s life, when she served as midwifeto the Israelite women. Pharaoh had decreed thatthe midwives were to kill all Israelite baby boysimmediately following their birth. Two God-fearing midwives, Shifra and Puah, defied thedecree and kept all the babies alive (ibid. 1:15).Puah is identified by the Midrash as Miriam, whocooed and calmed the babies.

Miriam’s interventions explain her connection tothe well. The greatest life-giving force that Godprovides is water. A few days without it and onewould not survive. From a very young age,Miriam was focused on life – saving it, protectingit and giving it. It was in this merit that the entirenation of Israel was sustained with the well for all 40 years in the desert.

The rabbinic commentators also explain thatwater, due to its physical nature, adapts perfectlyto its surroundings, naturally assuming the shapeof any container into which it flows. Miriam alsorepresented this quality. She was able to adapther faith and her unshakable trust in God underall circumstances. The name Miriam shares its root with the word ‘marah’ meaning bitter,referring to the fact that she was born during thebitter oppression in Egypt. Yet Miriam did notsuccumb to the bitterness. Rather, she adaptedto her situation, remained strong in her faith andbecame devoted to championing life. This furtherexplains why the water was given in her merit.

Just like Miriam, may we constantly be strivingto value life to the utmost and enhancing the lives of those around us. May we also be able to adapt with unwavering faith to whatevercircumstances we find ourselves.

5In memory of Avraham ben Yehoshua

In Miriam’s Merit by Rebbetzen Sarah Proops, Ma’ayan

6In memory of Malka bat Peretz

Jewish Contemporary Ethics Part 36: Business Ethics 3 –Copyright and Intellectual Property by Rabbi Dr. Moshe Freedman, New West End Synagogue

Intellectual property hasbeen recognised andprotected by UK law sincethe beginning of the 18th century. The currentlegislation is the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988, which protects

authors and artists of a range of creative arts –including literary works, drama, music, art orfilm – to maintain the rights to control the ways in which their material can be used.

Yet the question of copyright and intellectualproperty in Jewish law is far from straightforward.Generally speaking, using someone else’sproperty without their permission is consideredstealing (see Shulchan Aruch – Code of JewishLaw – Choshen Mishpat 359:5), unless it is anitem such as tefillin or a tallit, provided that one could reasonably assume that the ownerwouldn’t mind helping a fellow Jew to perform amitzvah (ibid. Orach Chaim 14:4). With respect tocopyright laws and intellectual property, on theone hand the Mishnah highlights the importanceof recognising authorship (Pirkei Avot 6:6). Yet on the other hand, there is discussion amongthe rabbinic authorities regarding the mostrelevant legal elements in defining the actualprohibition of infringing copyright or stealingintellectual property.

Rabbi Yechezkel Landau of Prague (1719-1793),author of the influential Nodah Biyhudahresponsum, cites the issue of potential lostearnings if someone uses someone else’sintellectual property or copies their work forcommercial purposes. However, this wouldrestrict the prohibition of copying anotherperson’s work to cases when an actual loss iscaused. Thus if someone copied a music file andshared it with others online, allowing them todownload it for free, this would constitute a lossto the artist. Yet what if someone who hadbought the music legitimately had a friend who

would never have bought the music in the firstplace? Copying the music and giving the friend acopy would be an infringement of copyright law,but would not in fact cause a loss to the artist.

The Talmud (Bava Kamma 20a-21a) discusses acase involving squatters’ rights, where someoneis living in another person’s yard. The owner ofthe yard would not normally charge rent for itsuse and so the squatter benefits from the use ofthe yard without causing the owner a financialloss. This is called zeh neheneh, v’zeh lo chaseir– this one (the squatter) benefits and the other(the owner) does not lose out. There is significantdiscussion as to whether the squatter owes anyrent. The Shulchan Aruch rules that the squatterdoes not need to pay rent because the owner didnot rent the yard in the first place; if he hadpreviously rented the yard, the squatter wouldowe the rent (Choshen Mishpat 363:6).

The main reason that rabbinic authorities debatethe factors underlying the prohibition of infringingcopyright and ultimately identify (in many cases)the factor of financial loss, is that intellectualproperty is a non-physical entity, unlike otherpossessions. Nevertheless, Rabbi YitzchakShmelkes (d. 1906) applies the principle of dinad’malchuta dina – “the law of the land is our law”,which means that halacha binds us to adhere tothe law of our host country, regardless of thereason and this is a significant factor in applyingintellectual property law in halacha too.

Answer: day 3 and day 7