5 Bullet Fridays: Parshas Chukas-Balak

❓Questions I am pondering:

Parshas Chukas: Rashi (19:22) writes that the parah adumah is a kapparah for the eigelha'zahav and refers to it conceptionally as “the mother cleaning after its baby”. In fact, the Torah stresses six similarities between the parah adumah and eigel ha'zahav. What exactly is the connection, though, between the mitzva of parah adumah and the tragic incident of the eigel haz'zahav (other than the fact that they are both cows) that it should be chosen to be its kaparah?

Parshas Balak: (22:28) Billam hit his donkey three times. When Hashem opened the donkey’s mouth, its first words to Billam was asking him, “What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?”  Rashi writes that besides for giving Billam mussar, the donkey was also hinting to Billam that he will not be able to succeed in trying to uproot a nation which keeps the shalosh regalim. What is it about the shalosh regalim specifically which made it the argument to single out to convince Billam that his attempts would be complete failures?

💡 Idea I am thinking about:

Perspective. Someone sent me an article this week. The headline: “In Lockdown, Mathematicians Crack a Stubborn Geometry Riddle”. I will spare the details other than the basic problem they were working on and the change in perspective it took to solve the riddle. The problem these mathematicians were working on is called the “Rectangular Peg Problem” which, if one were jotting down a list of problems that came up/could come during quarantine, this problem would most definitely not make the cut; but to each their own. The riddle was to try to prove that for any closed curve there will always be sets of four points that form rectangles of all aspect ratios. Long story short, the first step they took in approaching the problem was to change the way they thought about rectangles. If one were to look up the definition of a rectangle, one would find something along the lines of, “a plane figure with four straight sides and four right angles, especially one with unequal adjacent sides, in contrast to a square”. However, these mathematicians took a step back and decided to see how they could change their thinking if they defined it differently: “A rectangle is two pairs of points that have a particular relationship with each other and form equal-length line segments with the same midpoint”. This simple change in perspective by challenging the assumed definition of a basic shape, led the mathematicians to insights they had not thought of before and experimenting in completely new ways. Perspectives could be so limiting, yet complete open-mindedness so unproductive. Striking the right balance between willing to question oneself and one’s core perspectives in a healthy way, while remaining vigilant within a principled framework of the range of ideas that are eligible to consider, is something which is dually difficult, but very empowering.

 💢Concept I am considering:

Kol parsha d’paskah Moshe rabbeinu, paskinan; d’lo paskah Moshe Rabbeinu, lo paskinan. The Gemara (Berachos 12b) presents this concept as the reason why we do not recite part of Parshas Balak, which has relevance to kriyas shema, as part of our daily recital of kriyas shema. (The Gemara explains that the reason why not to say the whole parsha is because it would be too much of a tircha.) In other words, the reason we do not take a part of a parsha out is because when teaching us the Torah, Moshe did not pause at that particular point. What is the idea behind this concept and what principles/guidelines does it follow? There are certainly parts of davening (such as instances in pesukei d’zimra) where there are singular passukim brought down without the broader context of the whole parsha that Moshe rabbeinu taught in a segment. So, when does this concept apply and when does it not? 

👑 Hashkafic idea I am reflecting on:

Freewill stops at results. A disclaimer stating: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results” is one that could be found at the bottom of virtually every correspondence, memo, or report relating to investments. Investors know that you could run the numbers, tell a good, logical and sensible story, and even demonstrate success from a recent past; but the future always remains unknown. There are too many external factors beyond control that could impact the execution or success of even the most thought out plan. Balak hired Billam to curse B’nei Yisroel and yet Billam was unable to execute. He wanted to curse them, he devised a precise plan to succeed, and he tried multiple times, but ultimately Hashem’s Will was that B’nei Yisroel not be cursed and so of course Hashem’s Will prevailed. The inability for someone to successfully carry out an intended action is not a limitation on free will. Rather it is the lack of considering that Hashem has a Will and that will always prevail which is limiting to one’s success.

😀 Middah on my mind:

Kavod/Respect. The Mishna (Avos 2:10) quotes Rebbe Eliezer saying, “Let the honor of your friend be as dear to you as your own”. This is of course like the mantra “v’ahavta l’rayachakamocha” and many others we are used to hearing since we were little kids. I chanced upon a challenge this week which is one that in many circumstances could actually be very difficult, yet if done could result in tremendous positive effects. Perhaps not only becoming a defining moment for oneself but also potentially build strong relationships with others. The challenge is this: Make others look good in front of the people they care about most. What a fantastic way to work on one’s middah of respecting others.