Vedibarta Bam Bamidbar

A m & Vott ShsA)
Speak of Them
A compilation of selected Toral) insists,
tfaugfa-provoking ideas, families and
explanations of Toral) passages
Volume IV — Bawidfw
‫הועתק והוכננ^צאןנסתס‬
www.heBlfewbooks.org
‫ע״י חיים תשם״ז‬
[‫מי‬
Ra66i Mos^e Bogomilsky
New Expanded Edition

5766 . 2006
‫ו‬ i
V E D I B A R T A B A M — A N D Y O U SHALL SPEAK OF T H E M
V O L U M E I V — BAMIDBAR
Published and Copyrighted © by

Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky
1382 President Street
Brooklyn, N e w York 11213
A l l rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced in any form or by any means, including
photo-copying, without permission in writing from the
copyright holder or the publisher.
First Impression — Nissan 5757-March 1997

Second Impression — lyar 5759-May 1999
Third Impression — Sivan 5763-June 2003
Fourth Impression — Adar ll 5765-March 2005
Fifth Impression — Elul 5766-September 2006
ISBN 1-8808-8020-2
ISBN 1-8808-8022-9 (set)
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication v
Foreword vii
Note on Transliteration and Format x
Bamidbar 1
Shavuot 22
Book of Ruth 37
Nasso 43
Beha'alotecha 64
Shelach 88
Korach 113
Chukat 142
Balak 159
Pinchas 186
Matot 211
Masei 233
Appendix — Index to Derush material 244

In loving m e m o r y - ‫לזכר)שמון‬
Jesse Aronson - V1 ‫נפ ג״ר טוגימ‬2 ‫ד ישעימו‬

On the occasion of his first yahrtzeit - 19 CHESHVAN 5758
‫״יודע ח׳ ימי תמימים ונחלתם לעולם תחיה״‬
"Hashem knows the days of those who are wholehearted
and their inheritance shall be forever."
mb ‫תחלים‬
One-half Century ago, our great grandfather REV. TOBIAS
ARONSON-ZAYDE Vt authored a Sefer entitled .‫לקוטי מרגליות‬-
COLLECTION OF PRECIOUS JEWELS, which was later
published by his son, our grandfather JESSE ARONSON Vt. In
the introduction to the Sefer ZAYDE recorded this special
blessing to his son and family for their loving and dedicated
devotion and meticulous observance of Kibud Av V'aim —
honoring one's parents.
T H E FATHER'S BENEDICTION ‫גרכתוזאגלגגו‬
I convey blessings from the depth of my
‫אגרך ממעמקי זילג לפי ריקה‬
heart to my dear son, ‫ר׳ ישעיהו צגי‬, a man
of spirit and generosity, who has sup¬ ‫ אשר תמך‬,‫יש רוח הדיג לג‬.‫א‬
ported me and donated magnani¬ ‫אותי והריב) תרומה גדולה לטוגת‬
mously towards the publication of this ‫הוצאת הסער הל( ״לקוכזי מרגליות‬
holy text, ‫ *ןזזרן״‬p ‫ ע״י‬.‫ ילקוטי מרגליות‬and his ‫ע״י גן אהרן״ ה״ה ר׳ ישעיהו צגי‬
wife ‫שרו! צירל‬, for a long life. May G-d !‫ ה׳ ישלב‬.‫עם זוגתו שרה יגירל יחיו‬
bestow bountiful rewards upon them
‫ ואדל שדי יגרך‬,‫להב! שכר כפול‬
and may He bless him and his wife,
granting them much nachas from their ‫ ורג נחת‬/!‫אותו וארג גיתן זו אשת‬
daughters ]$‫ פיי‬.‫ — שייגא‬and her husband ‫ עם געלר‬.‫ פייגא‬.‫מעותיהם שייגא‬
‫ — יצחק שי׳‬and ‫רחל לאח תן׳‬. May G-d watch ‫ ה׳‬/‫ ורחל לאה תי‬/‫יצחק שי‬
over them and protect them, Amen. .‫אכן סלה‬.‫ישמרם ויגן געדם‬
THEY SHALL A L L B E BLESSED

Heartfelt gratitude and blessings from ‫ יעמדו על זזגרסז‬sVp
G-d to my dear sons and daughters for ‫ל עליון‬-.‫ע פ ת תודה ו ע נ ה מא‬
the assistance they have granted me in ‫שר‬.‫ על א‬,‫לעי ועותי היקרים‬
my elder years. May G-d grant them ‫ יתן ה׳‬.‫עושים עמי לעת זקנתי‬
long life, many good days and years, ,‫להם אריגת חיים ימים ושנים‬
blessings and success in all their
,‫גרעה והצלחה ככל מעשי ידיהם‬
endeavors. May they raise their sons
and daughters to study Torah, marriage ‫ויגולו גניהם וגגותיהם לתורה‬
and to good deeds. .‫ולחופה ולמעשים טוגים‬
50 years later,
We have come full circle as we dedicate this sefer
In loving memory of our Grandfather and Great Grandfather
Jesse Aronson - ‫נגי ג״ר טוגיוז ?״ל‬2 ‫ר׳ ישעיהו‬
Grandpa Jesse was a man of many virtues, but he particularly
epitomized the attribute of chesed of our patriarch Avraham. His
countless and magnanimous acts of chesed earned him the admiration
and respect of his community and his family's love and reverence.
;‫הימים חולפים שגה עוגות ^גל המנגינה לעולם גש^רו‬
"The days pass and the years go by but the melody lingers on."
Not only did he meticulously follow the advice of King Shlomo,
"Kabeiddet Hashem Mehonecha"— " Honor G-d with your wealth"
(Proverbs 3:9), but he also heeded Rashi's comment "Read not
'meihonecha'— 'your wealth' — but also 'meigronecha'— 'your
throat' " — i.e. if a person has a pleasant voice he should use it to
honor Hashem. Being blessed with a powerful melodious voice, he
often graciously served as sheliach tzibur. His cantorial renditions
inspired the congregation, and with dignity he supplicated Hashem
on behalf of K'lal Yisrael.
G-d gave Grandpa Jesse a wonderful life companion, Grandma
Ceil — . Providentially, Grandpa's yahrtzeit is during the
week of Parshat Chayei Sarah, for now Grandpa and Grandma are
reunited in heaven. Just as " Chayei Sarah" — the life of Sarah —
continued on through her son Yitzchak and her righteous deeds,
Grandpa and Grandma's life, too, will continue on through their
family and countless acts of chesed.
Grandpa Jesse lived for his family, and through emulating him, we
will perpetuate his spirit. May the goodness and generosity that
emanated from his heart permeate his entire family and leave an
indelible mark on his progeny and continue to inspire us and others
for generations to come.
ZAYDE blessed his family with long life full of wondrous joy and
success for his and future generations. G-d having bestowed this
blessing on our family, we decided that the most important thing that
we could do is to ask G-d to renew these blessings by the dedication
of this Volume in loving memory of our Grandfather and Great
Grandfather JESSE ARONSON — Vt ‫ ישעיהו *לגי כ״ר סוגיה‬H. Very
much like the Torah, it's the unity of family that transcends time and
insures that the rich tradition that we hold so dear endures and
flourishes from generation to generation. We only pray that G-d
grants us the resources to meet the challenges and responsibilities
and continues to shine down on our family and on all of K'lal Yisrael.
Randi & Arthur Luxenberg

Elizabeth Jewel and Jacqueline Paige
vii
‫ב״ה‬
Foreword
I express profuse thanks and praise to Hashem for granting

me the opportunity to present to you, dear reader, the fourth
volume i n the Vedibarta Bam series. The present volume covers
Sefer Bamidbar, and contains a chapter on Shavuot as well as the
book of Ruth, which is read on Shavuot i n many congregations.
This series developed out of the parshah sheets which were
distributed weekly for many years to the students of the
Lubavitcher Yeshivah, Brooklyn, N.Y. Since the summer
vacation commences i n the middle of Sefer Bamidbar, the
thoughts expounded i n this volume were mostly written
especially for this volume.
As mentioned i n previous volumes, the purpose of this
series is to link my family, past and present, through Torah.
Thus, I have made an effort to include i n each volume some
Torah thoughts from my father, Rabbi Shmuel Pesach z"l
Bogomilsky, and my grandfather, Rabbi Tzvi Hakohen z"l
Kaplan.
To find some Torah insights from my grandfather, I
contacted members of my family, and learned some interesting
biographical information. He arrived i n the United States at the
end of 1924, and soon after was invited to join the faculty of
Yeshivah Torah Vodaath, where he served w i t h distinction for
twenty-seven years. He was not only a teacher par excellence,
but also an eloquent and articulate speaker i n Yiddish. Upon the
request of Torah institutions here and abroad, he would
regularly make appeals on their behalf i n synagogues
throughout New York.
M y uncle, Reb Shimon Hakohen Kaplan has notebooks
containing my grandfather's lessons and writings. Among them
viii
I was fortunate to find one in which he kept a record of the

synagogues he spoke i n on a given Shabbat and the pesukim
which he expounded (most probably to avoid repeating ideas
in the same shul). In this notebook I found some derashot written
at length and drew from there for this volume.
* * *
In 5708 (1948) my father-in-law, Reb Pinchas z"l Sudak,

emigrated to Eretz Yisrael and on Asarah B'Tevet, 5757, he
passed away. This volume, which is being published i n the year
of his passing, and which contains the parshah for his namesake,
Pinchas, is dedicated to his memory.
A l l the years of his life, he diligently followed the advice of
King David, "When you eat the labor of your hands you are
happy and all is well with you" (Psalms 128:2). While toiling
for a livelihood, he simultaneously excelled i n pursuing the
three pillars of Torah, avodah and gemilut chassadim. In addition
to his personal Torah study, he participated i n many group
Torah studies. He was among the first to be at the minyan and
strived that the shul and the davening be i n proper decorum. His
charitable activities in Russia and Israel were also noteworthy.
The Gemara (Berachot 8a) explains that King David's
statement, "You are happy and all is well w i t h you," is not a
redundancy; rather it means, "You are happy" — i n this world
— and "all is well w i t h you" — i n the world to come.
Undoubtedly, his good deeds, which earned him much praise
in this world, w i l l assure him an honorable place i n the world
to come.
The Gemara (Shabbat 23b) says, "He who loves Torah
scholars, is blessed w i t h sons who are Torah scholars. He who
honors Torah scholars, is blessed w i t h sons-in-law who are
Torah scholars." Reb Pinchas z"l was both, and Hashem
rewarded him twofold.
King Shlomo says, "Veshabei'ach ani et hameitim shekevar
meitu min hachaim asher heimah chaim adenah" (Ecclesiastics 4:2).
Aside from the popular translation ("I consider more fortunate
the dead who had already died than the living who are still
ix
alive"), the words of the wisest of all men can be explained as

follows: "Vesha'bei'ach ani et hameitim" — "The praise I say of
the deceased" — "min hachayim asher heimah chaim adenah" — is
derived from and based on the survivors who are alive." They
are his reflection and the source of his praise.
Reb Pinchas z"l is survived by a beautiful Torah-oriented
and Chassidic family. Their accomplishments i n Divine service
and inter-human relationships speak the most emphatic words
of praise about him.
May his family continue to live i n a manner which w i l l add
to his praise and may he be a good emissary before the
heavenly tribunal on behalf of them and K'lal Yisrael
May we merit the time when "Hakitzu veranenu shochnei
afar" — "Those resting in the earth w i l l awake and shout for
joy" (Isaiah 26:19).
Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky

11 Nissan, 5757
x
Note on Transliteration and Format
Transliteration generally employs the Sephardi accent, w i t h

the following usages:
1. Words w i t h a final hei are spelled w i t h a final "h."
2. "Ei" (the vowel-sound i n "freight") is used for a tzere.
3. " A i " is used for the vowel-sound i n the word "tide."
4. A n apostrophe is used between distinct consecutive
vowels, as i n "Ba'al."
5. A n "e" is used for a vocalized sheva, i.e. "bemeizid," not
"b'meizid."
6. "F" is preferred to "ph."
7. "O" is used for cholem.
8. Doubling of consonants is generally avoided.
Use of Italics:
Transliterated Hebrew words are generally given i n italics
without capitalization, except for proper nouns, which are
capitalized and, i n the case of names, not italicized. Some
exceptions are made for very familiar Hebrew words, such as
"Torah."
English and Hebrew:
Names of Biblical persons and names of the books of the
Pentateuch are given i n Hebrew, but other books of Tanach are
given i n English; thus "Moshe" is preferred to "Moses,"
"Bereishit" to "Genesis," and "Proverbs" to "Mishlei." Generally
English words are preferred to Hebrew ones, but often the
content requires the use of the Hebrew.
Exceptions:
Exceptions to these rules most often involve forms already
familiar to the English reader, forms that would otherwise be
awkward, and ones likely to be mispronounced.
BAMIDBAR 1
BAM ID BAR • ‫ב מ ד ב ר‬
‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני״‬

"And G-d s p o k e to M o s h e in t h e W i l d e r n e s s of S i n a i . " (1:1)
QUESTION: Why did Hashem give the Torah i n a

wilderness?
ANSWER: Since the wilderness is essentially ownerless, no
one can claim it. By this choice of location, Hashem was hinting
to us that the Torah belongs equally to everyone.
* * *
QUESTiON: Why, however, was the Torah given not only
in an ownerless place, but i n a desolate place, "a dry and weary
land without water" (Psalms, 63:2) — a place without clothing,
food and water?
ANSWER: The Jewish people left Egypt and went to a
wilderness, an uncultivated land, for the purpose of receiving
the Torah. They d i d not know how they would manage. In the
wilderness they obtained the manna i n the merit of moshe, the
pillar of the clouds, which miraculously protected them cleaned
and altered their clothing to size, i n the merit of Aharon, and
water i n the merit of Miriam (Ta'anit 9a).
This serves as a moral lesson for us; one must study Torah
and rely entirely on Hashem. He w i l l then provide all that is
needed materially and spiritually.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חייב‬
* * *
Alternatively, a person whose spiritual landscape is a

"wilderness" can be elevated and refined through Torah until
he is comparable to a flourishing oasis.
(‫)ר׳ נפתלי זצ״ל מראפשיץ‬
2 V E D I B A R T A B A M — A N D Y O U SHALL SPEAK OF T H E M
The word "bamidbar" (‫ )במדבר‬can be read as two words

"bam dabeir" (‫ דבר‬- ‫ " — )במ‬i n them you should talk." This idea
appears also i n the Gemara (Yoma 19b) as commentary on the
words "Vedibarta bam," "Speak of them," i.e. of Torah — and not
devarim beteilim, idle or forbidden talk.
(‫)פרדס יוסף החדש‬
‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני״‬

"And G-d s p o k e to M o s h e in t h e W i l d e r n e s s of S i n a i . " (1:1)
QUESTiON: Sinai was a part of the wilderness i n which the

Jews sojourned for forty years. Why does it say "Bemidbar Sinai"
— " I n the Wilderness of Sinai" — and not just "Sinai?"
ANSWER: The words "Midbar Sinai" (‫ )מדבר סיני‬have the
numerical value of 376, which is the same as the word "shalom"
. When the Jews arrived at Sinai to receive the Torah we
are told that, "Vayichan sham Yisrael" — " A n d Israel encamped
there" (Shemot 19:2). Rashi writes that the word "Vayichan" is i n
the singular to teach us that the Jewish people were "like one
person with one desire." A prerequisite for receiving the Torah
was shalom.
(‫)פנים יפות‬
* * *
The Gemara (Zevachim 116b) relates that, when Hashem

gave the Torah to the Jewish people, His mighty voice was
heard throughout the entire world and all the kings were
gripped w i t h fear. They gathered around the prophet Bilaam
and asked, "What is the meaning of this mighty roar? Perhaps
there is another flood coming to the world!"
Bilaam replied that Hashem had a valuable treasure which
he had safeguarded for 974 generations before creation and was
now giving it to His children, as stated i n the verse "G-d w i l l
give might (Torah) to His nation" (Psalms 29:11).
Immediately, they all responded "G-d w i l l bless His nation
w i t h peace," (ibid.).
Why d i d the nations of the world think another flood was
coming?
BAMIDBAR 3
The prophet, speaking of the miraculous events of the days

of Mashiach, states that "the wolf w i l l dwell together with the
lamb" (Isaiah 11:6). This also occurred i n Noach's Ark; what is
unique about the days of Mashiach?
In Noach's time the whole world was in danger of destruction.
In such circumstances there is no time for fighting, and enemies
naturally become allies and struggle together for survival. In the
days of Mashiach there will be universal prosperity and peace.
Unfortunately, in tranquil times, people often find time to quarrel.
The prophet therefore foretells the miracle that w i l l occur i n
the days of Mashiach, when everyone w i l l have all they need i n
an abundance. Even then there w i l l be absolute peace, and the
wolf and lamb w i l l live together.
Concerning the preparations for receiving the Torah, it is
stated, "Vayichan sham Yisrael neged hahar" — "And Israel
encamped there opposite the mountain" (Shemot 19:2). Rashi
explains that the word "Vayichan," in singular, teaches us that the
great multitude encamped as a single person with a single desire.
Upon witnessing such unity, the nations of the world came to
Bilaam fearing another flood and wondering if the Jews had
united out of fear. Bilaam told them, "What you are witnessing is
true unity. G-d is giving them the Torah, which w i l l be their
source of strength and which will unite them with common goals
of study and observance."
Upon hearing this, the nations exclaimed, "We realize G-d
w i l l bless His people with peace; through Torah they w i l l have
a blessing of peace and not peace necessitated by crisis."
(‫)הרב מאיר דיל שאפירא מלובלין‬
‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני‬

‫בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים״‬
"And G-d s p o k e to M o s h e , in t h e W i l d e r n e s s of S i n a i , in t h e
T e n t of M e e t i n g , o n t h e first d a y of t h e s e c o n d m o n t h , in t h e
s e c o n d y e a r a f t e r t h e i r e x o d u s from t h e land of E g y p t . " (1:1)
QUESTION: Why does the Torah emphasize that the Tent

of Meeting, i n which Hashem spoke to Moshe, was i n the
Wilderness of Sinai?
ANSWER: Parshat Bamidbar is usually read on the Shabbat

before Shavuot, which commemorates the receiving of the Torah
on Mount Sinai (Megillah 31b Tosafot). Midrash Rabbah (1:7)
states that the Torah was accompanied with the following:
1) Fire, as indicated by the verse, " A l l of Mount Sinai was
smoking, because G-d descended upon it in fire" (Shemot 19:18).
2) Water, as indicated by the verse, "Even the heavens
trickled, even the clouds dripped water" (Judges 5:4).
3) Wilderness, as our pasuk states, " A n d G-d spoke to
Moshe i n the Wilderness of Sinai."
Why was the Torah given under such conditions and not on
a serene day and in a populated area?
Each of the above portrays an eternal and profound
message to the Jewish people about the correct approach to
Torah:
1) The fire teaches us that the Torah should be studied and
practiced w i t h warmth and vigor.
(‫)שם משמואל‬
2) Water fulfills a physical need, but unlike other physical

needs, people have little desire to overindulge i n it and are
usually satisfied to simply quench their thirst. This teaches us
to be satisfied w i t h our material circumstances and indulge
entirely i n the study of Torah.
(‫)ילקוט אליעזר‬
3) A wilderness is an abandoned property where everyone

is free to go. Giving the Torah i n a wilderness teaches us an
important lesson, that to succeed i n Torah study a person must
be very humble and consider himself insignificant. He should
permit all Jews to associate with him and not arrogantly reject
certain individuals.
In the Gemara (Eiruvin 54a) Rava homiletically explains the
pasuk "Umimidbar mattanah umimattanah nachali'el uminchali'el
bamot" (21:18, 19) as follows: "Umimidbar" — if a person conducts
himself as a "wilderness" which everybody treads upon (i.e., he
is humble), then "matanah" — the Torah — w i l l be granted to
BAMIDBAR 5
him as a gift, and once it is given to him as a gift, "nachali'el" — it

becomes his inheritance from Hashem — and once Hashem
makes it his inheritance, "bamot" — he will rise to heights.
(‫ ועי׳ פרדס יוסף החדש‬,‫ז‬:‫)מדייר במדבר א‬
* * *
Alternatively, fire and water are opposites. Fire represents
destruction and impoverishment, while water represents
affluence and enrichment: "Water makes all sorts of enjoyment
and delights grow" (Tanya, ch. 1, based on R. Chaim Vital,
Sha'arei Kedushah I:2).
Hashem gave the Torah w i t h fire and water to teach the
Jewish people that if a person is, G-d forbid, experiencing
deprivation he must study and observe Torah. On the other
hand, one who is blessed with affluence must also study Torah
and live by its teachings.
The giving of Torah in a wilderness teaches us that Torah
observance is not limited to any specific location. Even if one
resides i n a neighborhood which is a spiritual wilderness — i.e.
distant from large orthodox communities — he is not exempt
from studying and observing Torah.
(‫)שמעתי מהרב משה אהרן צבי שי׳ ווייס‬
* * *
Another lesson to be derived from the giving of the Torah

w i t h fire is the following: The nature of fire is to rise upwards.
Similarly, a person must strive to go from strength to strength,
ever higher i n his adherence to Torah.
(‫)ר׳ מרדכי שלמה זצ״ל מבויאן‬
‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני‬

‫״‬.‫בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים‬
"G-d s p o k e to M o s h e in t h e W i l d e r n e s s of S i n a i , in t h e T e n t of
M e e t i n g , o n t h e first of t h e s e c o n d m o n t h , in t h e s e c o n d y e a r
a f t e r their e x o d u s from t h e l a n d of E g y p t . " (1:1)
QUESTION: Why d i d Hashem give the Torah while the

Jews were still i n the wilderness rather than wait until after
they arrived i n their own land, Eretz Yisrael?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Tamid 32a) relates that Alexander

the Great put ten questions to the elders of the South. One of
the questions was, "Were the heavens created first or the
earth?" They replied, "Heaven was created first, as the Torah
states, ' I n the beginning of G-d's creating the heaven and the
earth' " (Bereishit 1:1).
Why did Alexander the Great want to know the order of
creation?
As a great philosopher and student of Aristotle, Alexander
was understandably interested i n the Jewish perspective of
creation. However, the intent of his question here was much
more profound. Alexander was the most powerful king of his
times, and his goal of conquering the entire world was almost
realized. Heaven represents spirituality and earth represents
material pursuits. He was uncertain whether to pursue the
physical acquisition of the world or to spiritually uplift the part
of the world already under his control.
Unable to decide, he turned to our sages for counsel. They
responded that when G-d created the world, He created heaven
first, indicating that spiritual values are pre-eminent.
Therefore, Hashem gave the Torah i n the wilderness prior
to the arrival of the Jews i n their own land to emphasize the
superiority of Torah (spirituality) over land (physicality). The
nations of the world who refused to accept the Torah became
extinct with the loss of their lands. The Jews, however, exist
forever, even without a land, as long as they keep the Torah.
(‫)מצאתי בכתבי זקני הרב צבי הכהן דיל קאפלאן‬
‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל״‬

" T a k e a c e n s u s of t h e e n t i r e a s s e m b l y of t h e C h i l d r e n of
Israel." (1:2)
QUESTION: Bamidbar is known as "Sefer Hapekudim" —

"The Book of Numbers" — because i n it a census of the Jewish
people is taken twice. Why were the Jewish people counted?
ANSWER: When non-kosher food gets mixed with kosher
food there are various laws regarding its nullification so that
BAMIDBAR 7
the kosher food becomes permitted again. Sometimes it is

sufficient merely for the kosher food to be a majority (bitul
berov) and i n other cases the minority becomes nullified in a
majority which is 60 times larger (bitul beshishim). However,
there is a Rabbinic ruling that "Davar shebeminyan afilu be'elef lo
batul" — a thing which is sold by individual count is
considered so significant that it cannot become nullified
regardless of the quantity of the food w i t h which it is mixed.
(See Mishnah Orlah 3:6,7 and Beitzah 3b.)
Hashem knew very well that the Jewish people's sojourn i n
the wilderness was temporary. They would continue to Eretz
Yisrael and, years later, would be dispersed to all corners of the
world. Eventually, Jews would be a small minority in some
communities. By counting each Jew, Hashem designated him as
a "valued entity" and thus, regardless, of how greatly
outnumbered the Jewish people might be, they would retain
their identity and never be assimilated, G-d forbid.
(‫ ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות חייב‬,‫)חידושי הרי״ם‬
‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל״‬

Israel." (1:2)
QUESTION: Rashi comments that Hashem always counts

the Jewish people because of His love for them.
What lesson can we learn from the counting of the Jewish
people?
ANSWER: There are different levels of observance among
the Jews. Some are strictly observant while others,
unfortunately, do not follow Torah precepts. A person may
belittle the worth of another, less observant Jew, saying: "Er is a
gornisht" — "He is a nothing!"
When Hashem commanded Moshe to count the Jewish
people, He instructed h i m to count each Jew as "one," no more
and no less. Hashem's message was that the Jewish people are
His children; each one is equally beloved and possesses a spark
of G-dliness, his neshamah. Thus, no one should be discounted.
(684 ‫)לקוטי שיחות חייב ע׳‬
‫ ויתילדו על מ ש פ ח ת ם ״‬... ‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל‬

" T a k e a c e n s u s of t h e e n t i r e a s s e m b l y of t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l
... a n d t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e i r g e n e a l o g y . " ( 1 : 2 , 1 8 )
QUESTION: Sefer Vayikra ends w i t h the statement "These

are the commandments that G-d commanded Moshe to the
Children of Israel on Mount Sinai" (27:34).
It is customary to look for connections between adjacent
Torah passages and especially between the end of one book and
the beginning of the next. What, then, is the connection
between the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people and the
counting of the Jews Parshat Bamidbar?
ANSWER: The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 684) relates that
when the Jews were receiving the Torah, the other nations
asked Hashem, "Why are You giving the Torah only to the
Jews? We also want the Torah!" Hashem told them that they
should bring their sefer yuchsin — records of family pedigree —
to Him, just as His children — the Jews — were bringing their
sefer yuchsin to H i m , as stated, "and they established their
genealogy" (see Rashi).
What was Hashem's intent in requesting the sefer yuchsin of

the other nations?
This can be explained w i t h the following parable: A man's
biological son and his foster son became i l l , and the doctor
prescribed bitter medicines for both children. The father forced
his biological son to swallow the medicine and he immediately
felt better. The foster son, however, was not forced to take the
medicine, and the illness lingered on. Later, the foster son
asked his father w h y he had not also forced h i m to take the
medicine. The father answered, "Once before when you were
sick and the doctor gave you sweet medicine, I forced you to
drink it. Since you spat it out then, I assumed that any attempt
to force you to drink bitter medicine would have been i n vain."
Hashem's reply to the nations of the world was " I have

already given you a 'sweet' Torah of only seven
commandments and your book of heritage indicates your
parents' record of poor observance. However, the Jews' sefer
BAMIDBAR 9
yuchsin depicts the devotion of their forefathers and establishes

them as worldly recipients of the Torah."
Thus, the counting of the Jewish people based on their sefer
yuchsin i n the beginning of Bamidbar follows the end of Vayikra
to indicate that Hashem gave the Torah and mitzvot to the
Children of Israel because of their sefer yuchsin — their parents'
good record of fulfilling mitzvot the past.
(‫)שער בת רבים‬
‫כל זכר לגלגלתם״‬...‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל‬

Israel...every male according to their head count." (1:2)
QUESTION: Why is the word "legulgelotam" — "according

to their head count" — used in connection with the general
census, but not for counting the tribe of Levi? (See 3:15.)
ANSWER: The word "legulgelotam" literally means
"according to their heads," and can thus refer to a person with
two heads. The question then arises: Should he be counted as
one person or two?
The Gemara (Menachot 37a) relates that pelimo asked Rebbe
on which head a two-headed person should put his tefillin.
Rebbe considered the question impudent and told him to either
go into exile or suffer excommunication. Underlying Rebbe's
harsh reaction was the view that such a person is a "treifah,"
one who cannot survive more than twelve months, much less to
the age of putting on tefillin.
Consequently, regarding the Jewish community at large,
which was counted from the ages of twenty to sixty, this
question could never apply (thus, calling the census a "head
count" cannot create any problem since every adult has only
one head). However, for the Levites, who were counted from
the age of thirty days, the question does apply. Therefore, the
Torah omitted the word "legulgelotam" for the tribe of Levi, to
indicate that regardless of how many heads a Levite may have,
he should be counted only once.
(‫ לבעל פנים מאירות‬,‫ ועי׳ כתנות אור פ׳ במדבר‬,‫)חתם סופר‬
‫״ואתכם יהיו איש איש ל מ ס ה איש ראש לבית אבתיו הוא״‬

"And with y o u t h e r e s h a l l b e a m a n of e v e r y tribe, a m a n w h o i s
t h e l e a d e r of h i s f a t h e r ' s h o u s e h o l d . " ( 1 : 4 )
QUESTION: Why is the word "ish" repeated at the

beginning of the pasuk and mentioned only once at the end?
ANSWER: A l l those counted i n the census between the ages
of twenty and sixty ultimately died i n the wilderness because of
the sin of the spies. Only two, Yehoshua and Kaleiv, survived
to enter Eretz Yisrael, and of these two, Yehoshua succeeded
Moshe as the leader of K'lal Yisrael.
Thus, the Torah declares, "Ve'itchem yiheyu — eventually
there w i l l remain from you, ish ish — two men (Kaleiv and
Yehoshua) — and from these two, ish — one man (Yehoshua)
— rosh lebeit avotav hu — w i l l become the head (the leader) of
the households of Israel."
(‫ זקן אהרן‬- ‫)זכרון ישראל‬
‫״איש איש ל מ ס ה איש ראש לבית אבתיו הוא״‬

"A m a n of e v e r y tribe e a c h t h e h e a d of h i s f a t h e r ' s h o u s e h o l d
he shall b e . " (1:4)
QUESTION: Doesn't the word "hu" — "he shall be" —

seem extra?
ANSWER: Several Chassidic Rebbes were once sitting
together around a table. Each one of them related a Torah
thought i n the name of his holy father. The greatest Rebbe of
the group was the son of a simple baker, and when his turn
came he said, " M y father the baker taught me that fresh bread
is better and healthier than stale bread."
The thought behind his words was that, while it is nice to
have prominent parents, it is more important for each
individual to have his own achievements.
When Moshe is instructed to take a census of the Jewish
people, he is told to take a group of prominent men w i t h him,
each one the head of his family — not simply because of his
parents but because "hu" — "he shall be" — on his own merit.
(‫ פון אונזער אלטען אוצר‬- ‫)עוללות אפרים‬
BAMIDBAR 11
‫״אלה קריאי העדה נשיאי מ ס ו ת אבותם ראשי אלפי ישראל הם״‬

" T h e s e w e r e t h e o n e s s u m m o n e d by t h e c o m m u n i t y , t h e
p r i n c e s of t h e i r f a t h e r s ' t r i b e s , t h e h e a d s of I s r a e l ' s
t h o u s a n d s . " (1:16)
QUESTION: Why is the word "keri'ei" in the phrase "keri'ei

ha'eidah" (‫" — )קריאי העדה‬summoned by the community" —
written here w i t h a , while, when referring to Korach's
assembly, the word "keri'ei" in "keri'ei mo'eid" (‫— )קראי מועד‬
"summoned for meeting" (16:2) — is written without the ‫?״י״‬
ANSWER: The letter has the numerical value of 10 and
indicates the plural. In the Hebrew grammar, changes
singular to plural. For example, the word "nasi" means
"prince," and w i t h a ‫ ״י״‬added — "nesi'ei" (‫ — )נשיאי‬it means
"princes."
The group of people selected to accompany Moshe in
taking the census was motivated solely for the sake of Heaven
and for the benefit of the nation. Thus, they merited to be
referred to w i t h a , indicating that they were selfless servants
of the Jewish people.
Korach's followers, on the other hand, opposed the
interests of K'lal Yisrael. Each one was motivated by selfishness
and was unconcerned w i t h for the general welfare. Since they
were inspired by personal gain, the phrase describing them
lacks the .
‫״ויתילדו על מ ש פ ח ת ם לבית אבתם״‬

"And t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d their g e n e a l o g y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r
f a m i l i e s , a c c o r d i n g to their f a t h e r s ' h o u s e h o l d . " ( 1 : 1 8 )
QUESTION: Rashi comments: "They brought the

documents of their pedigrees."
How much value should be attached to yichus — pedigree?
ANSWER: When Rabbi DovBer of Mezritch was a young
boy of 5 or 6 years, he once came home from cheider and saw his
house burning down and his mother crying bitterly. To comfort
her he said, "Mommy, please don't cry, Hashem w i l l give us a
bigger, nicer home."
His mother replied, "Berele, I am not crying because of our

home, but because of our document of ancestry, which
describes our beautiful family tree. Now, because of the fire, we
no longer have it."
Upon hearing this, young Berele said, "Even this is not a
reason to cry: if our old yichus letter was destroyed, w i t h G-d's
help, a new yichus w i l l start w i t h me."
While yichus is something that we should cherish and be
proud of, we must not simply live off the "royalties" of yichus,
but add new greatness to our families.
‫״פקדיהם ל מ ס ה יששכר ארבעה וחמש•• אלף וארבע‬

‫פקדיהם ל מ ס ה זבול! שבעה וחמש•• אלף וארבע מאות״‬...‫מאות‬
"Their c o u n t , for t h e tribe of Y i s s a c h a r : 5 4 , 4 0 0 . . . T h e i r c o u n t ,
for t h e tribe of Z e v u i u n : 5 7 , 4 0 0 . " ( 1 : 2 9 , 3 1 )
QUESTION: Why did Yissachar have, in round thousands,

54,000 and Zevulun 57,000?
ANSWER: The tribe of Yissachar primarily stressed Torah
study, becoming the judges who would make all legal decisions
in Torah matters and teach the complex regulations concerning
the fixing of leap years. The tribe of Zevulun mainly pursued
business and supported the people of Yissachar in exchange for
a share of the merit in their Torah study. (See Bereishit 49:13-15,
Rashi.)
The word "dan" — "judging" — has the numerical
value of 54, and Yissachar, who was involved w i t h judgment,
thus appropriately had 54,000 members. Zevulun was the "zan"
— provider of sustenance — for the tribe of Yissachar, and
since the word "zan" is numerically equivalent to 57, the tribe
of Zevulun numbered 57,000.
(‫ מהר״ש זצ״ל מבעלז‬- ‫)אמרי צדיקים‬
‫ויהיו כל פקוד״ בני‬...‫״אלה הפקדים אשר פ ק ד מ ש ה ואהרן‬

‫ויהיו כל הפקדים שש מאות אלף ושלשת‬...‫כל יצא צבא‬...‫ישראל‬
‫אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים״‬
" T h e s e are the countings that Moshe and Aharon counted...
T h e s e w e r e all t h e c o u n t i n g s of t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l . . .
BAMIDBAR 13
e v e r y o n e w h o g o e s o u t to war...All t h e i r c o u n t i n g s w e r e s i x
h u n d r e d a n d t h r e e t h o u s a n d , five h u n d r e d a n d fifty." ( 1 : 4 4 - 4 6 )
QUESTION: Why does each pasuk mention the "count¬

ings?"
ANSWER: These pesukim discuss three reasons for counting
the Jews:
1) The first pasuk speaks of Moshe and Aharon doing the
counting. Each Jew had the opportunity to personally come
w i t h his "half shekel" to Moshe, the greatest of the prophets,
and his holy brother Aharon. It was a privilege to mention their
names to these tzaddikim, who would look upon them w i t h
their holy eyes and pray to Hashem on their behalf.
2) If not for the sin of the spies, the Jewish people would
have immediately entered Eretz Yisrael. Their entry would have
involved fighting the inhabitants and conquering the land.
Consequently, it was necessary to take count of "everyone who
goes out to war," to determine how many Jews were eligible to
join the army.
3) Originally a family consisting of seventy souls descended
to Egypt, and after only two hundred and ten years a large and
powerful nation emerged: " A l l their countings were six
hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty." The
miraculous growth of the Jewish people demonstrated
Hashem's great love for them.
(‫)רמב׳׳ן‬
‫״ואתה ה פ ק ד א ת הלוים על משכן העדת ועל כל כליו ועל כל אשר‬

‫לו ה מ ה ישאו א ת המשכן ואת כל כליו והם ישרתהו״‬
"Vou s h a l l appoint t h e L e v i t e s over t h e T a b e r n a c l e of
T e s t i m o n y , o v e r all its v e s s e l s a n d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t b e l o n g s to it.
They s h a l l c a r r y t h e T a b e r n a c l e a n d all its v e s s e l s a n d t h e y
s h a l l m i n i s t e r t o it." ( 1 : 5 0 )
QUESTION: The popular Hebrew term for "they" is "heim,"

why does the pasuk say "heimah"?
ANSWER: According to halachah (Rambam, K'lei Hamikdash
3:7-8) a Levite cannot enter into the service until he has
completed five years of training, and when he reaches the age
of fifty, he is no longer qualified to transport the vessels of the

Sanctuary. In the word 'heimah' the extra ‫ ״‬n ‫ ״‬, which has the
numerical value of five, alludes to the five years of training and
apprenticeship required before a Levite can assume a position
of service i n the Mishkan.
The word "heimah" itself, which has the numerical value of
fifty, indicates that a Levi can carry the Mishkan and its vessels
only until he reaches the age of fifty.
* * *
QUESTION: The word "veheim" — "and they [shall minister
to i t ] " — is superfluous. Could the pasuk not have said,
"veyeshartuhu" — "and minister to it?"
ANSWER: The Torah instruction that "From fifty years of
age he shall withdraw from the legion of work and no longer
work" (8:25) means only that he is forbidden to bear the
Mishkan and its vessels on his shoulders, but he continues to
perform the rest of the Levitical service, such as closing the
Temple gates, loading the wagons, and singing (see Rashi and
Rambam, ibid.).
The word "veheim" has the numerical value of fifty-one. The
Torah is intimating that when the Levites begin their fifty-first
year, although they stop carrying the Mishkan, they continue
serving w i t h the other Levites.
‫״איש על דגלו ב א ת ת לבית א ב ת ם יחנו בני ישראל״‬

" E a c h m a n a t h i s b a n n e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n s i g n i a s of t h e i r
f a t h e r s ' h o u s e h o l d s h a l l t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l e n c a m p . " ( 2 : 2 )
QUESTION: How did the encampment structure of the

Jewish people originate?
ANSWER: The Jews traveled i n the wilderness i n four
groups, each group consisting of three tribes, and each with its
own banner. The system of banners was set up through
Yaakov. When Yaakov asked to be buried i n Eretz Yisrael he
taught his children the marching formation for carrying his
coffin.
(‫ י׳׳ב‬,‫)מדרש תנוזומא‬
* * *
BAMIDBAR 15
When Yaakov gave his berachot to Menasheh and Ephraim,

it says that, "vayasem et Efraim lifenei Menasheh" — "he placed
Ephraim before Menasheh" (Bereishit 48:20). Rashi comments:
"lehakdimo bedegalim" — to place Ephraim before Menasheh i n
the formation of the banners. Therefore, i n the formation to the
west, Ephraim was the leader and Menasheh followed behind
him (2:18,20).
It is interesting to note that the words "vayasem et Efraim
lifenei Menasheh" have the numerical
value of 1653, the same as the numerical value of the words
‫" — ״וחנו בני ישראל איש על מחנהו ואיש על דגלו״‬The Children of
Israel shall encamp, every man at his camp and every man at
his banner" (1:52).
(‫)אוצר חיים‬
‫״איש על דגלו ב א ת ת לבית אבתם״‬

" E a c h m a n a t h i s b a n n e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n s i g n i a s of h i s
fathers' household...." (2:2)
QUESTION: What is the connection between the fathers

and the banners?
ANSWER: On the banner of Yehudah were the letters ‫י‬-‫י‬-‫א‬,
the first letters of the names of the patriarchs of the Jewish
people (‫ יעקב‬,‫ יצחק‬,‫)אברהם‬. On Reuven's banner were the
second letters of these names, ‫ע‬-‫צ‬-‫ב‬. On Ephraim's banner were
the third letters of the names, ‫ח־ק‬-‫ר‬, and on Dan's banner, were
the letters , the final letters of the names.
The letter from preceded the Jews i n the form
of a Cloud of Glory. Thus, "be'otot lebeit avotam" — "the
insignias of their fathers' household" — refers to the letters of
the names of the patriarchs (and their merit), who always
accompanied the Jewish people on their travels.
(‫)צרור המור‬
‫״כן חנו לדגליהם וכן נסעו איש למשפחתי! על בית אבתיו״‬

" S o t h e y e n c a m p e d a c c o r d i n g to their b a n n e r s a n d s o t h e y
j o u r n e y e d : e v e r y m a n a c c o r d i n g t o h i s f a m i l i e s by h i s f a t h e r ' s
household." (2:34)
QUESTION: What was the common to all the four banners?

ANSWER: Each group of three tribes had its own banner. In
each group, the nasi of the middle tribe had a name which
included Hashem's name "Keil."
Yehudah's banner on the east side included Yissachar i n the
middle, whose nasi was . Reuven's banner was on the
south side w i t h the tribe of Shimon i n the middle, whose nasi
was . Ephraim's banner was on the west side with the
tribe of Menasheh in the middle, whose nasi was ‫גמליא־ל‬, and
Dan was on the north with , the nasi of Asher i n the
middle.
This indicates that Hashem rested in the midst of the Jewish
community, as stated, "Their camps among which I dwell"
(5:3).
* * *
In Parshat Nasso we learn about the princes' offerings for the

dedication of the altar. Netanel, prince of the tribe of Issachar,
brought his offering on the second day. Shelumiel, prince of
Shimon, came on the fifth day. Gamliel, prince of Menasheh,
was on the eighth day and pagiel, prince of Asher, came on the
eleventh day. The numbers 2, 5, 8, and 11 total 26, which is the
numerical equivalent of the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter
holy name of Hashem.
‫ואלה שמות בני אהרן״‬...‫״ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה‬

" T h e s e a r e t h e g e n e r a t i o n s of A h a r o n a n d M o s h e . . . a n d t h e s e
a r e t h e n a m e s of t h e s o n s of A h a r o n . " (3:1-2)
QUESTION: The Torah only lists the four sons of Aharon;

Why does the verse refer to "the generations of Aharon and
Moshe?"
BAMIDBAR 17
ANSWER: In Devarim, Moshe tells the Jews that Hashem

had been very angry w i t h Aharon for his involvement w i t h the
golden calf and that he wanted to destroy him: " A n d I prayed
for Aharon at that time" (9:2). Rashi explains that Hashem
considered killing all four of Aharon's children. Moshe's
prayers was able to save Elazar and Itamar.
Since two of Aharon's children were saved through Moshe's
intervention, they are also called the children of Moshe.
(‫)אור החיים‬
‫״ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם״‬

" E l a z a r a n d I t a m a r m i n i s t e r e d in t h e p r e s e n c e of A h a r o n their
father." (3:4)
QUESTION: What is the Torah trying to emphasize w i t h

the words "al penei Aharon avihem" — " i n the presence of
Aharon their father?"
ANSWER: Aharon had four sons, Nadav, Avihu, Elazar
and Itamar. On the first day of the inauguration of Aharon and
his sons as Kohanim, Nadav and Avihu died and thus did not
have a chance to minister. Aharon also had a grandson,
Pinchas, described by the Torah as "Pinchas ben Elazar ben
Aharon HaKohen" — "Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon the
Kohen" (25:11).
The Zohar (217a) questions: Why is he referred to as the son
of Elazar and the son of Aharon?
The following explanation is given: Pinchas killed Zimri for
flagrantly violating a Torah law. Zimri was the head of the tribe
of Shimon, and Zimri's relatives wanted to kill Pinchas, who
became so frightened that his soul left him. A t that time, the
souls of Nadav and Avihu, Aharon's sons who died, entered
into Pinchas, and he continued to live on, and as a reward for
his zealousness, he was made a Kohen. Consequently, being the
reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu, he is referred to as "the son
of Aharon."
The incident of Pinchas and Zimri took place after the death
of Aharon. Thus, while Aharon was alive, only his sons Elazar
and Itamar ministered in his presence; however, after his death,

his sons Nadav and Avihu also served as Kohanim i n the
Mishkan i n the person of Pinchas.
(‫)אלשיך‬
‫ובני• לא היו להם״‬...‫״וימת נדב ואביהוא‬

"And N a d a v a n d Avihu d i e d . . . a n d t h e y h a d no c h i l d r e n . " ( 3 : 4 )
QUESTION: Why does it say "vayamat" — "and he died" —

in the singular, instead of "vayamutu" — "and they died?"
ANSWER: According to the Zohar (Vayikra 86b), before a
person marries he is considered a half person. After acquiring a
wife, he becomes a complete entity. A t the time of their death,
Nadav and Avihu were both single, and therefore each was
only considered one half. Thus, together they constituted one
person.
(‫ שנות חיים‬- ‫)ילקוט האורים‬
‫ כל זכר מבן חדש ומעלה״‬...‫״פקד א ת בני לוי‬

" C o u n t t h e s o n s of Levi... e v e r y m a l e from o n e month of a g e
and up." (3:15)
QUESTION: Rashi writes, "after he has gone out of the

category of a non-viable birth, he is numbered to be called
shomeir mishmeret hakodesh — a keeper in charge of the
Sanctuary."
How can a child of thirty days old be "a keeper i n charge of
the Sanctuary"?
ANSWER: King David says: "Rechev Elokim ribotaim alfei
shinan" — "The chariot of G-d is twice 10,0000 and 2,000
angels" (Psalms 68:18). This is explained to mean that when
G-d revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Sinai, He was
escorted by an elaborate retinue of 22,000 angels. (Rashi)
The reason for the number 22,000 is: Hashem foresaw that
all the tribes except Levi would eventually forsake the Torah
and worship the golden calf. Therefore, it was only i n their
merit that He descended upon Sinai (See Tanchuma Tzav 12),
BAMIDBAR 19
and since they numbered 22,000, Hashem revealed Himself on

Sinai to give the Torah w i t h that number of angels.
Consequently, it is not the physical strength of the Levites
that makes them fit to be the keepers of the Sanctuary, but
rather the merit of the spiritual uniqueness they acquired on
reaching thirty days.
(‫ אבני אזל‬,‫)דעת זקנים מבעלי התום׳‬
‫מבן חדש ומעלה שנים ועשרים אלף״‬...‫״כל פקודי הלוים‬

"All t h e c o u n t i n g s of t h e L e v i t e s . . . f r o m o n e m o n t h of a g e a n d
up, w e r e twenty-two t h o u s a n d . " ( 3 : 3 9 )
QUESTION: Why was the tribe of Levi the smallest?

ANSWER: When the Jews came to Egypt they were seventy
people. In two hundred and ten years they defied the normal
laws of nature and grew to over six hundred thousand,
excluding women and children. Hashem performed this
miracle to spite the Egyptian people, as the pasuk states: "As
much as they would afflict them, so they would increase and so
they would spread out" (Shemot 1:12).
In Egypt, all the tribes except for Levi served as slaves (see
Shemot 5:4, Rashi). Since the exceptional increase of people was
due to their enslavement, the tribe of Levi only increased in the
natural way, thus totaling only twenty-two thousand.
‫״ויאמר ה׳ אל מ ש ה פ ק ד כל בכר זכר לבני ישראל מבן חדש ומעלה״‬

And G-d s a i d t o M o s h e : C o u n t all t h e firstborn m a l e s of t h e
C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l from o n e m o n t h of a g e a n d u p . " ( 3 : 4 0 )
QUESTION: Rashi explains that from a month old a child is

removed from the category of possible non-viable births" ("safeik
nefalim"). Why, i n the case of the counting of the Levites from
one month of age and up, does Rashi (3:15) write "after they are
out of the category of non-viable births (nefalim)," without
using the word "safeik" — "possible?"
ANSWER: The father of a firstborn must redeem the boy
when he becomes thirty days old by giving a Kohen five shekels.
In the wilderness, the 22,000 Levites each redeemed one of the

firstborn Israelites. Since there were 273 more Israelite firstborn
than Levite people, the remaining Israelites were redeemed for
five shekels each.
The redeeming of the firstborn is a money matter and there
is a rule "Ein holchin bemamon achar harov" — "Monetary
matters cannot be decided on the basis of majority" (Bava
Kamma 27b). Whenever there is the slightest doubt, one applies
the rule of "Hamotzi meichaveiro alav harai'ah" — "The one who
wants to collect must bring proof." Therefore, before a parent of
a firstborn can be required to redeem him w i t h five shekels, it
must be established beyond a doubt that he is not possibly a
non-viable birth. Otherwise the father says to the Kohen, "Prove
that my son is not of a non-viable birth."
However, the counting of the Levites was not a monetary
matter, but meant to establish the number of eligible Levites to
serve i n the Mishkan. As soon as a Levite became thirty days old
and was no longer considered a non-viable birth, he became
eligible to be a member of Hashem's legion and a guardian of
the Sanctuary.
(‫)הר צבי עה״ונ‬
* * *
Alternatively, regarding the counting of the Levites the

Torah says that "Moshe counted them al pi Hashem — according
to the word of G-d" (3:16). Rashi explains that since it would be
immodest for him to enter the tents and count the babies, he
waited at the entrance of the tent while Hashem went in. A
Heavenly voice emanated from the tent telling him how many
male babies were inside. Since it was Hashem who actually
verified the number, there was no doubt about the viability of
any of the children.
However, in regard to the counting of the first born for the

purpose of redemption, there is no mention of counting "al pi
Hashem" — "according to the word of G-d" — and thus it was
necessary to determine the child's precise status.
(‫)שרית ספר יהושע להגר״י העשיל דיל מטארניפאל אות ק׳׳ט‬
BAMIDBAR 21
‫׳״‬n ‫ והיו ל״ הלו״ם אני‬... ‫״קח א ת הלו״ם ת ח ת כל בכור בבני ישראל‬

" T a k e t h e L e v i t e s in p l a c e of e v e r y firstborn of t h e C h i l d r e n of
I s r a e l . . . a n d t h e L e v i t e s s h a l l be M i n e , I a m H a s h e m . " ( 3 : 4 5 )
QUESTION: What is the connection of " I am Hashem" w i t h

the sanctification of the Levites?
ANSWER: Originally the bechorim — firstborn — were
designated to perform the sacrificial services. Thus, when
Moshe made an altar on which offerings were brought i n
connection w i t h the giving of the Torah, the service was done
by the firstborn (see Shemot 24:5, Rashi). However, when the
firstborn sinned at the incident of the golden calf, they were
disqualified, and the Levites, who did not participate i n the sin,
were chosen instead of them (see Rashi to 3:12).
When Mashiach comes and the Third Beit Hamikdash w i l l be

rebuilt, the firstborn w i l l be reinstated to the service. This does
not mean, however, that the Levites w i l l be demoted. Rather,
the Levites w i l l remain Hashem's holy people. This is derived
from the emphasis " I am Hashem" — "just as I Hashem am
eternal, so is the status of the Levites."
‫ ויתן מ ש ה א ת כ ס ף הפד!ם לאהרן‬...‫״ויקח מ ש ה א ת כסף הפדיום‬

‫ולבניו״‬
" M o s h e t o o k t h e m o n e y of t h e r e d e m p t i o n ... M o s h e g a v e t h e
m o n e y of t h e r e d e m p t i o n s to A a r o n a n d h i s s o n s . " ( 3 : 4 9 , 5 1 ) )
QUESTION: Why doesn't it also say kesef hapeduyim i n the

first pasuk?
ANSWER: There is a popular tradition that through eating
at a meal celebrating a Pidyon Haben one receives the equivalent
of what 84 fasts accomplish for the forgiveness of sin. (See Igeret
HaTeshuvah ch. 3 p. 93.)
A remez — hint — for this is derived from our pasuk, since
the word "pidyon" i n "hapidyom" can be read as two
words ‫ = פ״ד‬84, ‫ — יום‬days .
u a D
err, u i j‫• ׳‬ (‫)אוצר הברית ח״ב ע׳ תפ״ו סעי׳ ג׳ ובהנסמן שם‬
SHAVUOT ‫ש ב ו ע ו ת ־‬
‫ עצרת‬,‫ זמ! מת! תורתינו‬,‫ יום הביכורים‬,‫שבועות‬

Shavuot, Yom HaBikkurim, Zeman Matan Torateinu, Atzeret.
QUESTION: Why is the festival called "Shavuot?"

ANSWER: 1) "Shavuot" means "weeks": From the time the
Jews left Egypt they waited for seven weeks until they were
worthy of receiving the Torah. We, too, count Sefirah for seven
weeks starting from the night following the first day of Pesach,
and then we celebrate the festival of "Shavuot" — "weeks."
2) "Shavuot" means "promises": When Hashem gave the
Torah to the Jewish people, they promised to obey it and
remain faithful to H i m . In return, Hashem promised that He
would cherish the Jews and not exchange them for any other
people.
(‫)טור ברקת על שו׳׳ע אריח‬
* * *
QUESTION: The holiday is also called "Yom HaBikkurim,"

— "The day of the first-fruits" — (Bamidbar 28:26) as well as
"Chag Hashavuot" — "festival of Shavuoth" — (Devarim 16:10),
and "Zeman Matan Torateinu" — "the season of the giving of
our Torah" — (in the davening and Kiddush). What is the
significance of these three names?
ANSWER: Thursday morning, the fifteenth of Nissan, the
Jewish people left Egypt. That year Nissan and Iyar were both
full months of thirty days. The Torah was given on a Shabbat,
and halachic authorities have accepted the view that it was the
sixth of Sivan. By adding the sixteen days of Nissan (from the
Jews' departure till the end of the month) and the thirty days of
SHAVUOT 23
lyar and six days of Sivan, we learn that the Jews received the
Torah fifty-two days after leaving Egypt (see Shulchan Aruch
Harav 494:1).
Our present-day calendar is pre-determined, and Nissan is
always thirty days while Iyar is always twenty-nine days. Thus,
counting the forty-nine days of sefirah from the second night of
Pesach, the festival of Shavuot always occurs on the sixth of
Sivan, which coincides with Zeman Matan Torateinu — the
Season of the Giving of the Torah. However, when the calendar
dates were based on the testimony of witnesses seeing the new
moon, Shavuot, which is forty-nine days from the second day of
Pesach would not always occur on the day of 6 Sivan when the
Torah was given. It could sometimes be celebrated on the fifth
of Sivan (when Nissan and Iyar were both only thirty days) and
sometimes on the seventh of Sivan (when Nissan and Iyar were
both twenty-nine days).
Consequently, in the first year of the Jews' departure from

Egypt, on the sixth day of Sivan, fifty-two days after Pesach,
they received the Torah and celebrated Zeman Matan Torateinu.
In the following year, they observed the commandment of
counting forty-nine days from the bringing of the omer offering
and after a seven week period they celebrated Chag HaShavuot
— the Festival of Weeks.
Forty years after leaving Egypt the Jews came to Eretz

Yisrael, and were required to bring Bikkurim — first fruits — to
the Beit Hamikdash (see Kiddushin 37b). This was to be done
when they made their pilgrimage for Shavuot, and thus the
holiday acquired the new name of Yom HaBikkurim — Day of
the First Fruits.
(‫)רשימות כ״ק אדמו״ר חוברת ל׳׳ח‬
* * *
QUESTION: Why [in the Gemara (Pesachim 68b)] is the

festival referred to as "Atzeret?"
ANSWER: "Atzeret," means "refraining" or "holding back."
On all festivals, i n addition to refraining from work
unconnected to food preparation, there is also a special mitzvah
to perform the following: on Pesach one eats matzah, on Sukkot
one sits i n a sukkah, on Rosh Hashanah one blows the shofar, and
on Yom Kippur one fasts. Shavuot, however, has no special
mitzvah connected to it, except for refraining from work. Thus,
we emphasize that the obvious mitzvah of the festival is
"Atzeret" — refraining and holding back from doing any
forbidden work.
(‫)קדושת לוי‬
* * *
The festival of Shavuot is called "Atzeret" i n the Gemara but
not in the Chumash because, according to the Torah, the unique
aspect of this holiday was the offering of the shetei halechem —
two loaves of wheat — which made permissible the use of the
new crop for meal-offerings i n the Beit Hamikdash (see Yayikra
23:16-18). However, the Gemara was compiled i n Babylon, after
the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash, since that time the only
unique thing about the holiday has been that it is "Atzeret" — a
time to refrain from work unconnected to food preparation.
(‫)קרבן העני‬
* * *
The word Shavuot (‫ )שבעת‬is an acronym for the four titles of

the festival. The ‫ ״ש״‬is for "Shavuot" — ‫שבעת‬. The ‫ ״ב״‬is for
"Bikkurim" — ‫ביכורים‬. The ‫ ״ע״‬is for "Atzeret" — ‫עצרת‬. The ‫״ ת ״‬
is for "Torah" — ‫תורה‬.
(‫)הגר״א‬
* * *
Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of Chabad Chassidut,

interpreted the verse, "You shall make the festival of Shavuot"
(Devarim 16:10) as follows. "Shavuot means 'vachen' — 'weeks'
— and is the root of the word 'vachedigkeit' — the quality of
weekdays, i.e. secularism or profaneness — and this must be
converted into a festival."
The message is that one should endeavor to change and
elevate vachedigkeit (the profane) into Yom Tov, for the goal of
Torah is to sanctify the profane.
SHAVUOT 25
‫״בנינו עורבים אותנו״‬

"Our c h i l d r e n s h a l l b e our s u r e t i e s . " (Midrash Rabbah, S o n g of
S o n g s 1:3,1)
QUESTION: According to the Midrash, when the Jewish

people stood at mount sinai to receive the Torah, Hashem
asked for a guarantee that they would keep it. They replied,
"Avoteinu orvim otanu" — "our ancestors w i l l be our
guarantors." When this was unacceptable, they offered,
"Nevi'einu areivin lanu" — "Our prophets w i l l be our
guarantors." This, too, Hashem did not accept. When they said
"Baneinu orvim otanu" — " o u r children w i l l be our guarantors"
— Hashem replied, "indeed these are good guarantors. f o r
their sake i w i l l give it to you."
Why did Hashem favor the children over the ancestors and
prophets?
ANSWER: Homiletically the Midrash can be explained as
follows: Hashem wants the Torah to be studied diligently and
observed meticulously throughout history, so He asked the
Jews for the requisite assurance.
With their first reply, " o u r fathers w i l l be the surety" the
Jewish people were actually saying "When our parents reach
old age and no longer are an asset i n the business world, we
w i l l set them up i n a senior citizen's club or a home for the
retired, and to keep them busy we w i l l arrange Torah study
groups for them." Hashem rejected this as an assurance that
Torah would flourish among the Jewish people. With only the
elderly learning, little would be accomplished.
Afterwards the people responded, "Nevi'einu areivin lanu."
The Hebrew word for prophet "navi" (‫ )נביא‬is derived from "niv
sefataim" (‫" — )ניב שפתים‬speech of the lips" (Isaiah 57:19). With
this they indicated that they would hire Rabbis who would
serve as orators; they would study Torah, and the laymen
would be free to engage i n business. Wanting Torah to be
studied and observed by all, Hashem rejected this offer too.
finally, the Jews said, "our children w i l l be our surety."
Although their intention may have been to send the children to
yeshivah when young and to put them into business when older,
Hashem accepted this knowing that once a child is i n yeshivah,

he would be molded into a Torah-loving Jew and refuse to
leave. moreover, the children w i l l influence their parents to
also learn Torah and to observe mitzvot. Thus, through them,
the continuity of Torah study and observance is guaranteed for
posterity.
‫״ויתיצבו ב ת ח ת י ת ההר״‬
" T h e y s t o o d o n t h e bottom of [lit. under] t h e m o u n t a i n . "
(Shemot 19:17)
QUESTION: When Hashem offered the Jewish people the

Torah they immediately responded "na'aseh venishma" — "We
w i l l do and we w i l l listen (study)." i f so, w h y was it necessary
for H i m to suspend the mountain over them and warn them
that if they do not accept the Torah, they would be killed? (See
Gemara, Shabbat 88a, Tosafot)
ANSWER: The Torah consists of two parts, the Written and
the oral. The Jewish people were ready to accept the Written
Torah, but not the o r a l Torah, which explains the written one,
transmitting the entire corpus of Jewish law. To persuade them
Hashem held the mountain threateningly over them.
(‫)פני יהושע‬
Alternatively, it was not a great surprise that the Jews

readily accepted the Torah and proclaimed, "na'aseh venishma."
After all, i n the wilderness all their needs were provided for:
they ate manna from Heaven and drank water from Miriam's
well. Their clothing miraculously enlarged as they grew, and
were cleaned by the Clouds of Heaven, which also protected
them. under such conditions, there was absolutely no reason
not to adhere to the teachings of the Torah.
By placing the mountain over the people, Hashem was
asking them a question: "There is no guarantee that the
tranquility you are currently experiencing w i l l last forever.
How w i l l you conduct yourselves when a 'cloud' hovers above
you, i.e. what w i l l happen when problems befall you? When
SHAVUOT 27
you w i l l experience difficult times and your very existence is

threatened, w i l l you still keep the Torah?"
"If you have any doubts," Hashem told them, "You should
know that it is to your advantage to keep the Torah under all
circumstances. f o r as soon as you forsake the Torah, Sham tehei
kevuratchem — That w i l l be your burial."
(‫)מצאתי בכתבי זקני הרב צבי הכהן דיל קאפלאן‬
‫״ויתיצבו ב ת ח ת י ת ההר״‬
" T h e y s t o o d o n t h e bottom of [lit. under] t h e m o u n t a i n . "
(Shemot 19:17)
QUESTION: According to the Gemara (Shabbat 88a),

Hashem lifted the mountain over the Jewish people and
threatened to kill them if they did not accept the Torah. Rabbi
Acha said, "This is an important defense for the Jewish people:
If they should violate the Torah, they can claim that they
accepted it only under duress," implying that acceptance under
duress is not considered true acceptance.
Tosafot asks, "The nations of the world complained to
Hashem, 'Why didn't You also force us (in a similar fashion) to
accept the Torah?' " doesn't their complaint imply that, even if
they would accept Torah due to the mountain being suspended
over their heads, their acceptance would be proper and never
have a claim of "duress?"
ANSWER: According to halachah, there is a rule that
"Devarim shebeleiv einam devarim" — "What one has i n his heart
[not expressed verbally] is considered invalid" (Rambam,
Mechirah 11:9). However, when a person is forced to do
something and he makes a vow or takes an oath, he is not
bound to it if he nullified it i n his heart (Rambam, Nedarim 4:2).
If so, the Jewish people should have nullified their consent i n
their hearts and, since they did not, is not their claim of duress
invalid?
According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 1:1) when a Jew
plans to do a good thing and for reasons beyond his control
does not bring it to fruition, Hashem gives him credit as though
he actually had done it. When a gentile plans to do evil, even if

he does not do it, Hashem considers it as if it is done. On the
other hand, a Jew is not punished for bad thoughts and a
gentile does not receive credit for good thoughts that are not
followed by appropriate deeds.
A possible explanation: that are Jews believe that Hashem
not only sees what we do, but also reads their minds and
hearts, but the gentiles do not share this belief. Consequently,
since Jews believe that Hashem knows what is i n their hearts,
Hashem indeed gives them credit for their good thoughts.
However, the gentiles, who do not believe i n this, do not
receive any remuneration for their good thought, but to prove
that Hashem knows what is i n their heart, they are punished
for their bad intentions.
The concept of nullifying something in one's heart applies

only when one makes a vow under duress from someone to
whom one's real intentions can be concealed. Thus, Hashem
w i l l not hold him responsible when he nullifies it in his heart.
However, when a person makes a commitment to Hashem,
nullifying it i n his heart would be an absurdity since Hashem
also knows what is i n the heart.
Hence, had Hashem forced the gentiles to accept the Torah,
they would have been able to nullify their acceptance, since,
according to their belief, Hashem does not know what is in
their hearts, and so they would not have recourse to Rabbi
Acha's argument. However, the Jewish people, who believe
that Hashem knows what is i n their minds and hearts, cannot
mentally nullify their acceptance, and therefore they can claim
that they accepted the Torah under duress.
(‫)ש ו״ ת תירוש ויצהר סי׳ קי״ב‬
‫כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא‬

"How m a n y Y o s e f s a r e t h e r e in t h e m a r k e t p l a c e ? "
QUESTION: The Gemara (Pesachim 68b) informs us that on

Shavuot Rabbi Yosef would make a festive meal and proclaim,
"If not for this day, how many Yosefs would there be in the
market place?" That is, if not for Torah, the sages might have
SHAVUOT 29
been ordinary folk. Why was it specifically Rabbi Yosef who

celebrated like this and not any of the other sages of the
Talmud?
ANSWER: On Shavuot, Moshe received the first set of
Tablets. When he came down with them from heaven on the
seventeenth of Tammuz and witnessed the worshipping of the
golden calf, he threw down the Tablets, shattering them to
pieces. After beseeching Hashem to forgive the Jewish people,
he came down again from heaven on Yom Kippur w i t h the
second Tablets.
Superficially one may wonder: "Since it was the second set

that lasted, w h y isn't the period of the giving of the Torah
celebrated on Yom Kippur rather than Shavuot?"
Since Shavuot commemorates the giving of the first Tablets,
it can be derived that although they were broken they were also
holy and precious. In fact, Rabbi Yosef declares (Bava Batra 14b)
that both sets of Tablets were holy and that they were both
placed i n the Ark. The Gemara (Berachot 8b) warns about
properly respecting an aged Torah scholar who has forgotten
his learning, citing by way of analogy that the complete Tablets
and the broken Tablets were placed together i n the Ark.
The Gemara (Nedarim 41a) relates that Rabbi Yosef once
became very ill and forgot all his Torah knowledge, which was
a severe blow to his self-image. Therefore, it was Rabbi Yosef
who said, "Were it not for this day (Shavuot), when the first
Tablets were given and later broken (from which it can be
derived that even a sage who has forgotten his Torah study still
deserves honor), I — i n my present state — would be like one
of the many Yosefs who are i n the market place. Thus I , i n
particular, have good reason to celebrate."
(‫)קהלת יצחק‬
‫מאכל״ חלב‬
Dairy M e a l
QUESTION: Why is it customary to eat a dairy meal the

first day of Shavuot?
ANSWER: 1) In The Song of Songs (4:11) Hashem says to
the Jewish people, "The sweetness [of Torah] drops from your
lips; like honey and milk it lies under your tongue." Since the
Torah is compared to milk, we eat a dairy meal on Shavuot,
when the Torah was given.
(‫)ר׳ פנחס זצ״ל מקוריץ‬
* * *
Honey is made by the bee, and milk is a byproduct of blood

(see Bechorot 6b). Both the bee and the blood are forbidden to be
eaten.
Thus, both milk and honey originate from a source which is
tamei — spiritually unclean — and after the product is
developed it is tahor — halachically clean for human
consumption.
Torah is compared to milk and honey because of its power
to elevate and purify even one who has fallen into a state of
spiritual contamination.
Also, the comparison of Torah to milk teaches us that just as
milk keeps best i n earthenware and spoils quickly i n silver or
golden utensils, Torah remains with humble people and
despises conceited and arrogant people.
(‫)עוללות אפרים‬
2) one of the Noachide laws (which apply to all mankind)

is the prohibition of "eiver min hachai" — not eating the limb of
a live animal (Rambam, Melachim 9:1).
The Gemara (Bechorot 6b) asks: Why are we permitted to
drink cow's milk — doesn't it come from a live animal?
One of the answers is, since the Torah praises Eretz Yisrael
as flowing w i t h milk (Shemot 13:5), it must be permitted since
the Torah would not have praised Eretz Yisrael w i t h something
SHAVUOT 31
forbidden. However, only after the Jews received the Torah, in

which Hashem praised Eretz Yisrael for its milk, did it become
permitted for them to drink it. Before the Torah was given,
however, milk was forbidden because it was considered "eiver
min hachai."
Thus, to emphasize that milk became permitted only after
the giving of the Torah, a dairy meal is eaten on Shavuot
immediately after the receiving of the Torah.
158 ‫ ועי׳ בספר ודברת בם על שבועות ע׳‬,‫ ילקוט הגרשוני‬,‫)פון אונזער אלטען אוצר‬
(.‫שאין קשה מדוע נתן אברהם אבינו חלב להמלאכים די״ל שהי׳ מבן פקועה‬
3) Moshe was born on the 7th of Adar. Three months later,

his mother put him i n a basket and placed him among the reeds
at the bank of the river. Batya, the daughter of Pharaoh, found
him and he refused to drink the milk of any of the Egyptian
women. Consequently, she was forced to hire Yocheved (his
mother) to raise him. This incident took place on the 6th of
Sivan, the day when years later Moshe would receive the Torah
on Mt. Sinai (Sotah 12b). Since he was miraculously reunited
w i t h his mother on the 6th of Sivan through milk, a dairy meal
is eaten on Shavuot.
(‫)ברכת חיים‬
4) The Hebrew word for milk is "chalav" (‫ )חלב‬having the

numerical value of 40. Eating a dairy meal recalls the 40 days
Moshe was up i n heaven to receive the Torah.
(‫)ברכת חיים‬
5) According to the Midrash Rabbah (28:1), the angels

wanted to attack Moshe for coming to take the Torah down to
earth. Hashem altered his face to resemble Avraham's and said
to them, "Aren't you ashamed to attack the person who was so
hospitable to you?"
Avraham served the angels cream, milk, and veal (Bereishit
18:8). To commemorate this meal, which contributed to the
Jewish people receiving the Torah on Shavuot, we eat a dairy
meal, and a meat meal an hour later. (See Shelah, Shavuot 180b:
Sha'arei Halachah Uminhag, vol. 3, p. 38.)
(‫)מהר״ם שי״ף‬
* * *
6) In the Beit HaMikdash on Shavuot there was a meal-offering

that consisted of two loaves baked from (chadash) — the new
wheat crop which was harvested or formed roots at least three
days before Pesach (see Vayikra 23:17). Until then all the meal-
offerings had to be from the flour of earlier crops, and the two
loaves made permissible the use of the new crop in the meal-
offerings of the Beit Hamikdash. (the omer-offering of Pesach was
of barley and made the use of new crop permissible for
individuals).
for the dairy and meat meals, according to halachah,
separate loaves of bread have to be used. t h u s the eating of a
dairy meal, followed by a meat meal (at least one hour later)
necessitates the use of two separate loaves which, i n turn,
commemorates the two-loaf meal-offering offered on Shavuot.
(‫ ג׳ ועי׳ משנה ברורה‬,‫)רמ״א סי׳ תצייד‬
* * *
7) o n Shavuot, when the t o r a h was given, the Jews learned
the laws of shechitah — slaughtering — and kashrut for the first
time. since the t o r a h was given on Shabbat, they were unable to
slaughter any animals on that day, and their vessels needed to
be "kashered." Any meat they may have had from before, even if
slaughtered, was not usable because no one was a bar zevichah
— a proper ritual slaughterer — when the animal was killed.
thus, immediately after receiving the torah, they did not
have kosher meat or utensils available, and their only
alternative was eating dairy.
(365 ‫ ועי׳ לקו״ש חי״וז ע׳‬,‫ ועי׳ משנה ברורה סוסי׳ תצייד‬,‫)גאולת ישראל‬
* * *
A hint i n the t o r a h for eating a dairy meal on Shavuot can

be found i n the pasuk, "Bring your first fruits [Bikkurim] to the
house of G-d, your G-d; you shall not cook a kid in its mother's
milk" (Shemot 23:19). The festival of Shavuot is also known as
"the festival of Bikkurim," (Bamidbar 28:26), being the preferred
time for bringing bikkurim. Thus, the Torah reminds us that
when we bring the bikkurim on Shavuot, we should be very
careful while cooking for Yom Tov not to mix any meat together
w i t h m i l k .
(‫)שלייה מס׳ שבועות‬
SHAVUOT 33
‫קריאת מגילת רות‬

R e a d i n g t h e B o o k of R u t h
QUESTION: In many communities, it is customary to read

Megillat Ruth on Shavuot (see Orach Chaim 490:9).
What is the reason for this custom?
ANSWER: 1) Ruth was the ancestor of King David, and he
is the ancestor of Mashiach. The Book of Ruth concludes w i t h a
verse stating the connection between King David and Ruth.
King David died on Shavuot (Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah, 2:3),
and since the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 11a) says, "Hashem
completes the years of the righteous from day to day," it
follows that David was born on Shavuot. Hence, it is customary
to read Megillat Ruth i n his honor.
(568 ‫ ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות חייב ע׳‬,‫ בנין אריאל‬,‫)תבואות שור‬
Incidentally, according to the Gemara (Bava Batra 15b) she

was called Ruth, because her descendant David would
'saturate' £‫ )רוה‬Hashem w i t h songs and praises.
* * *
2) On Shavuot we received the Torah, which contains 613

commandments. The entire world had already been given
seven of these commandments to observe, so we actually
received 606 additional commandments. Ruth was the
daughter of the king of Moav (Sotah 47a); when she converted
to Judaism, she accepted upon herself 606 new commandments
as the Jewish people did at Sinai.
To emphasize the fact that we all received 606 new
commandments on Shavuot, we read the story of Ruth, whose
name has the numerical value of 606.
(‫)תשואות חן‬
* * *
3) The story of Ruth concerns a girl, who as a Moabite was

seemingly forbidden by the Torah to marry into the Jewish
people. However, the sages (Yevamot 69a) interpret the verse,
"Lo yavo Amoni uMo'avi bikehal Hashem" — " A n Amonite or

Moabite may not marry into the community of G-d" (Devarim
23:4) — to refer only to the Moabite men but not to the women.
Consequently, due to the Rabbinic interpretation of Torah, it
was possible for Ruth to marry Boaz and become the ancestor
of King David and Mashiach. Therefore, the Book of Ruth is
read on Shavuot to emphasize the immense benefit the Jewish
people derive from the o r a l Torah.
* * *
4) Ruth was married to Machlon the son of Elimelech. After

her husband and father-in-law died, she sought to marry one of
their relatives and to purchase the family field. Thus, when she
would come to the field, people would say, "This is Machlon's
widow," and his memory would be perpetuated (see 3:9,
Rashi). Her closest relatives were an uncle named Tov and a
cousin named Boaz. Since she was a Moabite, Tov refused to
marry her out of fear that he would bring a blemish upon his
family. Boaz married her and also acquired the field.
At that time Boaz, who was also known as Ivtzan and who
was one of the judges i n the Jewish community, was three
hundred years old, wealthy, and head of a large family (see I
Chronicles 2:11 Rashi, Bava Batra 91a). Although he had
sufficient reasons to avoid marrying Ruth, due to his belief that
no opportunity to do a good deed should ever be missed, he
decided to marry her
Shavuot is celebrated as the period of the giving of the
Torah, i n which there are six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. The
reading of the story of Ruth on Shavuot emphasizes the
importance of every good deed and teaches that a person may
never know how performing a single good deed may bring
Mashiach and the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people.
(‫ עיי״ש‬,‫ כתב !מדרשות חלוקות אם אבצן הוא בועז‬,‫ חוברת צייו‬,‫)ברשימות כ״ק אדמו״ר‬
SHAVUOT 35
‫״דוד מ ת בעצרת״‬
" K i n g David d i e d o n Atzeret (Shavuot) ( J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d ,
Chagigah 2:3)
QUESTION: King David died in Eretz Yisrael, where

Shavuot is celebrated for only one day. Why is the story of his
ancestry read on the second day of Shavuot?
ANSWER: Formerly, the fixing of the new month (Rosh
Chodesh) was based on the testimony of two witnesses. Then
messengers were sent to the Jewish communities informing
them of the day designated as Rosh Chodesh, which would also
determine the days on which the holidays would occur.
Communities which could not be reached before the middle of
the month remained i n doubt about the calendar and
celebrated an extra day of Yom Tov to account for all
possibilities. Therefore, i n the Diaspora we always celebrated
Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot on two days. Nowadays, although
our calendar is based on calculation, we continue to observe the
custom of two days of Yom Tov in the Diaspora.
Apparently, there is no need to ever celebrate Shavuot for
two days since it is always the fiftieth day from the counting of
the omer, and by that time it is known already which day Pesach
should have been?
The Rambam (Kiddush HaChodesh 3:12) writes that " i n order
not to differentiate between the holidays, the Rabbis have
instructed that any place which the messengers would not
reach by the middle of Tishrei or Nissan celebrates two days of
Yom Tov, including Shavuot."
According to the literal meaning of the Torah, it would
have been forbidden for Ruth to marry into the Jewish people.
However, thanks to Rabbinic interpretation, which explains
that the Torah precluded only the males of Moab and not the
females, she was able to marry Boaz and their descendants
would be King David and Mashiach. Therefore, to emphasize
the reverence we have for the teachings of our Rabbis, we read
the story of Ruth on a day which is celebrated only because of
Rabbinic ordinance.
David Died on Shavuot — 7 Sivan

While it is true that David died i n Eretz Yisrael where
Shavuot is only celebrated for one day, the particular Shavuot
when David died was the seventh day of Sivan. This day is
celebrated in the Diaspora as the second day of Shavuot.
The Torah did not give any specific date as to exactly when
Shavuot should be celebrated. We were merely told to count 49
days from the morrow after Pesach, the day when the Omer-
offering is made, and on the fiftieth day celebrate Shavuot. The
Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 6b) says that Shavuot may be on the fifth
of Sivan if Nissan and Iyar both have 30 days. It w i l l be on the
sixth of Sivan, if Nissan was 30 days and Iyar 29 days. If Nissan
and Iyar are both only 29 days then Shavuot w i l l be on the
seventh of Sivan.
Originally, the Beit Din would declare Rosh Chodesh based
on the testimony of two witnesses who saw the appearance of
the new moon. Due to complications that arose from this, in
later years, a pre-calculated calendar was instituted.
Accordingly, Shavuot can never be on Shabbat, and it is always
on the sixth of Sivan, which is also the day when the Torah was
given.
Consequently, i n the particular year when David died the
months of Nissan and Iyar were 29 days each and thus Shavuot
was the seventh of Sivan. When the Beit Din would declare Rosh
Chodesh based on the testimony of two witnesses, it was
possible for Shavuot to be on Shabbat also.
Hence, i n the Diaspora, Megillat Ruth is read on the second
day of Shavuot which is always 7 Sivan, and the yartzeit —
anniversary of death — of King David's passing. In Israel,
however, where Shavuot is celebrated on the sixth of Nissan,
they read Megillat Ruth on that day to commemorate the
passing of David on Shavuot.
8 ‫ ובהערה‬22 ‫ ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות ח״וז ע׳‬,‫)הגהות ר׳ יהודה בכרך דיל על מס׳ פסחים דף סייח ע״ב‬
‫ ראה שבת‬- ‫ השייך להסתלקותו של דוד‬,‫ה( ״הודיעני ה׳ קצי גוי״‬,‫כ׳ ״ולהעיר שהכתוב )תהלים לט‬
(‫ אומרים )לפי חלוקת התהילים לימי החודש( בז׳ בסיוך״‬- ‫ סע״א‬,‫ל‬
BOOK OF RUTH 37
BOOK OF RUTH ‫מ ג י ל ת רות ־‬
‫ושם שני בניו מחלון‬...‫הוא ואשתו ושני בניו‬...‫״וילך איש מבית לחם‬
‫וישאו להם נשים‬...‫ותשאר היא ושני בניה‬...‫וימת אלימלך‬...!‫וכליו‬
‫מחלון וכליו! ותשאר האשה משני ילדיה״‬...‫וימותו‬...‫מאביות‬
"A m a n w e n t from B e t h l e h e m , h e , his wife, a n d his two s o n s . . . t h e
m a n ' s n a m e w a s E l i m e l e c h a n d his two s o n s w e r e n a m e d
Machlon a n d Chilion...Elimelech died...and s h e w a s left with her
two s o n s . . . T h e y married Moabite women...Machlon a n d Chilion
died, a n d t h e w o m a n w a s bereft of her two c h i l d r e n . " (1:1-5)
QUESTION: Why are Machlon and Chilion referred to as
"banim" — "sons" — the first three times and then called
"yeladeha" — "her children"?
ANSWER: In Hebrew, the term "yeled" — "child" —
denotes 1) biological offspring, 2) someone immature. The
Hebrew word for son is "ben," and is associated w i t h the word
"boneh" — "builder" — i.e. one who continues to build that
which his father started (see Bereishit 5:28, Rashi). A son
represents continuity. Moreover, when a person is blessed w i t h
sons, and his sons in turn have sons, the name of the family is
built up and perpetuated.
Consequently, to Elimelech and his wife, Machlon and
Chilion were banim/bonim — builders — perpetuators of the
family tradition from whom they would have "nachas."
unfortunately, a sudden turn of events shattered all their
hopes and left them in dismay. Their two sons married non-
Jewish women. Now, their children would not be considered
Jews, but Moabites. By intermarrying, Machlon and Chilion
would not only fail to build the home of Elimelech, but actively
prevent it from continuing. Therefore, they were no longer
banim (bonim — builders) but merely yeladim — biological
offspring — who, regardless of their age, acted like children
and brought shame and disgrace to their prominent family.
(‫)פון אונזער אלטען אוצר‬
‫״כי אל אשר תלכי אלך״‬

" F o r w h e r e v e r y o u g o I will g o . " (1:16)
QUESTION: According to halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh

Dei'ah 268:2) a prospective convert is informed of some difficult
and some easy Torah laws. Therefore, the Midrash Rabbah (2:22)
says that Naomi told Ruth, " I t is not the custom of daughters of
Israel to go to theaters," to which she responded, "For
wherever you go I w i l l go."
Why did Naomi particularly select this halachah?
ANSWER: Torah teaches the way of life for the Jew. Its
teachings apply to the time before one is born till after one dies.
unfortunately, there are those who observe some of the
traditions they find pleasant and enjoyable, but are not ready to
commit themselves entirely to the ways of Torah. For instance,
some w i l l eat challah and gefilte fish on Friday night, but not
observe Shabbat according to halachah. Some w i l l eat latkes on
Chanukah and blintzes on Shavuot, but fail to light the Chanukah
menorah or otherwise fall short of accepting the Torah i n its
entirety. Some come to synagogue to hear the beautiful voice of
the chazzan, but not to actually pray to Hashem or listen to the
Torah reading.
Naomi, in preparing Ruth for her conversion, was
conveying a basic principle about Yiddishkeit: Torah and mitzvot
should not be viewed as a theatrical performance, and one
should not observe only what is pleasant or intriguing. It is a
way of life which demands full dedication at all times and
under all circumstances.
Ruth, fully comprehending her mother-in-law's message,
responded, "For wherever you go I w i l l go." ‫״‬ ( ‫ל ט י י ץ‬ ‫פ ] ן ז ס מ ז‬ ‫) ה ך ב‬
‫׳״‬n ‫״ויאמר לקוצרים ה׳ עמכם ויאמרו לו יברכך‬

" B o a z s a i d to t h e h a r v e s t e r s , 'G-d b e with y o u ' a n d t h e y s a i d to
him, 'May y o u b e b l e s s e d by G-d.' " ( 2 : 4 )
QUESTION: Why did Boaz recite Hashem's name first

when he greeted the harvesters ("Hashem imachem"), while the
harvesters said "yevarechecha" — "may you be blessed" — then
reciting Hashem's name?
BOOK OF RUTH 39
ANSWER: The Gemara (Nedarim 10a) says that when a

person designates an animal as an offering, he should not say,
"This is to G-d as a sin-offering," but "This is a sin-offering to
G-d." The reason is that if he should die after saying the word
"laHashem" — "to G-d" — without completing the phrase, he
w i l l have recited Hashem's name i n vain.
Therefore, the harvesters said "yevarechecha" — "may you
be blessed" — and afterwards recited Hashem's name.
However, our sages have taught, "Be the first to extend
greeting to anyone you meet" (Pirkei Avot 4:15). One who
fulfills this merits longevity, as King David says, "Who is the
man who desires life — bakeish shalom veradfeihu — seek shalom
(peace) and pursue i t " (Psalms 34:13,15). Thus, since Boaz
greeted the harvesters first, he did not have to fear that he
would die before finishing his greeting, and therefore he
mentioned Hashem first.
(‫ נפש יהונתן מר׳ יהונתן בנימין הכהן דיל מסעליש‬,‫)ישועות יעקב יו׳׳ד סי׳ קמ״וז‬
* * *
When two people meet it is customary that the first one
says "Shalom aleichem" and the second responds "Aleichem
shalom." Why doesn't he too say i n response "Shalom aleichem"?
The word "shalom" is considered one of the names of
Hashem (see Shabbat 10b). Consequently, since the one who
opened w i t h the greeting w i l l be blessed w i t h long life, he can
recite the name of Hashem first without fear. However, the one
responding says "aleichem" first and then mentions "Shalom."
(‫ וטעמי המנהגים ע׳ תק״ג‬,‫)עי׳ בהנ״ל‬
‫״ויאמר בעז לנערו הנצב על הקוצרים למי הנערה הזאת״‬

"Boaz then said to his servant who w a s overseeing the
h a r v e s t e r s , 'To w h o m d o e s t h a t y o u n g w o m a n b e l o n g ? ' " ( 2 : 5 )
QUESTION: Isn't it improper for a tzaddik like Boaz to make

an inquiry about a young woman?
ANSWER: Boaz, as the proprietor of the field, would visit it
on a regular basis. However, this time Boaz noticed the Divine
presence (shechinah) in his field. Upon realizing that the
harvesters d i d not perceive that the Divine presence was

among them, he proclaimed in excitement, "Hashem imachem"
— "G-d is with you!" Not understanding, they took his
statement as a greeting and responded, "Yevarechecha Hashem"
— "May G-d bless you."
Realizing that he had been misunderstood, Boaz turned to
the servant who was overseeing the harvesters and asked him,
"To whom does this young woman belong. Undoubtedly the
presence of Hashem I see here is due to her."
(‫)ר׳ יצחק זצ״ל מווארקא‬
* * *
Alternatively, instead of asking "Lemi hana'arah hazot" —

"To whom does this young woman belong?" he should have
just said "Mi hana'arah hazot" — "Who is this young woman?"
Boaz was a widower. Noting her modesty and perceiving
that the Shechinah was with the young woman, he was impressed
with her spiritual stature, and therefore inquired, "To whom
does she belong?" wanting to know if she was marriageable.
(‫)אגרת שמואל‬
‫וימד שש שערים וישת עליה״‬...‫״ויאמר הבי ה מ ס פ ח ת אשר עליך‬

"And h e s a i d , 'Hold out t h e s h a w l . . . ' a n d h e m e a s u r e d o u t s i x
g r a i n s of barley, a n d s e t it o n h e r . " ( 3 : 1 5 )
QUESTION: Rashi says that with the six grains he alluded

that from her descendants w i l l come Mashiach, who w i l l be
blessed w i t h six blessings. Why, however, d i d he give her
specifically barley and not something else?
ANSWER: When Mashiach reveals himself the Jewish
people w i l l experience immense of spiritual and material
wealth. As the Rambam says, " I n that time there w i l l be no
hunger, war, jealousy, or competition. There w i l l be goodness
in abundant measure, all delicacies w i l l be available like dust,
and the entire world w i l l be involved only i n the understanding
of G-dliness" (Melachim 12:5).
The Hebrew word for barley, "se'orim" £‫)שערים‬, can be
rearranged to spell the word "ashirim" — rich. With the
BOOK OF RUTH 41
giving of six se'orim Boaz alluded that she would be the

ancestor of Mashiach, in whose time the Jews w i l l all be ashirim
— wealthy — materially and spiritually.
(‫)נפש יהונתן מר׳ יהונתן בנימין הכהן דיל מסעליש‬
‫״ויאמר הגאל לא אוכל לגאל ל״ פן אשחית א ת נחלת״ גאל לך א ת ה‬

‫א ת גאלתי״‬
"The r e d e e m e r s a i d , 'Then I c a n n o t r e d e e m it for m y s e l f , for I
m a y imperil my own e s t a t e . T a k e my r e d e m p t i o n responsibility
on y o u r s e l f . '4:6)‫״‬ )
QUESTION: If Tov thought that the Torah law "a Moabite

should not enter into the community of Hashem" (Devarim
23:4) applied also to the woman, why did he say "pen ashchit"
— " I may imperil"? He should have said "ki ashchit" —
"because I w i l l imperil." Moreover, if he considered her
forbidden, why did he tell Boaz to marry her?
ANSWER: Tov had a wife whom he considered a valuable
part of his "nachlah" — estate — and Boaz was a widower. Tov
said to Boaz, "Since I have a wife, it is not advisable for me to
bring another wife into my household, because there may be
strife between the two. Since you have no wife at all, it is better
that you marry Ruth, so that she w i l l be your only wife."
(‫)תרגום על מגילת רות‬
‫ ותקראנה‬.‫״ותקח נעמי א ת הילד ותשתהו בחיקה ותהי לו לאמנת‬

‫לו השכנות שם לאמר ילד בן לנעמי״‬
" N o a m i took t h e child a n d held it in h e r b o s o m , a n d s h e
b e c a m e h i s n u r s e . The neighborhood w o m e n g a v e him a n a m e ,
s a y i n g , 'A s o n i s born to N a o m i . ' " ( 4 : 1 6 - 1 7 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 19b) asks, "Wasn't Ruth

the one who bore him?" and answers, "Ruth gave birth to him,
but Naomi raised him." From here it is derived that "He who
raises an orphan in his home is considered as though he gave
birth to him."
Oved's mother was Ruth and his father was Boaz. How from
Naomi's raising him can we learn about the raising of an orphan?
ANSWER: According to the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Ruth

608) Boaz died the night he married Ruth. Thus, their child,
Oved, was paternally orphaned from birth. From the fact that
Naomi raised him, our sages learned the equation of raising
and giving birth to an orphan.
(‫)מהרש״א‬
‫״ותקראנה לו השכנות שם לאמר ילד בן לנעמי ותקראנה שמו‬

‫עובד״‬
"The n e i g h b o r h o o d w o m a n g a v e him a n a m e , s a y i n g : 'A s o n i s
born t o N a o m i . ' T h e y n a m e d him O v e d . " ( 4 : 1 7 )
QUESTION: 1) The words "leimor yulad ben leNaomi" —

"saying: ' A son is born to Naomi' " — are superfluous. It should
have just said, "The neighborhood women named him Oved"?
ANSWER: Everybody considered the birth of the child as
Hashem's reward to Naomi for leading Ruth i n the right path.
In order to always remember that, "yulad ben leNaomi" — "a son
is born to Naomi" — they called him Oved because the middle
letter of Naomi is an "ayin" , the word bein contains
a "beit" , and the final letter of yulad is a "daled" . Thus,
they gave him a name which "leimor" — i.e. the name would
"say," "a son is born to Naomi." Though Oved is spelled
w i t h a "vav" , it serves as a vowel and is not actually a part of
the name. In fact, i n the final pasuk of the Megillah, "VeOved
holid et Yishai" — " A n d Oved begot Yishai" (4:22), the name is
spelled without a "vuv."
They reversed the sequence of the letters and named him

Oved as a blessing that the child would serve ("oved") Hashem
w i t h a full heart.
(‫)נפש יהונתן ואגרת שמואל‬
NASSO 43
NASSO • ‫נ ש א‬
‫״והתודו א ת ח ס א ת ם אשר עשו והשיב א ת אשמו בראשו וחמישתו‬

‫יסף עליו ונרנן לאשר אשם לו״‬
"They s h a l l c o n f e s s t h e s i n t h a t t h e y c o m m i t t e d ; h e s h a l l m a k e
restitution for h i s guilt in its principal a m o u n t a n d a d d i t s fifth
to it, a n d give it to t h e o n e to w h o m h e i s i n d e b t e d . " ( 5 : 7 )
QUESTION: Since only one person dealt dishonestly, w h y

does the pasuk say, "vehitvadu" — "they shall confess" — i n the
plural, and not "vehitvadah" — "he shall confess" — i n the
singular?
ANSWER: This parshah concerns someone who unlawfully
holds the money of a fellow Jew, and includes the situation
where a borrower denies the receipt of a loan, compounding
the iniquity by swearing falsely that he owes nothing.
Obviously, if there are witnesses, he is unable to deny it or
swear to that effect.
The Gemara (Bava Metzia 75b) says that one should extend a
loan in the presence of witnesses to avoid violating the Torah
law "do not put a stumbling block before the blind" (Vayikra
19:14), for without witnesses, the borrower may be tempted to
deny the loan entirely.
Consequently, both the borrower who denies the loan and

the lender who gave it without witness sin. Therefore,
"vehitvadu" — "they shall both confess" — and resolve not to
repeat their sin i n the future.
(‫)מלאכת מחשבת‬
‫״והתודו א ת ח ס א ת ם אשר עשו״‬

"They shall c o n f e s s the s i n that they committed." (5:7)
QUESTION: The commandment to confess one's sins is the

cornerstone of the mitzvah of repentance (see Rambam,
Teshuvah 1:1). Why does the Torah choose to mention it here in
connection w i t h the sin of stealing?
ANSWER: Every sin that a person commits is partially an
act of theft: Hashem gives the person energy and strength and
wants h i m to utilize it for Torah study and fulfilling mitzvot.
Thus, when a person uses his energy for committing sins, he is
"stealing" from Hashem. Therefore the mitzvah of confession is
mentioned i n connection w i t h stealing.
(‫)חידושי הרי״ם‬
‫״וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל אשר יקריבו לכהן לו יהיה״‬
"And e v e r y portion from a n y of t h e h o l i e s t h a t t h e C h i l d r e n of
I s r a e l bring to t h e Kohen s h a l l b e h i s " ( 5 : 9 )
QUESTION: The words "lo yiheyeh" — " w i l l be his" —

appear superfluous. Since the "portion" is given to the Kohen,
then it is obviously his?
ANSWER: In nineteenth century England there lived the
famous Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore. Queen
Victoria once asked him, "What is the extent of your wealth?
How much do you own?"
Sir Moses told her it would take h i m a few days to do some
accounting, then, he would reply.
When Sir Moses told her his wealth she became upset
saying, "This is offensive: Everyone knows that you have far
greater wealth."
Sir Moses explained that he considered his true wealth to
be whatever money he had given to tzedakah. Anything else
that he possessed was only temporary and could be confiscated
or lost.
With the phrase, "Lo yiheyeh" — "shall be his" — the Torah
is emphasizing that people should always consider their
NASSO 45
monetary wealth as temporary, and whatever one gives to

charity "shall be his" — his real wealth which remains w i t h
him forever.
(‫)מיסוד על בינה לעתים‬
‫״איש איש כי ת ש ס ה אשתו ומעלה בו מעל״‬

"A m a n a m a n w h o s e wife s h a l l g o a s t r a y a n d c o m m i t t r e a c h e r y
against him." (5:12)
QUESTION: Why is the word "ish" — "a man" — repeated

twice?
ANSWER: Marriage should be regarded as a holy union.
Until marriage, the man and woman were lacking something
important, now they have become a complete entity. For a
marriage to be happy and long-lasting, each partner must
recognize the other's rights and respect the other's opinions.
For the home to be harmonious both man and wife must be
equally involved i n it.
If a man seeks to overdo his "manliness" and attempts to be
the autocratic ruler of his home, demanding that his decisions
be enacted, or if he becomes oblivious to the needs of his
household and is egoistically concerned only w i t h "ish" —
himself — the marriage is doomed to failure. The Torah warns
us that the behavior of ish — a man — who is ish — totally
concerned w i t h himself — w i l l spoil his family life, and
ultimately destroy his own existence as well.
(‫)מלאכת מחשבת‬
‫״ומעלה בו מעל״‬
"And c o m m i t t r e a c h e r y a g a i n s t [lit. 'in'] h i m . " ( 5 : 1 2 )
QUESTION: In the phrase "uma'alah bo ma'al" the word

"bo" — " i n him" — seems extra. Could the text not have simply
said "uma'alah ma'al."
ANSWER: No one is perfect; everyone possesses some
failings. However, the happily married wife admires her
husband and "sees" only good i n him, as King Shlomo says,
"Love covers all offenses" (proverbs 10:12).
Unfortunately, when the husband does not behave properly

strife may invade the relationship and sometimes the wife may
act improperly. To justify her conduct, she rationalizes that
uma'alah — her improper behavior — is because of "bo ma'al"
— she found in him a betrayal of her.
‫׳זיר״‬ ‫״מיין ושכר‬

" F r o m n e w or a g e d w i n e s h a l l h e a b s t a i n . " ( 6 : 3 )
QUESTION: The laws of a nazir apply only to the nazir

himself. Why d i d the angel tell Shimshon's mother that she
should not drink wine? (See Judges 13:2-25)
ANSWER: Many parents set ambitious goals for their
children and expect them to live by lofty standards.
Unfortunately, they fail to realize their own need to live i n
accordance w i t h the same standards they set for their children.
parents must conduct themselves the way they want their
children to behave.
The angel was giving Shimshon's mother an important les¬
son i n raising children. He told her that the son she would bear
was destined to be a nazir. In order for him to properly observe
his restrictions, it was necessary that she, too, take on the re¬
strictions of a Nazirite, and thus be a living example for him.
(‫)אור כשלמה‬
‫״לאביו ולאמו לאחיו ולאחתו לא יסמא להם ב מ ת ם כ׳ נזר אלקיו על‬

‫ראשו״‬
"To h i s f a t h e r or t o h i s m o t h e r , to h i s brother or to h i s s i s t e r —
h e s h a l l not c o n t a m i n a t e h i m s e l f to t h e m upon their d e a t h , for
t h e c r o w n of h i s G-d i s upon h i s h e a d . " ( 6 : 7 )
QUESTION: Why is a Kohen, who is also considered holy,

permitted to participate i n the funeral of his parents and close
relatives (Vayikra 21:2) while a nazir is not?
NASSO 47
ANSWER: A Kohen receives his holiness from his family,

more specifically, inheriting it from his father. On the other
hand, the nazir attains his holiness on his own, and it has no
connection to his family. Therefore, the Kohen, whose holiness
derives from his family, may participate i n the funeral of a
family member whereas the nazir may not.
A Kohen Gadol, however, is not permitted to participate i n
the funeral of a family member. Although he obtains his Kohen
status through his family, he becomes Kohen Gadol as a result of
his own efforts and greatness. He does not become a Kohen
Gadol because his father was a Kohen Gadol but because he
excels over all other Kohanim, as it is written: "Vehakohein
hagadol mei'echav" — "The Kohen who is exalted above his
brethren" (Vayikra 21:10).
‫ על הנפש״‬non ‫״וכפר עליו מאשר‬

"And h e s h a l l provide him a t o n e m e n t for having s i n n e d
regarding t h e p e r s o n . " ( 6 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Rashi comments that his sin was that he

abstained from drinking wine while he was a nazir.
Every nazir abstains from wine and is considered holy (6:8);
why is a nazir who becomes impure considered a "sinner" for
the same reason?
ANSWER: A nazir who keeps himself pure throughout the
term of his vow and abstains from wine is considered holy.
However, a nazir who is not careful and becomes impure must
begin a new period of nezirut for thirty days so that his
previous days of nezirut are canceled. Thus, his previous days
of nezirut, during which he abstained from wine, were days of
needless self-imposed deprivation. A person who has caused
himself needless pain has sinned and requires forgiveness.
(‫)כלי יקר‬
‫והקריב א ת קרבנו‬...‫״וזאת תורת הנזיר ביום מ ל א ת ימי נזרו‬

‫וכבשה א ח ת ב ת שנתה תמימה לחסאת״‬...‫־׳‬1‫ל‬
" T h i s s h a l l b e t h e law of t h e Nazirite: On t h e d a y h i s a b s t i n e n c e
i s c o m p l e t e . . . H e s h a l l bring his offering to G-d...one
u n b l e m i s h e d s h e e p in its first y e a r a s a sin-offering." ( 6 : 1 3 - 1 4 )
QUESTION: What sin did the nazir commit so that he needs

to bring a sin-offering?
ANSWER: A nazir takes upon himself three things: 1) not to
drink wine, 2) not to come in contact w i t h a corpse, 3) to let his
hair grow wild.
Wine is a sign of simchah — happiness — and it is
customary to drink wine on joyous occasions. By refraining
from drinking wine, the nazir declares that he has no desire to
participate in the joy of others.
By avoiding contact w i t h a corpse, he is failing to
sympathize w i t h others' sufferings and shunning sad occasions.
Letting his hair grow w i l d implies that he does not care if
people stay away from him, because they do not want to be
involved w i t h a strange looking person. Thus, all three
restrictions involve withdrawal from society.
Such a lifestyle is considered sinful and requires
forgiveness.
‫׳״‬n ‫״כה תברכו א ת בני ישראל אמר להם יברכך‬

" S o s h a l l you b l e s s t h e Children of I s r a e l , s a y i n g to t h e m : 'May
G-d b l e s s y o u . ' " ( 6 : 2 3 - 2 4 )
QUESTION: Before the Kohanim administer the Priestly

Blessing, they recite the blessing, "Who has sanctified us w i t h
His commandments and commanded us to bless His nation of
Israel 'be'ahavah' — ' w i t h love.' " (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach
Chaim 128:11, and Magen Avraham 18.)
Where were the Kohanim commanded to bless w i t h love?
ANSWER: The Priestly Blessing starts w i t h the phrase
"Yevarechecha Hashem veyishmerecha" — "May G-d bless you
NASSO 49
and safeguard you." Since Hashem told the Kohanim "So you
shall bless the Children of Israel," should not the blessing be i n
plural — "yevarechechem" — "Hashem should bless you
(plural)?"
Although the Kohanim are indeed blessing the entire
congregation, they do so in the singular i n order to indicate that
G-d desires to bless the Jews with the unity that results when
love prevails. Thus, i n the berachah, the Kohen is announcing his
fulfillment of Hashem's command to bless K'lal Yisrael
"be'ahavah" — "with love."
(‫ תורת חיים‬- ‫)טעמי המנהגים‬
* * *
The word "ahavah" has the numerical value of
thirteen, which is also the numerical value of "echad" —
"one." The Kohanim were commanded to bless the Jewish
people "be'ahavah" that they be united as one.
* * *
Alternatively, the word "be'ahava" (‫ )באהבה‬has the

numerical value of fifteen. In the Priestly Blessing, from the
word "yevarechecha" until the word "shalom," there are a total of
fifteen words. Thus, the Kohanim are referring to the command
to bless the Jewish people "be'ahavah" — with the fifteen-word
Priestly Blessing which Hashem lovingly gives his people
Israel.
(‫)תולדות אהרן‬
‫״דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו א ת בני ישראל אמור להם״‬
" S p e a k to A h a r o n a n d h i s s o n s , s a y i n g : ' S o y o u s h a l l b l e s s t h e
Children of I s r a e l ; s a y i n g to t h e m . . . ' " ( 6 : 2 3 )
QUESTION: Does not the word "koh" appear superfluous?

The text could have said Barechu et B'nei Yisrael, emor lahem" —
"Bless the Children of Israel, saying to them."
ANSWER: The Midrash Rabbah (Bereishit 43:11) states three
opinions regarding our meriting of the Priestly Blessing, all
based on the word "koh."
50 V E D I B A R T A B A M — A N D Y O U S H A L L SPEAK OF T H E M
1) It was merited through the Patriarch Avraham, to whom

Hashem said, "Koh yiheyeh zarecha" — "So w i l l be your
children" (Bereishit 15:5).
2) It was merited through the patriarch Yitzchak, of whom
it is said, "Ve'ani vehana'ar neilchah ad koh" — " I and the lad w i l l
go yonder" (Bereishit 22:5).
3) It was merited through Yaakov, as the pasuk says, "Koh
tomar leveit Ya'akov" — "So shall you say to the house of
Yaakov" (Shemot 19:3).
* * *
QUESTION: What attribute must one emulate to be worthy

of receiving this blessing i n contemporary times?
ANSWER: Each of the aforementioned views emphasizes a
unique aspect of Jewish identity and all three express the
different qualities necessary to be worthy of the Priestly
Blessing.
1) When Avraham complained that he was childless,
Hashem told him, "Gaze toward the heavens and count the
stars koh yiheyeh zarecha — so shall be your children." By
comparing the Jewish people to the stars of heaven, Hashem
was conveying a lesson i n Ahavat Yisrael.
A star looks tiny from the earth, but only because it is far
away. If it were possible to get close enough, one would see its
immense size. Likewise, no Jew should ever be rejected; though
he may appear to be insignificant, when one comes "closer" to
him, that is, knows him better, one recognizes his true potential
and stature.
2) Regarding the Akeidah, the pasuk: "Ve'ani vehana'ar
neilchah ad koh" — " A n d I and the lad w i l l go yonder" —
conveys the dedication of our forefathers. Not only was the
aged Avraham prepared to prove his devotion to Hashem, but
he also trained his child to do the same. They both went
happily to the Akeidah because it would be an opportunity to
accomplish a Kiddush Hashem — sanctification of Hashem's
name.
NASSO 51
3) The pasuk "Koh tomar leveit Ya'akov" — "So shall you say
to the house of Yaakov" (Shemot 19:3) — is Hashem's
instruction to Moshe prior to the giving of the Torah. It is a
message to the women to set the atmosphere i n their homes so
that their husbands and children dedicate their time to Torah
study and see that a Torah atmosphere prevails.
Thus, when a Jew practices Ahavat Yisrael, conducts himself
so that his behavior results i n a Kiddush Hashem, and studies
Torah while conducting his home life i n the spirit of Torah, he
w i l l merit the Priestly Blessing to the fullest measure.
‫״דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו א ת בני ישראל״‬

" S p e a k to A h a r o n a n d h i s s o n s , s a y i n g : ' S o s h a l l y o u b l e s s t h e
Children of I s r a e l . ' 6 : 2 3 ) ‫״‬ )
QUESTION: According to halachah (Orach Chaim 128:5),

when the Kohen recites the Priestly Blessing he must remove his
shoes. Why?
ANSWER: A t the time of the miracle of the burning bush,
Hashem commanded Moshe, "Do not approach here; remove
your shoes from your feet, for the place upon which you stand
is holy ground" (Shemot 3:5). The ground on which the Kohanim
stand when they bless the Jewish people is also holy and thus
they must remove their shoes.
J
(‫)לבוש סי׳ קכ״וז‬
When Hashem instructed Moshe to remove his shoes, he

prefaced the command w i t h the words, "Al tikrav halom" —
"Do not approach here." The word "halom" — "to here"
— has the numerical value of 75, which is the same numerical
value as the word "Kohen" . Thus, the pasuk is a message to
the Kohanim: "Al tikrav" — "do not approach" — "halom, shal
ne'alecha" — "Kohen, remove your shoes."
(‫ לקוטים‬,‫)חנוכת התורה‬
* * *
Alternatively, according to the Gemara (Sotah 40a) if a

Kohen's shoelace breaks and he sits down i n the middle of the
blessing to fix it, people may suspect him of stopping i n the
middle of the blessing because he is a disqualified Kohen, i.e.

the son of a woman forbidden to marry a Kohen. Therefore, the
Rabbis forbade Kohanim to wear shoes during the priestly
blessing (even without laces).
‫״דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו א ת בני ישראל״‬

" S p e a k to A h a r o n a n d h i s s o n s , s a y i n g : ' S o s h a l l y o u b l e s s t h e
C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l . ' 6 : 2 3 ) ‫״‬ )
QUESTION: According to halachah (Orach Chaim 128:5)

when the Kohen recites the Priestly Blessing he must raise his
hands and stretch them out. What is the significance of this?
ANSWER: Many people are accustomed to give blessings
generously, and it is indeed a benevolent practice. For example,
we bless a sick person, "May you have a speedy recovery," and
we bless a person i n financial straits w i t h hatzlachah i n his
livelihood.
With this halachah our Sages are imparting a very important
lesson; while giving blessings is laudable, it is extremely
important that we also "raise our hands" and "stretch them
out" — that we actually do something materialistic to help the
person in need.
‫״יברכך ה׳ וישמרך״‬
" M a y G-d b l e s s y o u a n d s a f e g u a r d y o u . " ( 6 : 2 4 )
QUESTION: According to the Midrash Rabbah (11:13) "May

G-d bless you," means, w i t h affluence, "and safeguard you"
means from mazikim — destructive people.
What is the connection between these two blessings?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sotah 38a) says that the Kohanim
must deliver the Priestly Blessing i n a loud voice. This seems to
contradict King Shlomo's statement, "He that blesses his friend
w i t h a loud voice...it shall be counted a curse to h i m " (Proverbs
27:14). Offering excessive praise may tempt thieves or
government agencies to confiscate a person's wealth. As a
NASSO 53
matter of fact, according to the Midrash Rabbah (20:21), Bilaam,

who hated the Jewish people, blessed them i n a loud voice. As
the pasuk says, "vayisa meshalo vayomar" — "he declaimed his
parable and said" (23:18).
How can the words of the wisest of all men be reconciled
w i t h the halachic requirement that the Kohanim give the blessing
w i t h a loud voice?
A person cannot control the actions of another. Therefore,
one who blesses another in a loud voice cannot predict the
consequences. The blessing may evoke the evil eye (ayin hara) of
others or tempt them to steal. Hence, King Shlomo advises
that a good friend should give his blessing i n a quiet tone of
voice.
When the Kohanim delivered the Priestly Blessing, it was
not they who were actually blessing, but "ve'Ani avaracheim" —
"I [i.e., Hashem] w i l l bless them" (see Rashi). Therefore, despite
the requirement to give the blessing w i t h a loud voice, they
assured the Jewish people that there was no need to fear the
problem identified by King Shlomo. When Hashem blesses one
w i t h affluence, as Ruler of the entire world, He can assure us
that no mazikim — destructive people — w i l l cause any
damage.
(‫)שמע שלמה‬
‫״ישא ה׳ פניו אליך״‬

"May G-d lift H i s c o u n t e n a n c e t o y o u . " (6:26)
QUESTION: The Gemara (Berachot 20b) informs us that the

angels said to Hashem, "Isn't it written i n Your Torah, '[G-d]
does not lift His countenance' [i.e., show favoritism] (Devarim
10:17). So w h y do You lift Your countenance to the Jews?"
Hashem answered, " I wrote i n the Torah 've'achalta vesavata
u'veirachta' — 'and you shall eat and be satisfied [i.e., eat a sig¬
nificant amount] and bless your G-d' (ibid. 8:10). Nevertheless,
the Jews are strict w i t h themselves to bless Me even for only the
volume of an olive or an egg. Therefore, they deserve the lifting
of M y countenance to them."
The words of the Gemara, "they are strict with themselves"

seem superfluous. Could it not have just said, "How can I not
lift M y countenance to them if they bless me even after eating a
small amount of food?"
ANSWER: Since, i n regard, to ma'asar ani — the tithe given
to the poor — the Torah says, "ve'achlu bisharecha vesavei'u" —
"they shall eat i n your cities and be satisfied" (Devarim 26:12),
the Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:5) declares, "You should give a poor man
at least half a kav (approximately two-thirds of a quart) of
wheat, and one kav (approximately one and one-third quart) of
barley."
Therefore, Hashem says, "The concept of being 'sava' —
'satisfied' — is emphasized both i n regard to blessing Me after
eating, and i n regard to tithing. However, 'on themselves' they
are very stringent and bless Me even when they only have
eaten a portion the size of an olive or an egg, although they
generously give enough tithe to make the poor satisfied. Thus
they deserve the lifting of M y countenance to them."
‫״וישם לך שלם״‬
"And e s t a b l i s h p e a c e for y o u . " ( 6 : 2 6 )
QUESTION: When the Kohanim conclude their blessing, it is

customary for people to thank them by saying "yasher ko'ach."
It is a mitzvah for them to bless the people. Why do we say
to them "yasher ko'ach" when they are commanded to do so?
ANSWER: When a Kohen extends the blessings, he is indeed
fulfilling a mitzvah. However, he is at liberty to go to any shul
he wants and recite the blessing there. The people of the shul
which he selected are grateful to him for coming, and for this
they say "yasher ko'ach."
(‫ ועי׳ ילקוט יוסף‬,‫)אוצר כל מנהגי ישרון‬
NASSO 55
‫״ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל״‬

" L e t t h e m p l a c e My n a m e upon t h e Children of I s r a e l . " ( 6 : 2 7 )
QUESTION: How do the Kohanim place Hashem's name

upon the Jewish people?
ANSWER: The holy name of Hashem, the Tetragrammaton,
is spelled The Kohanim stretch out their hands fully
and recite the Priestly Blessing consisting of 15 words. The
numerical equivalent of is 15. A fully stretched out hand
looks like a and the five openings between the ten fingers of
both hands (see Shulchan Aruch Harav 128:20) represent the ‫ ״‬n ‫ ״‬,
whose numerical value is 5.
Thus, by reciting the fifteen words of the Priestly
Blessing w i t h outstretched hands and five openings between
the fingers , the Kohanim are placing Hashem's holy name on
the people of Israel.
‫עגלה על שני הנשאים״‬...‫שש עגלות צב‬...‫״ויביאו את קרבנם‬

"They brought their offering...six c o v e r e d w a g o n s . . . a w a g o n for
e a c h two l e a d e r s . " ( 7 : 3 )
QUESTION: Everyone contributed generously for the

Mishkan (see Shemot 36:7); w h y did the nesi'im pay for the
wagons i n pairs, instead of each donating one?
ANSWER: The fact that each nasi brought his own offering
was likely to make them appear disunited, so to avoid a false
appearance they shared the expense of the wagons.
With this act they thus hoped to merit Hashem's Divine
presence i n their midst, as the pasuk states, "He [Hashem]
became King of Yeshurin [Israel] when the leaders were
united" (Devarim 33:5).
(‫)ספורנו‬
* * *
Alternatively, it is very important to use everything to its
fullest potential, and if six wagons sufficed to do the work,
extra wagons would have been a waste. Not fully utilizing
something is equivalent to waste, and even for holy purposes,

overspending is prohibited.
This applies to all facets of one's life. For example, Hashem
has given man a day consisting of twenty-four hours. Even
when one properly utilizes twenty-three hours and fifty-nine
minutes for "good purposes," he must take care that the final
minute of the day should also not go to waste.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חכ״וז‬
‫״ולבני קהת לא נתן כי עבדת הקדש עלהם בכתף ישאו״‬

"And t o t h e s o n s of K e h a t h e did not g i v e ; s i n c e t h e s a c r e d
service w a s upon t h e m , they carried on their shoulder." (7:9)
QUESTION: What would have been so terrible if wagons

had been given to the sons of Kehat to facilitate carrying the
holy Ark?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sotah 35a) says that it only
appeared that the Kohatites were carrying the Ark, but in
reality the A r k "nosei et nosav" — "carried its bearers."
Consequently, while it may have been proper for the A r k to
carry the prominent members of the Kohatite family, to carry
the wagons and the animals which pulled them would not have
been dignified.
(‫)חפץ חיים עה״ת‬
‫״נשיא אחד ליום נשיא אחד ליום יקריבו את קו־בנם״‬

" O n e l e a d e r e a c h d a y , o n e l e a d e r e a c h d a y s h a l l t h e y bring
their o f f e r i n g . " ( 7 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: There is a Midrash pli'ah (wondrous Midrash),

which says that "from here it is derived that the offerings of the
nesi'im were also brought on Shabbat." What i n this pasuk
indicates that?
ANSWER: The dedication of the altar started on the first
day of the month of Nissan, which that year happened to be a
Sunday (see Shabbat 87b). In all, there were a total of twelve
nesi'im bringing offerings. Should they not have been permitted
to bring their offerings on Shabbat, then the twelve offerings
NASSO 57
would have extended over two weeks, and on every weekday

of the first week there would be a different nasi offering for a
total of six, and the same for every weekday of the following
week. Thus, over the two-week period, two nesi'im would bring
offerings on the two Sundays, two on the two Mondays etc.
However, with offerings occurring on Shabbat, the
dedication would be completed i n twelve days. Thus, i n the
first week seven nesi'im would bring their offerings with the
remaining five offering on the first five days of the second
week, and Friday and Shabbat would be the only days to fall
once during this period and thus only one nasi would bring an
offering on these days.
Carefully analyzing our pasuk, the Midrash finds a difficulty
in the fact that the words "nasi echad layom" — "one nasi per
day" — are repeated. Therefore, the Midrash concludes that it is
not a redundancy, but intentionally phrased to teach us that on
two of the days (Friday and Shabbat) only one nasi offered, while
two nesi'im offered on all the other days which all fell twice
during the 12-day period. Hence, we can conclude that the
offerings were also brought on Shabbat, since one Shabbat
occurred during the twelve-day period.
(‫)פנינים יקרים‬
‫ביום‬...‫ביום השני‬...‫״ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון את קרבנו‬

‫״‬...‫השלישי‬
" T h e o n e w h o brought h i s offering on t h e first day...on t h e
s e c o n d day...on t h e third d a y . . . . " ( 7 : 1 2 , 1 8 , 2 4 )
QUESTION: Every day from Rosh Chodesh through the

twelfth of Nissan, the section is read describing the offering
brought by the nasi on that day (see Ba'eir Heitav, Orach Chaim
629:6), followed by a mystical prayer, "Yehi Ratzon" — "May it
be Your will...." In it we say, "If I , Your servant, am of the tribe
of (name of the tribe of that day) the Torah section of whose
nasi I have recited today, then may all the 'holy sparks' and all
the 'holy lights' which are contained in this tribe shine upon
How is it possible that this "Yehi Ratzon" is said every day,

even by a Kohen or a Levi or one who can trace his genealogy to
a particular tribe?
ANSWER: The uniqueness of a Jewish person is reflected i n
his neshamah — soul — which is truly a part of Hashem above
(see Tanya ch. 2). Hashem sent down 600,000 souls to this world
(ibid. ch. 37), and each one has a mission to accomplish. Until
the soul completely accomplishes its task, sparks of the soul are
reincarnated in newly born people.
Moreover, i n addition to gilgul — transmigration — in
which the soul is attached to a body and dominated by it, there
is also ibur neshamot — impregnation of souls — in which a
spark of the soul of a tzaddik is "impregnated" in another soul
and serves as an additional spiritual charge for the soul of the
recipient (see Tanya 14).
Consequently, although the soul originated i n a person
who was a member of a particular tribe, it is possible that now
this soul is i n a person of another tribe, or has the soul of
another person "impregnated" i n it. Hence, this prayer, which
is on behalf of the soul of the Jew, can be said by every
individual, even a Kohen or Levi, or anyone who knows his
tribal affiliation.
(21 ‫)לקוטי שיחות חל״ב ע׳‬
... ‫״ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון את קרבנו נחשון ב! עמינדב‬

‫״‬...‫וקרבנו‬
"The o n e w h o brought h i s offering o n t h e first d a y w a s
N a c h s h o n s o n of A m i n a d a v . . . a n d h i s offering...." ( 7 : 1 2 - 1 3 )
QUESTION: Why is it written "vekarbano" — "and his

offering" — regarding Nachshon ben Aminadav?
ANSWER: According to the Midrash (see Rashi 7:19), it was
Netaneil ben Tzu'ar who suggested that all the nesi'im bring
offerings. Anyone who encourages others to do good deeds
receives a reward for the encouragement and also shares the
merit of the deeds themselves.
NASSO 59
Therefore, although Nachshon ben Aminadav brought his

offering first, it is written "and his offering" to indicate that the
merit was not entirely his, but shared w i t h Netanel.
Alternatively, to be the first to bring an offering was a great

honor which might have made him conceited. The Torah wrote
the extra — "and his offering" — to indicate that being first
had no ill effect on him; on the contrary, he considered himself
as someone who followed others.
(‫)דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות‬
‫ אילם חמשה עתוד״ם חמשה‬... ‫״פר אחד איל אחד כבש אחד‬
‫כבשים בני שנה חמשה״‬
" O n e y o u n g bull, o n e r a m , o n e s h e e p ... five r a m s , five he-
g o a t s , five s h e e p . " ( 7 : 1 5 , 1 7 )
QUESTION: Why i n the set of olot — burnt-offerings — did

they bring only one of each animal?
ANSWER: The Nesi'im desired to include z'chut avot — the
merit of each of the Patriarchs — in their offerings. The bull rep¬
resented Avraham as stated "Avraham ran to the cattle — bulls"
(Bereishit 18:7). The ram represents Yitzchak in whose stead a ram
was offered at the Akeidah. The sheep corresponds to Yaakov, as
the verse states "Yaakov segregated the lambs (Ibid. 30:40).
Incidentally, the words "Avraham, Yitzchak v'Yaakov"
numerically add up to 644, as does par, ayil,
keves, (im hakolel — counting the three words as one).
(‫)בעל הטורים‬
QUESTION: Why in the set of shelamim — peace-offering —

were there five of each animal?
ANSWER: Avraham had Yitzchak at the age of 100 and
Yitzchak was 60 when Yaakov was born. Since Avraham died at
the age of 175, there was a 15 year period when all the three
Patriarchs were alive together. The five rams, five goats and five
sheep correspond to those 15 years. Since the world stands on
three pillars, Torah, Avodah and Gemilut Chassadim, and each of

the Patriarchs is the prototype of one of these, during those 15
years the foundations of the world were in there fullest strength.
(101 ‫ ולקו׳׳ש חל״ה ע׳‬,‫)פני דוד להחיד״א ועי׳ מדבר קדמות להחיד״א בשם ר״י החסיד‬
‫הקריב את קרבנו״‬...‫״ביום השני הקריב נתנאל בן צוער‬

" O n t h e s e c o n d d a y N e t h a n e i l s o n of Tzuar o f f e r e d ... h e
brought h i s o f f e r i n g . " ( 7 : 1 8 - 1 9 )
QUESTION: Why are the words "hikriv et karbano" — "he

brought his offering" — said only for Netaneil ben Tzu'ar?
ANSWER: It was Netaneil ben Tzu'ar who suggested that all
the nesi'im bring offerings. Since he was the one who proposed it,
he shared in the merit of the offerings brought each day.
However, on the second day, when Netaneil ben Tzu'ar brought
his own offering, the Torah stresses that "he brought his offering"
— he received full credit for the offering and the idea.
(‫)כתב סופר‬
‫״‬....‫״ביום השביעי נשיא לבני אפרים‬

" O n t h e s e v e n t h day, t h e l e a d e r of t h e c h i l d r e n of E p h r a i m . . . "
(7:48)
QUESTION: Why did the leader of the tribe of Ephraim

bring his offering on the seventh day — Shabbat?
ANSWER: When Yosef came to Egypt he was sold as a
slave into the house of Potifar. The Torah relates that one day
he came home to do his work, and Potifar's wife urged him to
commit a transgression. Yosef became very frightened and ran
away. According to the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 146), it was
Shabbat and he came home to do "his work," which was to
study and review the Torah his father taught him.
According to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 43b) when one resists
and overpowers evil, it is equivalent to offering a sacrifice.
Since Yosef "offered" a sacrifice on Shabbat, Hashem rewarded
him that his descendent — the head of his son's tribe — would
bring sacrifices for the dedication of the altar on Shabbat.
(‫)הדרש והעיון‬
NASSO 61
Alternatively, according to Midrash Rabbah (14:2), Yosef

observed the Shabbat [in Egypt] before it was given. This is
inferred from the pasuk, "Have the meat slaughtered vehachein
— and prepare i t " (Bereishit 43:16). The word "hachein" is
primarily used to express preparation for Shabbat, as may be
inferred from the pasuk, "It shall be on that the sixth day,
veheichinu — when they prepare" (Shemot 16:5). Hashem,
therefore, said to him, "Yosef, you observed the Shabbat before
the Torah was given; I promise I shall repay your grandson by
allowing him to present his offering on Shabbat. Although an
individual is otherwise forbidden to do so, I w i l l accept his
offering favorably."
Is it not puzzling that the reward for Yosef's Shabbat

observance would be his son's desecration of the Shabbat?
Hashem gave us the Shabbat and commanded us to sanctify
it. This is accomplished by refraining from all the forbidden
labors, including bringing an offering. On the other hand, there
are sacrifices which we are commanded to offer specifically on
Shabbat. Obviously, an offering prescribed by Hashem is no
Shabbat desecration, but a means to enhance the holiness of
Shabbat.
Yosef's reward was that, inspite of the usually forbidden
status of individual sacrifices offered on Shabbat, by Divine
provision, his grandson's offering on Shabbat would not be
treated as a usual individual sacrifice, but as a required Shabbat
sacrifice through which the holiness of that Shabbat would be
elevated and enhanced.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חכ״ג‬
‫״‬....‫ נ ש י א ל ב נ י דן‬. . . ‫״ ב י ו ם ה ע ש י ר י‬
" O n t h e t e n t h d a y , t h e l e a d e r of t h e c h i l d r e n of D a n . . . . 7 : 6 6 ) ‫״‬ )
QUESTION: Why was the tenth day of Nissan set aside for
the tribe of Dan?
ANSWER: When Yaakov blessed his children, he associated
the power of earthly judgment w i t h the tribe of Dan saying,
"Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel"
(Bereishit 49:16).
The tenth of Nissan always occurs on the same day of the

week as the first day of Rosh Hashanah, when Hashem judges
his people. Therefore the prince of the tribe associated w i t h
earthly judgment brings his offering on a day which is
associated w i t h Divine judgment.
‫״זאת חנכת המזבח ביום המשח אתו מאת נשיאי ישראל קערת‬
‫כסף שתים עשרה מזרקי כסף שנים עשר כפות זהב שתים עשרה‬
‫כפות זהב שתים עשרה מלאת קסרת״‬
" T h i s w a s t h e d e d i c a t i o n of t h e a l t a r o n t h e d a y it w a s a n o i n t e d
from t h e p r i n c e s of I s r a e l : t w e l v e s i l v e r b o w l s , t w e l v e s i l v e r
b a s i n s . Twelve gold l a d l e s , filled with i n c e n s e . " ( 7 : 8 4 , 8 6 )
QUESTION: Each nasi brought a gold ladle filled w i t h

incense and a silver bowl and basin, both filled w i t h fine flour
mixed w i t h oil (7:13). Why does the verse giving the tallies of
bowls, basins, and ladles state that the ladles were full of
incense while it omits that the bowls and basins were filled
w i t h flour and oil?
ANSWER: According to the Midrash Rabbah (12:21), all the
nesi'im came to the Mishkan w i t h their offerings on Rosh Chodesh
Nissan, the first day of the dedication. Afterwards, they were
told that "nasi echad layom" — only one nasi per day should
present his offering.
When a meal-offering or incense is put into a holy utensil, it
must be offered on that day. If it is left i n the utensil overnight,
it becomes disqualified for further use (see Me'ilah 9a, Shavuot
11a, Tosafot). If so, how was it possible for the nesi'im to bring
the incense and flour mixed w i t h oil on Rosh Chodesh and yet
offer it on a subsequent day?
We answer this question by citing two rules: 1) The
different spices of the incense needed to be ground and then
mixed together within the Sanctuary (Rambam, K'lei Hamikdash
2:6).
2) Only if the flour is together w i t h the oil i n the same
utensil must it be offered immediately and not left overnight.
NASSO 63
Hence, on Rosh Chodesh each nasi brought a gold ladle filled

with unground and unmixed incense. Consequently, although it
was in the ladle, it did not become disqualified by staying
overnight. However, the flour and oil were not brought together
in the bowl because the mixture would become disqualified if not
offered on the same day. Therefore, they were brought separately
and only on the day which was designated for the nasi to bring
his offering did he bring the flour mixed with oil for a meal-
offering i n the silver bowls and basins.
The tally i n the Torah is for all the offerings which were
brought on Rosh Chodesh "on the day it was anointed." On that
day they all brought ladles containing unground incense, and
silver bowls and basins which were not filled at that time with
fine flour mixed with oil.
(‫ ועי׳ כלי חמדה‬,‫)פרדס יוסף החדש‬
‫זאת חנכת המזבח אחרי‬...‫״זאת חנכת המזבח ביום המשח אתו‬

‫המשח אתו״‬
" T h i s w a s t h e d e d i c a t i o n of t h e altar, o n t h e d a y it w a s
anointed...This w a s t h e d e d i c a t i o n of t h e altar a f t e r it w a s
anointed." (7:84, 88)
QUESTION: Why does it say "on the day it was anointed"

in the first pasuk and "after it was anointed" four pesukim later?
ANSWER: It is common for people to cherish something
new. As time passes, however, the novelty often proves short¬
lived. For example, a boy preparing for his Bar Mitzvah often
begins putting on his tefillin with excitement and lofty
intentions. As he grows older, unfortunately, it becomes a daily
routine, and even while wearing his tefillin he gives them little
attention.
On the day the altar was anointed, everybody was i n high
spirits. The Torah is telling us that not only were they i n great
spirits "on the day the altar was anointed," but that even "after
it was anointed," it d i d not lose its newness, but was cherished
w i t h the same love and awe as on the first day.
BEHAALOTECHA ‫בהעלותך ־‬
‫״בהעלתך את הנדת״‬
" W h e n y o u kindle t h e l a m p s . . . . " ( 8 : 2 )
QUESTION: Rashi explains that the word "beha'alotecha"

(literally "when you step up") is used because there was a
ma'aleh — step — i n front of the menorah on which the Kohen
stood as he prepared the wicks and oil of the menorah.
The height of the menorah was only three amot,
approximately five feet; w h y did Aharon need to stand on a
step i n order to reach the top of the menorah?
ANSWER: Aharon, as Kohen Gadol, wore the tzitz — head-
plate — and according to halachah it was forbidden for the
Kohen Gadol to raise his hands above it (Rambam, Nesi'at
Kapayim 14:9). It was therefore necessary to have steps in front
of the menorah so that when the Kohen Gadol would kindle the
lights he would be able to do so without lifting his hands above
the permitted height.
(‫)תפארת יהונתן‬
‫״בהעלתך את הנדת״‬
" W h e n y o u kindle t h e l a m p s . . . . " ( 8 : 2 )
QUESTION: Rashi writes that the Kohen stood on a step

"u'meitiv" — cleaned out the ashes and prepared wicks and oil
for the kindling of the menorah. Why doesn't he say "u'madlik"
— "and kindled"?
ANSWER: According to halachah, "Hadlakah kesheirah bezar"
— "even a non-Kohen, may kindle the lamps, if the menorah was
brought outside" (Rambam, Be'at Hamikdash 9:7). However,
preparing the wicks of the menorah must be performed only by
BEHA'ALOTECHA 65
a Kohen. Thus, Rashi uses the expression "meitiv" — "prepared"

— without saying that the Kohen kindled the lamps.
(‫)ר׳ אברהם מרדכי זצ״ל מגור‬
* * *
King Shlomo says, "The soul of man is a candle of G-d
(Proverbs 20:27). Every Jew must see to it that his candle shines
brightly and also assure that another Jew's candle is lit. This is
accomplished by studying Torah, doing mitzvot, and inspiring
others to do likewise.
"Hadlakah kesheirah bezar" — every Jew must kindle the
flame of his neshamah as well as the neshamah of another Jew but
only a "kohen" — a true Jewish leader — is qualified to do
"hatavah" — determine the authentic path of the Torah.
(317 ‫)לקוטי שיחות חייב ע׳‬
‫״אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות״‬

"Toward t h e f a c e of t h e menorah shall the seven lamps c a s t
light." ( 8 : 2 )
QUESTION: There is a "wondrous Midrash" that states i n

connection to this pasuk "Peitach devarecha ya'ir" — "Your
opening words illuminate" (Psalms 119:130).
What is the meaning of this Midrash?
ANSWER: The menorah had seven branches, nine flowers,
eleven knobs, and twenty-two cups, and according to the Gemara
(Menachot 28b) it was eighteen tefachim (handbreadths) tall.
The Midrash by quoting the pasuk "your opening words
illuminate" is alluding that the "opening words," i.e. the first
pasuk of each of the five chumashim, have a connection to a part
of the menorah.
The first pasuk of Bereishit contains seven words,
corresponding to the seven branches of the menorah. The first
pasuk of Shemot contains eleven words, which correspond to the
eleven knobs of the menorah. The first pasuk of Vayikra has nine
words, corresponding to the nine flowers. The first pasuk of
Bamidbar has seventeen words, and counting the entire pasuk as
one (known i n gematria as "im hakolel"), corresponds to the
height of the menorah. The first pasuk of Devarim has twenty-two

words for the twenty-two cups of the menorah.
(‫)אדרת אליהו והגהות הגר״י בכרך פסחים ו׳ ע׳׳ב‬
Alternatively, though the Gemara (Menachot 28b) says that

the menorah was eighteen tefachim tall, it was actually only
somewhat over seventeen. Thus the first pasuk of Bamidbar has
one word for each full tefach of the menorah's height.
(‫)תורת העולה להרמ״א ח״א פט״ז‬
Alternatively, the first letters of the opening pasuk of each of

the five chumashim add up to 21,
which is also the numerical value of Hashem's holy name
‫ה״‬-‫י‬-‫ה‬-‫ " — ״א‬I shall be" (see Shemot 3:14).
This alludes that Torah, which is His divine and infinite
wisdom, "shall be" the Eternal illuminating power.
‫״ויעש כן אהר! אל מול פני המנורה העלה נרתיה כאשר צוה ה׳ את‬
‫משה״‬
"And A h a r o n did s o ; t o w a r d t h e f a c e of t h e menorah h e kindled
its l a m p s , a s G-d h a d c o m m a n d e d M o s h e . " (8:3)
QUESTION: Rashi explains that the Torah emphasizes that

"Aharon did so" to declare Aharon's praise — "shelo shinah" —
that he did not act differently.
Would anyone suspect that Aharon would deviate from
Hashem's command?
ANSWER: Aharon, as Kohen Gadol, kindled the menorah the
entire 40 years that the Mishkan was in the wilderness. A person
naturally does something the first time w i t h more dedication
and excitement than after he has done it for several years. In his
praise, the Torah says that Aharon did not change: Even after
kindling the menorah for many years, he continued to do so
w i t h the same dedication, fervor, and excitement as the first
time.
(‫)לקוטי בתר לקוטי‬
BEHA'ALOTECHA 67
Alternatively, Aharon was an "oheiv shalom verodeif shalom"

— "lover of peace and pursuer of peace" (Pirkei Avot 1:12) —
and was therefore loved by every Jew. A n ordinary citizen is
often affable and involved with people and their needs.
However, a person who is appointed to a high office may
become conceited and distant.
Aharon's greatness is that even when he became Kohen
Gadol, holding the second highest position i n the Jewish
community, "lo shinah" — he did not change toward his fellow
man — he still remained the same "oheiv shalom verodeif shalom"
— "lover and pursuer of peace."
‫״ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במעדו״‬

" T h e Children of I s r a e l s h a l l m a k e t h e P e s a c h - o f f e r i n g in its
appointed time." (9:2)
QUESTION: Rashi writes that this chapter should have

been placed at the beginning of Chumash Bamidbar. However, it
was put here because it is a disgrace for the Jewish people that
throughout the 40 years in the wilderness they offered only one
Pesach-offering.
The bringing of Pesach-offering is contingent upon entering
Eretz Yisrael (see Shemot 12:25, Rashi), and the one offered i n the
wilderness was by special command of Hashem. How was it a
disgrace to not offer additional ones?
ANSWER: When Hashem commanded the Jews to prepare a
Pesach-offering, some people were defiled and unable to
participate. They were eager to be included and came to Moshe
complaining: "Lamah nigara" — "Why should we be withheld"
(lit. "diminished")" from participating in the sacrifice? (9:7)
Moshe brought their plea before Hashem, and He gave a special
dispensation. A second opportunity one month later would be
given to those unable to participate in the first Pesach-offering.
The Jews of Egypt were spared thanks to the blood of the
Pesach-offering, which they smeared on their doorposts.
Moreover, the Pesach-offering was instituted to commemorate
the redemption from Egyptian bondage (Shemot 12:13, 27).
Consequently, though Hashem only ordered one Pesach-
offering to be prepared during the 40 years, it is a disgrace that

the Jewish people did not come on their own w i t h a heart¬
rending plea, "Though we are not yet i n Eretz Yisrael, we want
to offer the Pesach-offering to Hashem; w h y should we be
withheld?!"
* * *
Alternatively, when the Jews left Egypt, they were slated to
arrive i n Eretz Yisrael after only a brief sojourn in the
wilderness. unfortunately, they were punished w i t h 40 years i n
the wilderness for the incident of the spies. So it is true that
except for this one Pesach-offering which Hashem commanded,
the mitzvah was to commence after their entry into Eretz Yisrael.
The parshah, however, brings out the disgrace of the Jewish
people that their behavior prevented them from bringing a
Pesach-offering for forty years until arriving i n Eretz Yisrael.
(‫)מס׳ קידושין ל״ז ע״ב תח־״ה הואיל‬
‫״דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר איש איש כי יהיה • מ א לנפש או בדרך‬

‫ועשה פסח לה׳״‬...‫רחקה לכם‬
" S p e a k to t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l , s a y i n g ; 'If a n y m a n will
b e c o m e d e f i l e d by a c o r p s e or o n a d i s t a n t j o u r n e y . . . h e s h a l l
m a k e t h e P e s a c h - o f f e r i n g t o G-d [on Pesach Sheini].'" (9:10)
QUESTION: To define "distant," the Gemara (Pesachim 93b)

offers two opinions. Rabbi Akiva maintains that it refers to
being from Modi'im and beyond (a suburb fifteen mil,
approximately nine miles from Jerusalem, less than half-a-day's
walk). Rabbi Eliezer says even if a person is from the threshold
of the Sanctuary and beyond, he is considered as being
distantly removed.
Why would being outside Modi'im, not to mention being
near the Beit Hamikdash and just outside the threshold, place a
person in the category of "far away"?
ANSWER: Our sages are talking of spiritual, not geographic
distance.
BEHA'ALOTECHA 69
The name " M o d i ' i m " comes from the word "madah" —
knowledge and learning. Rabbi Akiva felt that as long as a Jew
is outside of "Modi'im" — lacking knowledge of Torah and the
principles of Judaism — he is far removed from Hashem and
his brethren, the Jewish people. Knowledge has always been
the cornerstone of our religion, and learning is essential to our
way of life. Bitter experience has taught us that wherever
ignorance abides, Jewish loyalties and values decline.
Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree w i t h Rabbi Akiva, but
speaks of another Jew who is distant despite his knowledge. He
has learned and knows much, but has become complacent and
indifferent. While he may be a Yeshivah graduate,
unfortunately, he is currently unobservant and does not attend
a synagogue or arrange a Jewish education for his children.
This person, thus, knows of the holiness of the Beit Hamikdash,
but he is "outside the threshold" — he keeps his distance and
refuses to come in.
The two cases are both "distant," but neither is without
hope. Pesach Sheini teaches that even one who is outside of
"Modi'im" — who lacks knowledge of our golden heritage, or
who has become alienated and refuses to step over the
threshold and come i n — is welcome to start studying or return
to Yiddishkeit and w i l l happily be received as an honored and
full-fledged member of our people.
(‫)הרב דוב ארי׳ דיל בערזאן עם הוספות‬
‫ ועשה פסח‬... ‫״איש איש כי יהיה • מ א לנפש או בדרך רחקה לכם‬

‫״‬...‫לה׳ בחדש השני בארבעה עשה יום‬
"If a m a n will b e c o m e d e f i l e d by a c o r p s e or o n a d i s t a n t
j o u r n e y ... h e s h a l l m a k e a P e s a c h - o f f e r i n g to G-d in t h e
s e c o n d month, on the fourteenth day." (9:10-11)
QUESTION: What is the message of Pesach Sheini for all

generations?
ANSWER: The lesson derived from the second opportunity
given to those who were unable to participate i n the first
Pesach-offering is as follows: Each and every Jew, young and
old, should always strive to perform Hashem's will. If there is
some impediment to performing a mitzvah at the first

opportunity, we are always given a second chance. It is, i n fact,
never too late to make up something missed.
Pesach Sheini, thus, teaches "Es iz nita kein farfalen" —
"Nothing is ever lost" — i.e. if one misses the first opportunity,
it is not lost forever; there is always another chance. Even if one
was "tamei" — "ritually impure" — or "bederech rechoka" — "far
away" — and even i n a case of lachem — deliberate impurity or
alienation — nonetheless one can correct it.
(‫)היום יום י״ד אייר‬
* * *
QUESTION: Teshuvah is one of the fundamental mitzvot of

the Torah. Why is it emphasized specifically in the mitzvah of
Pesach Sheini?
ANSWER: The prophet (see Ezekiel 16) considers the
emancipation from Egypt as the birth of the Jewish people.
When a Jew fails to properly observe Pesach, he is lacking i n his
individual birth as a Jew and thus i n his entire essence. Hence,
the mitzvah of teshuvah is alluded to i n connection with Pesach
Sheini, for it gives a Jew the opportunity to restore himself to
his original state as part of Hashem's people.
° (217 ‫)לקוטי שיחות חי״ב ע׳‬
‫״על פ״ ה׳ ״סעו בני ישראל ועל פ״ ה׳ ״חנו״‬

" A c c o r d i n g to t h e word of G-d t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l would
j o u r n e y , a n d a c c o r d i n g to t h e word of t h e G-d t h e y would
encamp." (9:18)
QUESTION: Why are the words "al pi Hashem" —

"according to the word of G-d" — repeated six times over a
span of five pesukim which discuss the journeying and
encampment of the Jewish people?
ANSWER: This teaches us that it is imperative for a Jew to
constantly state that his planned activities w i l l take place "im
yirtzeh Hashem" — "G-d willing" — or "be'ezrat Hashem" —
"with G-d's help."
For instance, a traveler should say, " I am traveling be'ezrat
Hashem on such and such a day and I hope to arrive there, im
BEHA'ALOTECHA 71
yirtzeh Hashem, on such and such a day." When he arrives he

should say, " I arrived be'ezrat Hashem and hope to leave, im
yirtzeh Hashem on such and such a day."
(‫)שלייה‬
‫״עשה לך שתי חצוצרת כסף מקשה תעשה אתם״‬

" M a k e for y o u r s e l f two s i l v e r t r u m p e t s — m a k e t h e m
hammered out." (10:2)
QUESTION: Why were the trumpets, the cheruvim on top of

the A r k (Shemot 25:18), and the menorah (Shemot 25:31) all made
"mikshah" — hammered out of one piece?
ANSWER: The word "mikshah" stems from the word
"kashah" — "difficult." Hammering something out from
one piece is quite difficult and laborious.
The cheruvim were images of children (see Shemot 25:18,
Rashi). The menorah represents Torah and mitzvot, as stated:
"For a mitzvah is a lamp and Torah is light" (proverbs 6:23). The
trumpets were used to gather together and unite K'lal Yisrael.
Raising children successfully, progressing i n Torah and
mitzvot, and uniting K'lal Yisrael are all not easy tasks. On the
contrary, each one is "kashah" — "very difficult" — and each
requires "mikshah" — "hammering" — much laborious effort.
‫״ואם באחת יתקעו ונועדו אליך הנשיאים ראשי אלפי ישראל״‬

"If t h e y s o u n d a long b l a s t with o n e , t h e l e a d e r s s h a l l a s s e m b l e
to y o u , t h e h e a d s of I s r a e l ' s t h o u s a n d s . " ( 1 0 : 4 )
QUESTION: Why was one trumpet blast a signal to

summon the heads of the tribes?
ANSWER: Though everybody agrees on the importance of
achdut — unity among the Jewish people — the means to
accomplish it are often elusive. Unfortunately, many people
preach unity, but every one wants it on his own terms.
Therefore, the Torah advises "Ve'im be'achat yitka'u — If the call
of the hour w i l l be achat — to achieve unity — veno'adu eilecha
hanesi'im — the heads and leaders of the community should
first work out their differences and achieve unity; automatically

the rest of the community w i l l follow suit."
(‫)עוללות אפרים‬
‫״ואם באחת יתקעו ונועדו אליך הנשיאים ראשי אלפי ישראל״‬

"If t h e y s o u n d a long b l a s t with o n e , t h e l e a d e r s s h a l l a s s e m b l e
to y o u , t h e h e a d s of I s r a e l ' s t h o u s a n d s . " ( 1 0 : 4 )
QUESTION: Why were the leaders summoned w i t h a

trumpet?
ANSWER: Among the most difficult aspects of arranging a
conference between leaders are the formalities as to who should
be invited, who should be called first, the seating arrangement,
etc. In order to avoid problems, the heads of the tribes were
summoned together through the sounding of the trumpet.
Thus, potential jealousy as to why one was called second and
not first was eliminated.
‫והיית לנו לעינים״‬...‫״ויאמר אל נא ת עזב אתנו‬

" H e s a i d , ' P l e a s e do not f o r s a k e u s . . . a n d you will be to u s for
e y e s . ' " (10:31)
QUESTION: How would Yitro become "eyes" to all the

Jews?
ANSWER: Yitro was the High priest of Midian, but he gave
up all his glory and attached himself to Hashem and His Torah.
After converting to Judaism, he considered returning to his
homeland. His son-in-law, Moshe, urged him to travel together
w i t h the Jewish people and told him that he would be
"le'einayim" — "for eyes" — i.e. an eye opener and a living
example for the Jews.
Thanks to him, the Jewish people would see the truth and
learn a very important lesson: " I f Yitro gave up everything for
the sake of Hashem, all the more so should we who benefited
immensely from Hashem be dedicated to H i m and His Torah."
BEHA'ALOTECHA 73
‫שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל״‬ ‫״ויהי ב נ ס ע הארן‬

"And it c a m e to p a s s w h e n t h e Ark s e t forward... R e t u r n , 0 G-d,
to t h e myriad of t h o u s a n d s of I s r a e l " ( 1 0 : 3 5 - 3 6 )
QUESTION: Why are there nunin hakufin — inverted

"nuns" — setting off the two verses of "vayehi binso'a"?
ANSWER: In Aramaic the word "nun" means fish (see
Onkelos 11:5). The life of a fish depends i n a large measure on
its ability to swim upstream. If it permits itself to be swept
along by the current of the rapids or the tide, it w i l l be scuttled
and squashed. It is only because Hashem has endowed the fish
w i t h the precious instinct of self-preservation, whereby it is
able to swim upstream against the current, that it can survive
and increase.
Jews have been compared to fish. Our forefather Yaakov
blessed his children that "veyidgu larov bekerev ha'aretz" — "and
may they increase abundantly like fish in the midst of the
earth." His intent was that just as live fish swim against the
tide, so his children should swim upstream and resist the
temptation to take the easy way of going w i t h the tide of fads
and crazes which lead to the dissolution of our teachings and
the scuttling of our people.
The message of the nunin hakufin — "inverted nuns" — in
connection with "vayehi binso'a ha'Aron" is that to travel w i t h
the holy A r k a Jew must be ready to go against the tide and
proudly stand resolute i n his convictions.
(‫)הרב דוב ארי׳ דיל בערזאן‬
‫ שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל״‬...‫״ויהי ב נ ס ע הארן‬

" W h e n t h e Ark would journey... R e t u r n , 0 G-d, t o t h e myriad of
t h o u s a n d of I s r a e l . " ( 1 0 : 3 5 - 3 6 )
QUESTION: In the Torah these two pesukim are set off by

inverted nunim before and after. Why is the top of the nun
written facing forward and the bottom reversed (£)?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Berachot 4b) says that the reason the
prayer of Ashrei contains a pasuk starting w i t h each letter of the
alef-beit except for the letter ‫ ״נ״‬is that the letter ‫ ״נ״‬indicates
"nefilah" — "falling down." In order not to allude to the Jewish

people, G-d forbid, falling down, there is no pasuk starting w i t h
the letter .
King Shlomo says, " M y Beloved is like a gazelle" (Song of
Songs 2:9). The Targum (8:2), explains that Hashem is compared
to a deer, which sleeps w i t h one eye open and always looks
backwards when it is running. Likewise, even when it appears
that Hashem is, G-d forbid, "sleeping" and not attending to the
needs of the Jewish people, or when it seems that, G-d forbid,
He is "running away" from the Jewish people, He (like a deer),
does not turn his back entirely on them.
According to the Gemara (Shabbat 115b) the pesukim of
"vayehi binso'a" should really have been at i n the beginning of
Chumash Bamidbar, where the Torah discusses the formation of
the tribes when they encamped and traveled. However, it was
placed here to make an interruption, so that the iniquities
committed by the Jewish people should not be recorded i n
succession.
The "nun" w i t h the top facing forward, and the bottom
backward at the end of the recording of one misconduct of the
Jewish people and the same type of "nun" at the beginning of
the recording of another misconduct of the Jewish people
indicates that even when the Jews have fallen from their
heights and Hashem, G-d forbid, "turns His back on them" it is
not a full turn around; He still "looks back" protectively at His
beloved Jewish people.
(‫)תפארת יהונתן‬
‫שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל״‬ !‫״ויהי בנםע האר‬

"And it c a m e to p a s s w h e n t h e Ark s e t forward... R e t u r n , 0 G-d,
to t h e myriad of t h o u s a n d s of I s r a e l " ( 1 0 : 3 5 - 3 6 )
QUESTION: According to the Gemara (Shabbat 115b) these

pesukim really belong w i t h the discussion of the tribal formation
in the beginning of Bamidbar. They were placed here to make an
interruption in order not record the sins of the Jewish people i n
succession.
BEHA'ALOTECHA 75
Why i n addition, are they marked off by nunin hakufin —

inverted "nuns"?
ANSWER: When Hashem offered the Torah to the Jewish
people they immediately responded w i t h two words each
starting w i t h a ‫״נ״‬: "Na'aseh venishma" (‫" — )נעשה ונשמע‬We w i l l
do and we listen (study)." Though logically they should have
said "Nishma vena'aseh" — "We w i l l study and afterwards
when we understand it we w i l l do" — they reversed the order
of the "nunin" ("nunin hakufin") to emphasize that preeminent
in their relationship w i t h Hashem was "Kabbalat ol malchut
shamayim" — absolute submission to the yoke of Hashem.
The pesukim before "Vayehi binso'a" relate how the Jews
rebelled against Hashem and left the mountain of Hashem
disrespectfully. The pesukim afterwards relate how they began
murmuring against Hashem. How was such behavior possible?
Obviously they had forgotten about the nunin hakufin — the
reverse nunin of "Na'aseh venishma" — w i t h which they
themselves stressed the importance of kabbalat ol — acceptance
of the Heavenly yoke.
(‫)ספר נעשה ונשמע‬
‫״זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים חנם את הקשא״ם ואת‬

‫האבסחים״‬
" W e r e m e m b e r t h e f i s h t h a t w e a t e in Egypt g r a t i s , t h e
c u c u m b e r s a n d t h e m e l o n s . " (11:5)
QUESTION: The Egyptians were very unsympathetic to

their Jewish slaves and did not even give them straw required
to make the bricks (Shemot 5:7). Did they give them free fish?
ANSWER: I n Egypt it rained very little and the country
would rely on the Nile river for irrigation. When the water
would rise and flow into the fields, it would contain fish, and
when the water would subside, the fish remained on the
ground. Thus, the Jewish slaves who worked the fields for their
masters would take home fish together w i t h vegetables from
the fields.
(‫)חזקוני‬
‫״ועתה נפשנו יבשה אין כל בלתי אל המן עינינו״‬

" B u t n o w our s o u l i s d r i e d a w a y ; t h e r e i s nothing a t a l l ; w e h a v e
nothing but t h e m a n n a to look t o . " ( 1 1 : 6 )
QUESTION: The manna tasted like cake fried i n honey

(Shemot 16:31), and one could experience any taste his palate
desired (Yoma 75a). Why did they complain?
ANSWER: The Gemara (ibid.) says that the manna was
delivered to three different places, and i n three different forms.
A righteous person (tzaddik) would open his door and find it at
the entrance to his tent. A n intermediate person (beinoni) would
have to leave the camp to find his portion, and a wicked person
(rasha) would have to go a great distance.
Additionally, the tzaddik's portion was i n the form of a
finished loaf of bread. The beinoni's was prepared dough but
not baked, and the rasha's was raw matter which had to be
ground i n the mill, and afterwards cooked or baked.
Thus, every morning when the people went out for their
portions of manna, it was obvious who was a tzaddik, beinoni or
rasha. The people who complained against the manna were the
wicked (see Rashi 11:1). They pretended to be dissatisfied with
its taste although they were really disgruntled at having their
true identity revealed. They thus wanted to "have their cake
and eat i t " — to have a tzaddik's portion and thus appear to be
tzaddikim while still living frivolous and sinful lives.
‫״וישאו־ו שני אנשים במחנה שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד״‬

"Two m e n r e m a i n e d b e h i n d in t h e c a m p ; t h e n a m e of o n e w a s
E l d a d a n d t h e n a m e of t h e s e c o n d w a s M e i d a d . " ( 1 1 : 2 6 )
QUESTION: Who were Eldad and Meidad?

ANSWER: According to one opinion they were maternal
brothers of Moshe and Aharon. When pharaoh decreed that the
Jewish children be drowned, Amram saw no purpose i n
remaining married and divorced Yocheved. She then married
Elitzafan, son of parnach, and gave birth to Eldad and Meidad.
BEHA'ALOTECHA 77
Encouraged by Miriam, Amram afterwards remarried

Yocheved, and she bore Moshe (see Sotah 12a).
(‫)תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל‬
* * *
According to another opinion, Eldad was really Avidan ben

Gidoni, the nasi of the tribe of Binyamin, and Meidad was
Kemu'el ben Shiftan, the nasi of the tribe of Ephraim (34:21-24).
They were among the 72 people from whom Moshe was to
select a Sanhedrin. The 70 members of the Sanhedrin died i n the
wilderness, but Eldad and Meidad merited to enter Eretz
Yisrael.
* * *
There is an opinion that they were paternal brothers of

Moshe. Included i n the relationships the Torah forbids is a
nephew marrying an aunt (Vayikra 18:12). Thus, when the
Torah was given, Amram divorced Yocheved since she was his
father's sister (Shemot 6:20), and he married another woman
who gave birth to two sons, Eldad and Meidad.
* * *
A difficulty some raise w i t h this opinion is that the Torah

was given in the third month after the exodus from Egypt and
the episode of Eldad and Meidad took place i n the second year
after the exodus; consequently, they were less that one year
old?!
To answer this difficulty we must say that Amram's
separation from Yocheved was indeed due to the prohibition
against marrying an aunt, however; it took place long before
the actual giving of Torah. He did it upon learning
prophetically that Torah would eventually forbid marriage to
an aunt, or when Moshe told him that Torah would forbid such
marriages.
(324 ‫ ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות וזכ״וז ע׳‬,‫)ספר תולדות יצחק לר׳ יצחק דיל קארו‬
mm ‫״וישאו־ו שני אנשים במחנה שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד‬

‫עלהם הרוח והמה בכתבים ולא יצאו האהלה ויתנבאו במחנה״‬
"Two m e n r e m a i n e d b e h i n d in t h e c a m p ; t h e n a m e of o n e w a s
" E l d a d " a n d t h e n a m e of t h e s e c o n d w a s " M e i d a d , " a n d t h e
spirit r e s t e d upon t h e m ; t h e y h a d b e e n a m o n g t h e r e c o r d e d
o n e s , but t h e y h a d not c o m e out t o t h e T e n t , a n d t h e y
p r o p h e s i e d in t h e c a m p . " ( 1 1 : 2 6 )
QUESTION: Rashi writes that their prophesy was that,

"Moshe meit veYehoshua machnis" — "Moshe w i l l die and
Yehoshua w i l l bring the Jewish people into the land of Israel."
The Torah does not say specifically what their prophecy
was; how does Rashi derive it?
ANSWER: Moshe, as a little baby, was rescued from the
waters by Batya the daughter of Pharaoh. Not knowing what
his name was, she called him "Moshe" saying, "Ki min hamayim
meshitihu" — "For I drew him from the water" (Shemot 2:10).
Superficially, instead of saying, "min hamayim" (‫— )מן המים‬
"from the water" she could have eliminated two letters ( and
) by saying "mimayim meshitihu" . However,
because the word "mimayim" is an acronym for
and she did not want this to happen, she intentionally
said "min hamayin" instead of "mimayim."
In describing the activities of Eldad and Meidad, the final
word of the pasuk — "bamachaneh" — " i n the camp" — is
superfluous, since it already says i n the beginning of the pasuk,
"Two men remained behind — 'bamachaneh' — ' i n the camp.' "
The word "machaneh" — "camp" — can be divided
into two words, and The word is an
abbreviation for the word "mechikah" , which means
"erase," and the and are the two extra letters i n Batya's
expression "min hamayim" (compared to "mimayim"). Thus, the
Torah is saying, "vayitnabu" — "they prophesied —
'bamachaneh' — regarding the erasing of the letters 'nun' and
'hay' from Batya's statement — leaving just 'mimayim,' which
indicates that 'Moshe meit veYehoshua machnis' — 'Moshe w i l l
die and Yehoshua w i l l bring the people into the land of
Israel.' "
(‫)אמרי שלמה‬
BEHA'ALOTECHA 79
‫״אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה״‬

" E l d a d a n d M e i d a d a r e p r o p h e s y i n g in t h e c a m p . " ( 1 1 : 2 7 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Megillah 18a) states that i n Eretz

Yisrael there was a saying "Mila besela, mishtoka betrein" — " A
word is worth a sela (a Talmudic currency), and silence is worth
two."
What is the connection between this saying and the
prophesy of Eldad and Meidad?
ANSWER: Eldad and Meidad were prophesying that
Moshe would die and Yehoshua would bring the Jewish people
into Eretz Yisrael. Moshe did not merit to enter Eretz Yisrael
because when there was need for water and he was
commanded by Hashem "Vedibartem el hasela" — "Speak to the
rock that it shall give its waters" (20:8) — he hit it with his staff
instead, thereby preventing a sanctification of Hashem.
Now, the word "sela" is not just a name of currency, but
also the Hebrew word for "rock." Thus, "Mila besela" — if
Moshe would have spoken to the rock — "mishtoka betrein" —
the two people, Eldad and Meidad, would have been silent.
(‫)הגר״א‬
Alternatively, Hashem instructed Moshe to speak to the
rock that it should give its waters. He merely had to approach
the rock and pronounce to it the word "mayim" — "water" —
and there would have been abundant water for the entire
community. However, he disobeyed and struck the rock twice.
Hence, "mila besela" — had he only spoken one word to the
rock — "mishtoka betrein" — the double striking would have
been silenced, i.e. avoided.
(‫)עיטורי תורה‬
‫״ויאמר אדני משה כלאם״‬

"And [ Y e h o s h u a ] s a i d , 'My lord M o s h e , imprison t h e m l ' "
(11:28)
QUESTION: It is forbidden for a student to address his

Rebbe by name. Some permit it when not in the presence of the
Rebbe if it is preceded by a title such as "Rebbe" or "Mori." In

his presence, however, it is absolutely forbidden (Shulchan
Aruch, Yorah Dei'ah 242:15, Shach). Why did Yehoshua violate
this halachah?
ANSWER: There are different opinions in the Gemara
(Megillah 13a) and Yalkut Shimoni (Shemot 146) as to what name
Amram and Yocheved gave to their newborn child. A l l agree
that it was not "Moshe." The name "Moshe" was given to him
by pharaoh's daughter when she drew him out of the water.
Since it was not his true name, Yehoshua was permitted to use
it to address his Rebbe.
(‫)ש ו״ ת תירוש ויצהר סי׳ ס׳׳ט‬
* * *
There is an opinion (see Yalkut Mei'am Lo'eiz, Shemot 2:10)
that it was actually Yocheved who called him "Moshe."
Nevertheless, Yehoshua did not violate halachah for the
following reason:
Grammatically she should have named him "Mashui" —
"drawn out" — instead of "Moshe." She named him "Moshe"
because of the special connotations of the name: The
numerical value of this name ( 3 4 5 = ‫ ) מ ש ה‬was the same as "Keil
Sha-dai" (‫י‬-‫ד‬-‫ל ש‬-‫ )א‬to indicate that A-lmighty G-d would speak
to him and Moshe would be His messenger to "draw" the Jews
out of Egypt.
Also, the letters of the name when fully spelled out —
— have the numerical value of 450, the same as
the word "luchot" — "Tablets" — referring, of course, to
the Tablets of the Ten Commandments that Moshe would be
given on Mt. Sinai to convey to the Jewish people.
According to Tosafot Yeshanim (Yoma 87a) a student may
address his Rebbe by a name which is not his real one but
rather a title of distinction. Consequently, since he should have
been called "Mashui" and she called him "Moshe" merely as an
allusion to the spiritual heights he would achieve, it was
permissible for his student to address him by it, particularly
when he prefaced it w i t h the title "Adoni" — "my lord."
(‫)ש ו״ ת תירוש ויצהר סי׳ ס׳׳ט‬
BEHA'ALOTECHA 81
‫״ויקם העם כל היום ההוא וכל הלילה וכל יום המחרת ויאספו את‬
‫השלו הממעי• אסף עשרה תמרים״‬
" T h e p e o p l e r o s e up all t h a t d a y a n d all t h e night a n d all t h e
n e x t d a y , a n d g a t h e r e d up t h e quail — t h e o n e with t h e l e a s t
g a t h e r e d in t e n h e a p s . " ( 1 1 : 3 2 )
QUESTION: How d i d "the ones w i t h the least" manage to

acquire "ten heaps"?
ANSWER: The w i n d brought the quails from the sea,
dropping them around the perimeter of the camp (11:31). The
Israelite camp was three parsah square (Berachot 54b). A parsah is
equal to 4 mil (a mil is approximately 3160 feet), and according
to the Gemara (Pesachim 94a) an average person is able to walk
ten parsah — 40 mil — during a twelve-hour day
(approximately 126,000 feet — 24 miles).
Consequently, the amount one gathered depended on
where one lived. One who lived close to the boundaries of the
camp could go back and forth many times and gather a great
deal. Those who lived further i n could not go back and forth as
many times and thus ended up with a lesser portion of quail.
The ones who lived i n the middle of the camp, then, were "the
ones who gathered the least."
The quails were gathered for a day, a night, and the
following day. Thus, for the ones who lived i n the middle of the
camp (1 1/2 parsah away from its boundary) each trip back and
forth totaled three parsah — and i n a 36-hour period the
distance could be covered ten times. Consequently, they were
among those who gathered the least and succeeded i n bringing
home only ten heaps — one heap per trip.
(‫)קול אליהו‬
‫״והאיש משה ענו מאד״‬

"The man Moshe w a s exceedingly humble." (12:3)
QUESTION: Why is the world "anav" spelled without a ‫?״י״‬

ANSWER: The final words respectively of the five
Chumashim are ‫ ישראל‬,‫ ירחו‬,‫ סיני‬,‫ מסעיהם‬,‫במצרים‬. The last letter
of each of these words together add up to one hundred and
twenty-six, which is also the numerical value of the word

"anav" (‫ )ענו‬without a ‫״י״‬.
The Torah is telling us that though Moshe knew the entire
t o r a h till the very last letter; nevertheless, he was not
conceited, and he remained forever "the humblest of all
people."
(‫)פענח חא‬
* * *
Alternatively, when there was no water and the people
quarreled w i t h Moshe, Hashem told him to gather them
together and speak to the rock to give its waters. Moshe and
Aharon gathered the entire congregation before the rock and
said to them, "Listen now, you rebels, from this rock notzi
lachem mayim — shall we bring forth water for you?" (20:10)
Water from a rock is an exceptional miracle; thus, instead of
taking the credit for themselves and saying "notzi" — "shall we
bring forth" — they should have said "yotzi" — "He [Hashem]
w i l l bring forth."
Hashem conducts Himself w i t h man "middah keneged
middah" — "measure for measure" — and punishes i n a way
that resembles the offense. since Moshe omitted the , which
would have alluded to Hashem; i n describing his humility,
Hashem also omitted the .
(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
* * *
When Moshe struck the rock instead of speaking to it, the

Torah says, "Vayarem Moshe et yado vayach et hasela benateihu" —
"Moshe lifted his hand and struck the rock w i t h his staff."
(20:11) superficially, instead of saying, "he lifted yado — his
hand" — it should have said, "he lifted mateihu — his staff."
Possibly, the Torah is alluding to the abovementioned that
Moshe instead of saying "notzi" — "we" — i.e. himself and
Aharon, should have said "yotzi" with a "yud" which would
mean "He" — i.e. Hashem. Since he did not do so, "vayerem
Moshe et yado" — Moshe caused "yado" — his ‫ — ״<־״‬to be "lifted"
— i.e. omitted — when Hashem described his humility.
(‫ ר׳ יצחק דיל פרחי‬- ‫)זכות הרבים‬
BEHA'ALOTECHA 83
‫״והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה״‬

"The man Moshe w a s exceedingly humble, more than any
p e r s o n o n t h e f a c e of t h e e a r t h . " ( 1 2 : 3 )
QUESTION: The words "mikol ha'adam asher al penei

ha'adamah" — "more than any person on the face of the earth"
— seem superfluous. i t would be sufficient to say that he was
the most humble of all men?
ANSWER: Moshe was the only mortal who went up to
Heaven and spoke directly to Hashem. However, comparing
himself to all men upon the face of the earth, he concluded that
he had absolutely no reason to be conceited.
Moshe said to himself, "Although there are many people
upon the earth living as righteously as i do, none of them have
had my unique advantage of going up to Heaven and speaking
to G-d 'face to face.' Therefore, it is likely that among the
tzaddikim i am the least intrinsically righteous and that the
others are all holier than i am."
Thus, in addition to telling us of Moshe's humility, the
Torah is also explaining how he attained it. He derived it "mikol
ha'adam asher al penei ha'adama" — by comparing himself to all
people on the face of the earth.
(‫)פענה חא‬
‫״והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה״‬

"The man Moshe w a s exceedingly humble, more than any
p e r s o n o n t h e f a c e of t h e e a r t h . " ( 1 2 : 3 )
QUESTION: The word "ha'adam" — "person" — seems

superfluous?
ANSWER: In the Torah there were three people who
excelled in humility. Avraham said: "ve'anochi afar va'eifer" — " I
am but dust and ashes" (Bereishit 18:27). King David said:
"ve'anochi tola'at velo ish" — " I am only a w o r m and not a man"
(Psalms 22:7). Moshe said of himself: "venachnu mah" — "What
are we [we are nothing]" (Shemot 16:7).
The first letters of the names "Avraham" (‫)אברהם‬, "David"

(‫ )דוד‬and "Moshe" (‫ )משה‬spell the word "Adam" (‫)אדם‬. Thus, the
Torah is telling us that Moshe was the humblest of the three.
(‫)שלייה‬
‫״לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא״‬

"Not s o i s My s e r v a n t M o s h e ; in My e n t i r e h o u s e h e i s t r u s t e d . "
(12:7)
QUESTION: Obviously this does not mean that Moshe was

an honest servant who d i d not steal any valuables from his
master's house. What then was his unique trustworthiness?
ANSWER: King Shlomo says: "Vene'eman ruach mechaseh
davar" — " A trustworthy person does not disclose secrets"
(Proverbs 11:13). Moshe had a close relationship to Hashem
and through his prophetic ability he had future knowledge
about many Jews. However, Moshe was trustworthy and did
not disclose anything without Hashem's permission.
‫״והענן • ר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג״‬

"The c l o u d h a d d e p a r t e d from a t o p t h e Tent, a n d b e h o l d Miriam
w a s leprous, a s white a s snow." (12:10)
QUESTION: What is the connection between the removal of

the cloud and Miriam's leprosy?
ANSWER: There are certain conditions that must be met
before a person can be declared a leper. Since it is necessary to
ascertain the precise color of the leprosy, the Mishnah (Nega'im
2:2) says: "Ein ro'im hanega'im beyom hame'unan" — "The
decision regarding leprosy cannot be made on a cloudy day" —
because it is difficult to distinguish between different shades of
the color white, not all of which are impure.
It was therefore necessary to remove the hovering cloud,
and only then, i n plain daylight, were they able to see that
Miriam was stricken with leprosy.
(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן ז״ל טראב‬
BEHA'ALOTECHA 85
‫״והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג״‬

"And b e h o l d , Miriam w a s l e p r o u s , a s w h i t e a s s n o w . " ( 1 2 : 1 0 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Zevachim 101b) asks who declared

Miriam a leper since Moshe was disqualified as a non-Kohen
and Aharon as a relative.
Why does the Gemara not disqualify both Moshe and
Aharon as relatives?
ANSWER: After the Jews received the Torah at Sinai, there
was a movement of "complainers." The Torah relates, "Moshe
heard the people weeping i n their family groups," which Rashi
explains to mean that they wept because they were frustrated
by the family laws that forbade marriages among relatives
(11:10).
At the time of the giving of the Torah, the people were
considered new converts to the Jewish religion (see Yevamot
46a), and a convert is like a newborn child (ibid. 22a). Thus,
there no longer existed any past relationships, and the Torah
regulation forbidding certain relatives to marry d i d not affect
them, so w h y were they upset?
The rule that a convert is considered like a newborn child
only applies to a voluntary conversion and not when one is
converted by force. Hence, while it is true that at Sinai Hashem
converted the Jews to become His people, He first lifted the
mountain over them, forcing them to accept it. Consequently,
though all the people became converts, they were not
considered as newly born, and their previous relationships
were not canceled.
The only exception was Moshe, who was on the mountain
together with Hashem. Since he was not forced, he was
considered a newborn, and all previous relationships no longer
existed. Therefore, the Gemara says that Moshe was disqualified
because he was not a Kohen, and not because he was related to
Miriam.
‫)מצאתי בכתבי אבי הרב שמואל פסח דיל באגאמילסקי בשם ״האדמו״ר הגאון מאסטראווצי״ ]ועי׳‬
(‫גור ארי׳ פ׳ ויגש ובהקדמה לשב שמעתתא[ ונדפס בס׳ מאיר עיני חכמים להנ״ל ח״א סי׳ י״ח‬
‫״אל נא תהי כמת אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו ויאכל חצי בשרו״‬
" L e t her not b e like a c o r p s e , like o n e who l e a v e s h i s m o t h e r ' s
w o m b with half h i s f l e s h c o n s u m e d ! " ( 1 2 : 1 2 )
QUESTION: How was Miriam comparable to a corpse and

in what sense was half her flesh consumed?
ANSWER: When Pharaoh issued the decree to drown the
Jewish children, Amram divorced his wife Yocheved and she
married Elitzafan, the son of Parnach. Through this marriage
Eldad and Meidad were born, making them maternal brothers
of Aharon and Moshe (see Targum Yonathan ben Uziel 11:26).
Eldad and Meidad prophesied i n the camp that, "Moshe
meit — Moshe w i l l die — and Yehoshua w i l l lead the people
into Eretz Yisrael." Yehoshua heard it and said, " M y lord
Moshe, imprison them" (11:28). Moshe, however, remained
calm and did not take any offense. On the contrary, he forgave
them and expressed the wish that the entire people be
prophets.
Aharon said to Moshe, "Al na tehi — let our sister Miriam
not be worse than Eldad and Meidad who prophesied kameit —
your death — and yet merited your forgiveness. Asher betzeito
meirechem imo' — each of them emerged from your mother's
womb — and had they been punished, vayei'acheil chatzi besaro
— only half of your flesh would have been consumed — since
they are only your half-brothers. How much more should you
have compassion upon Miriam, who is your full sister, and
pray that Hashem heal her."
‫״ויצעק משה אל ה׳ ל א מ ר א ל נא רפא נאלה״‬

" M o s h e c r i e d out to G-d, s a y i n g , ' P l e a s e , G-d, h e a l h e r n o w . ' "
(12:13)
QUESTION: Why didn't Moshe mention the name of the

stricken person (Miriam) and her mother (Yocheved), as is
customary when praying for a sick person?
BEHA'ALOTECHA 87
ANSWER: The words "refa na" (‫ )רפא נא‬have the numerical

value of 332, which is exactly the same numerical value as the
names "Miriam" (‫ )מרים‬and "Yocheved" (‫ )יוכבד‬combined.
(‫)דגל מחנה אפרים‬
* * *
Actually the Gemara (Berachot 34a) derives from here that it
is not necessary to mention the name of a sick person when
praying for his recovery, however the Pri Chadash (Orach Chaim
119:1) writes that this means only that it is not obligatory.
Yet, Moshe did not mention her name outright, because the
Yalkut Reuveini i n the beginning of Parshat Vayeira writes that
the reason it says "Vayeira ailav Hashem' — "and G-d appeared
to h i m " instead of "and G-d appeared to Abraham" is that
when the sick person is in great pain, his name should not be
mentioned at all. Thus, Moshe wanting to satisfy all opinions
alluded to her name i n his prayers without mentioning it
clearly.
SHELACH ‫ש ל ח ־‬
‫״שלח לך אנשים ויתרו את ארץ כנען אשר אני נתן לבני ישראל״‬
" S e n d forth m e n , if y o u p l e a s e , a n d let t h e m s p y o u t t h e L a n d
of C a n a a n t h a t I a m giving to t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l . " ( 1 3 : 2 )
QUESTION: Why is it necessary to mention the name of the

land and the fact that Hashem is giving it to the Jewish people?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 91a) relates that the
people of Canaan once took the Jewish people to court before
Alexander the Great. They demanded that Eretz Yisrael be
returned to them because it was originally owned by their
ancestor Canaan. Gevihah ben Pesisa argued that Canaan was
the son of Cham and was cursed by Noach to be a servant to his
brothers, Shem and Yafet. According to halachah (Pesachim 88b),
whatever a slave acquires belongs to his master. Thus, the
Canaanites had absolutely no claim to the land, and through
their ancestor Shem, the Jews were the rightful owners. The
plaintiffs were dumbfounded and ran away leaving their fields
and vineyards to the Jewish people.
In the beginning of Bereishit, Rashi explains that Torah

starts w i t h the narrative of creation because if the world
accuses the Jews of illegally taking away Eretz Yisrael, they can
respond, "Hashem created the entire world and it belongs to
Him. With His w i l l He took it away from them and gave it to
us."
In preparation for the Jewish people's first encounter with
Eretz Yisrael, Hashem emphasized: "This is the land of Canaan,
which according to halachah belongs to the Jewish people since
its original owner Cham became a slave to your ancestor Shem.
Moreover, it is the land that ' I am giving to the Children of
SHELACH 89
Israel' and as Master of the world I have the right to take it

from whomever I want and give it to whomever I wish."
(‫ מסולתן‬,‫)בית יעקב‬
‫ראשי בני ישראל‬...‫״איש אחד למסה אבתיו תשלחו כל נשיא בהם‬

‫המה״‬
" O n e m a n e a c h from h i s f a t h e r ' s tribe s h a l l y o u s e n d , e v e r y o n e
a l e a d e r a m o n g t h e m . . . h e a d s of t h e Children of I s r a e l w e r e
t h e y . " (13:2-3)
QUESTION: In each of the three preceding parshiot there is

a listing of the leaders of tribes, with the same people
mentioned each time. Why, in this parshah, is an entirely new
slate of leaders, mentioned?
ANSWER: These people were not the actual nesi'im —
leaders of the tribes. Spying out the land was a difficult and
dangerous undertaking requiring much skill and courage.
Therefore Hashem instructed Moshe to seek volunteers for the
mission and from among these he was to select the ones he
deemed most suitable. The spies, then, were the select of the
volunteers.
The word "nasi" derives from the root word "nasa"
, which means "raised" or "elevated." Thus, the phrase
"kol nasi bahem" means that the heart of each one elevated him
to volunteer to participate i n the expedition.
(‫)רשב״ם‬
Alternatively, the words "kol nasi bahem" do not mean that

these people were the nesi'im; it means only that each nasi was
to select a representative from his tribe as its emissary to
explore the land.
Alternatively, the word "heimah" — "[were] they" — is su¬

perfluous. Yitro advised Moshe to divide the Jews into groups
and appoint leaders over groups of 1000, groups of 100, and
groups of 50. The word "heimah" (‫ )המה‬has the numerical value
of 50. These spies were from among the leaders of the groups of
50.
‫״כלם אנשים ראשי בני ישראל המה״‬

" T h e y w e r e all d i s t i n g u i s h e d m e n ; h e a d s of t h e C h i l d r e n of
Israel were they." (13:3)
QUESTION: Rashi says, "ve'otah sha'ah kesheirim hayu" —

" A t that hour they were honorable and righteous."
Why does Rashi say "at that hour" and not just "at that
time?"
ANSWER: The spies toured Eretz Yisrael for 40 days and
brought back a negative report which caused intense hysteria.
for this sin, the people were punished to wander i n the
wilderness for 40 years — one year per day.
A day consists of 24 hours, and in 40 days there is a total of
960 hours. In a year there are 12 months, and thus, i n 40 years
there are 480 months. Hence, for each hour of the spies' tour,
the stay of the Jews in the wilderness was increased by half of a
month. The Jews left Egypt on the 15th of Nissan and arrived in
Israel 40 years later on the 10th of Nissan (Joshua 4:19). The
normal travel time from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael should have
taken 11 days (Devarim 1:2). Consequently, the 40-year
punishment was i n reality short 15 days.
Hence, Rashi is puzzled about the missing 15 days, and

proposes the answer that "ve'otah sha'ah" — "for that hour" —
"they were kesheirim" — "honorable" — and therefore the
community at large was spared 15 days of wandering i n the
wilderness.
(‫)מטעמי יצחק‬
,
" D I D !‫למסה יוסף למסה מנשה גדי ב‬...!‫״למסה אפרים הושע בן נו‬
" F o r t h e tribe of E p h r a i m , H o s h e a t h e s o n of Nun...For t h e tribe
of Y o s e f , for t h e tribe of M e n a s h e h , G a d d i s o n of S u s i . "
(13:8,11)
QUESTION: Why is Yosef mentioned with Menasheh and

not with Ephraim?
ANSWER: After Yosef was sold to Egypt, he was appointed
viceroy and rose to glory. A famine broke out, and from all
SHELACH 91
surrounding countries people came to purchase food in Egypt.

When the ten sons of Yaakov appeared before Yosef, and he
leveled the accusation "Meraglim atem" — "You are spies" —
they responded, "We have never been spies" (Bereishit 42:31).
According to the Arizal, the neshamot of the ten sons of
Yaakov were impregnated into the ten people chosen by Moshe
to tour Eretz Yisrael and remained in them until they decided to
slander the land. Thus, when Yosef accused them of being spies
he was not talking about the present, but actually referring to
the future. Not understanding the profundity of his words, they
thought he was talking about the past or present and therefore
responded "We have never been spies."
Among the ten brothers who stood before Yosef was

Yehudah, the ancestor of Kaleiv, who did not participate i n the
maligning of Eretz Yisrael. Since Yosef accused them all as spies
although one was actually innocent, he i n turn was punished
that one of his children would be a collaborator w i t h the spies.
When Yosef held his conversation with his brothers he
spoke Egyptian while his son Menasheh interpreted (Bereishit
42:23 Rashi). Consequently, Menasheh also said to the brothers,
"You are spies." Therefore, the Torah emphasized that Gaddi
son of Susi represented both Yosef and Menasheh, because both
of them unjustly accused Yehudah.
(‫ ועי׳ נחל קדומים להחיד״א‬,‫)לקוטי בתר לקוטי מהדו״ונ כפלים לתושיה‬
‫ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע״‬...‫״אלה שמות האנשים‬

" T h e s e a r e t h e n a m e s of t h e m e n . . . M o s h e c a l l e d H o s h e a s o n of
Nun Y e h o s h u a . " ' ( 1 3 : 1 6 )
1
QUESTION: The word "ben" £‫" — )בן‬son" — is always

written with a segol ( ) . Why is "Yehoshua bin N u n " written
w i t h a chirik (.)?
ANSWER: According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin
2:6), when Hashem took away the ‫ ״י״‬from "Sarai" (‫ )שרי‬and
changed her name to Sarah , the complained to
Hashem: "Why was I removed from the name of a righteous
woman?" Hashem comforted the ‫ ״י״‬by telling her, "Until now
you were at the end of a woman's name; in the future I shall

place you at the beginning of a man's name." Thus, Hashem
took the ‫ ״י״‬and added it to the name of Hoshea (‫)הושע‬, making
it Yehoshua (‫)יהושע‬.
However, in the name "Sarai" there were no vowels under
the ‫ ״י״‬and i n the name "Yehoshua" there is a sh'va (:) under the
. f r o m where did the vowel come? The word ben — son
of, usually has the vowel segol (.-). Hashem took away two dots
and created a sh'va (:) under the ‫ ״י״‬i n the name "Yehoshua"
and since then, in Yehoshua's name, the word "ben" has been
spelled w i t h a chirik, one dot.
(‫)חתם סופר‬
Alternatively, the word "bin" is etymologically related to

the word "binah" — knowledge and understanding. Yehoshua
was Moshe's outstanding student, and thanks to his exceptional
knowledge and understanding of Torah, he became his
successor. The words "Bin-nun" can be combined into one
word, "binun" : Yehoshua was a "binun" — a
knowledgeable and understanding person.
(‫ י׳׳א‬,‫ שמות ל׳׳ג‬,‫)רמב׳׳ן‬
‫״ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע״‬

" M o s h e c a l l e d H o s h e a s o n of Nun, Y e h o s h u a . ' " ( 1 3 : 1 6 )
,
QUESTION: Rashi says that he prayed ‫ה יושיעך מ ע צ ת‬-‫״י‬

— "May G-d save you from the plan of the spies." Now
Hashem's holy name consists of four letters: Why d i d Moshe
only mention the first two?
ANSWER: Hashem said to Moshe, "Write it as a
remembrance and read it to Yehoshua that I w i l l surely erase
the memory of Amalek." Moshe said, ‫ה״‬-‫" — ״כי יד על כ ס י‬For
the hand is on the throne of G-d, [He swore that] G-d maintains
a war against Amalek from generation to generation" (Shemot
17:14,16).
The use of only two letters of the Divine name instead of all
four and the missing i n the word "keis" (throne) indicate
SHELACH 93
that Hashem's name and throne are incomplete as long as

Amalek is not eradicated (Rashi, ibid.).
This commandment was directed to Yehoshua since he
would lead the Jews into Eretz Yisrael, and obliteration of the
memory of Amalek would be one of the first mitzvot (See
Rambam, Melachim 1:1).
The Midrash says that ultimately Amalek's downfall w i l l be
through a descendant of Yosef (see Bereishit 37:1 Rashi). Since
Yehoshua was of the tribe of Ephraim the son of Yosef, Moshe
prayed for him that the merit of , the Name of Hashem
which was waiting to be completed through him, would
protect him from the influence of the spies. Thus, he would
come to Eretz Yisrael, destroy Amalek, and return His name and
throne to their full glory.
(‫)מרגניונא טבא‬

" M o s h e c a l l e d H o s h e a s o n of Nun Y e h o s h u a . ' " ( 1 3 : 1 6 )
,
QUESTION: Rashi comments that Moshe prayed that G-d

protect Yehoshua from the plan of the spies.
Why did Moshe single out Yehoshua?
ANSWER: Eldad and Meidad prophesied that Moshe
would pass away and Yehoshua would bring the Jewish people
into Eretz Yisrael (see Rashi 11:28). Yehoshua was extremely
devoted to his beloved Rebbe Moshe and an exceptionally
humble person (see Targum Yonatan ben Uziel 13:16).
Moshe feared that Yehoshua would join the spies and thus
delay the entry into Eretz Yisrael in order to cause Moshe his
Rebbe to live longer and to humbly avoid becoming the leader
himself.

" M o s h e c a l l e d H o s h e a s o n of Nun, Y e h o s h u a . ' " ( 1 3 : 1 6 )
,
QUESTION: The Targum Yonatan ben Uziel writes, "When

Moshe saw Yehoshua's humbleness, he changed his name from
Hoshea to Yehoshua." Why did Yehoshua's humbleness merit
him an additional ‫?״י״‬
A N s W E r : The entire Torah consists of hashem's words,
which He instructed Moshe to write down. When Hashem told
Moshe to write, "Now the man Moshe was extremely humble,"
(12:3) he was reluctant to write praise about himself. Therefore,
in order to obey Hashem's instructions and at the same time
not to praise himself highly, he omitted the i n the word
"anav" (‫)ענו‬, leaving the letter ‫ ״<־״‬hovering.
When Moshe observed the humility of his disciple Hoshea,
he added the , which was originally to be written regarding
his own humility, to Yehoshua's name.
* * *
The reason Moshe omitted the letter ‫ " י ״‬particularly is that
it is the smallest letter of the alef-beit and thus an allusion to the
concept of humility.
(‫)אותיות דר׳ עקיבא‬
* * *
Regarding Moshe, the Torah says "Ki karan or panav" —
"The skin of his face had become radiant" (Shemot 34:29).
According to the Midrash Rabbah (47:6), there was leftover ink in
Moshe's quill after he wrote the Torah, and he rubbed it on his
head making his face shine.
d i d Hashem miscalculate and give Moshe extra ink?
According to the opinion (see Sanhedrin 107a) that the
source of the for Yehoshua was from the which was
originally i n the name of sarai, the extra ink Moshe rubbed on
his head was from the which he did not want to write i n the
word "anav."
(‫ שמות סוף פ׳ תשא‬,‫)אור החיים‬
SHELACH 95
‫היש בה עץ אם אין״‬...‫״ומה הארץ‬

"And h o w i s t h e l a n d . . . a r e t h e r e t r e e s in it or n o t ? " ( 1 3 : 2 0 )
QUESTION: Rashi comments that Moshe instructed the

spies to see if there were any righteous people there whose
merit would protect the dwellers of the land.
If Moshe was looking for righteous people, w h y didn't he
instruct the spies to search the synagogues, rather than asking
them to search the fields?
ANSWER: Moshe was incidentally conveying a message to
K'lal Yisrael concerning the intrinsic qualities of a truly
righteous person. He is not one who goes into seclusion and
locks himself up i n the synagogue or Beit Hamidrash. A truly
righteous person is compared to a tree; He is out among the
people producing fruit (good deeds).
Similar to the tree which casts a protective shade on its
surroundings, the righteous person should endeavor that his
influence be felt throughout his entire city.
!‫״ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבים אחד וישאהו במו• בשנים ומ‬
‫הרמנים ומן התאנים״‬
"And t h e y c u t from t h e r e a vine with o n e c l u s t e r of g r a p e s , a n d
bore it o n a d o u b l e pole, a n d of t h e p o m e g r a n a t e s a n d of t h e
figs." (13:23)
QUESTION: Rashi explains that of the twelve spies, eight

carried the cluster of grapes on a bed of poles, one carried a
huge fig, and another carried a huge pomegranate. Yehoshua
and kaleiv d i d not bring any of the fruits because they knew
that the spies intended to show that the land was abnormal and
dangerous and they d i d not want to participate i n this plan to
promote fear and apprehension.
Why did Yehoshua and kaleiv not follow the instructions
of Moshe, "vehitchazaktem u'lekachtem miperi ha'aretz" — "you
shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land"
(13:20)?
ANSWER: If Moshe's intention was that they bring back a

sample of the fruits, the word "vehitchazaktem" — "you shall
strengthen yourselves" — is superfluous. It could have just said
"ulekachtem" — "and you shall take [from the fruit of the
land]"? Therefore the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel explains that
the word "vehitchazaktem" does not mean
"strengthen yourself" but derives from the root word
"chazakah" — an act of acquiring ownership.
According to halachah, when one buys a field, a way to
legally acquire it is through chazakah, and according to the
Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 192:11) gathering the fruits of
the land is a proper chazakah. Thus, Moshe's intention was
"vehitchazaktem" — "you shall make a chazakah" — acquire the
land and become its owner through taking for yourselves from
the fruit of the land.
The spies, however, exceeded their authority, and i n
addition to taking fruit for themselves, they also brought back a
sample, hoping to use it to discourage the people from wanting
to go to Eretz Yisrael. Yehoshua and Kaleiv did take fruit for
themselves as they were instructed, but refused to participate i n
the evil plan of the spies.
* * *
It is interesting to note that when Moshe rebuked the

people for the incident of the spies he said, "You all
approached me and said, 'Let us send men ahead of us
veyachperu lanu et ha'aretz — and let them spy out the land for
us' " (Devarim 1:22). The word "veyachperu" (‫ )ויחפרו‬is a new
term which is not mentioned i n our parshah, which uses the
term "yaturu."
What is the significance of this term?
In actuality the Rambam and the Ra'avad differ over
whether gathering fruit is sufficient to be considered a chazakah
(Mechirah 1:16). The Rambam holds that it suffices while the
Ra'avad disagrees. The word "veyachperu" is related to
"chafirah" which means "digging," a form of chazakah
which acquires land according to all opinions.
SHELACH 97
In light of the above, it can be explained that Moshe

affirmed the opinion of the Rambam, and therefore told the
people that in order to perform a chazakah they should gather
the fruit. The Jewish people however declared "veyachperu" —
"and let them dig in the land" — which according to all
opinions is a proper form of chazakah.
r r r
(‫)גרש כרמל‬
‫ומן הימנים ומן התאנים״‬...•‫״ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבי‬

"And t h e y c u t from t h e r e a vine with o n e c l u s t e r of g r a p e s . . . a n d
of t h e p o m e g r a n a t e s a n d of t h e f i g s . " ( 1 3 : 2 3 )
QUESTION: The spies used the fruits of Israel to disgrace

the land. How is this iniquity corrected?
ANSWER: According to the Arizal one purpose of the
mitzvah of bikkurim — bringing to the Beit Hamikdash the first
fruits of the seven species, by which Eretz Yisrael is praised — is
to rectify the sin of the spies. The spies despised Eretz Yisrael
and spoke against its fruit while the Jewish people, by bringing
bikkurim, demonstrate their love for the land and its fruit.
* * *
The Mishnah (Bikkurim 3:1) says: "How does a person set
aside bikkurim? He enters into his field and notices a newly-
ripened fig, a newly ripened grape cluster, and a newly ripened
pomegranate. He ties a blade of grass around each one and
declares, 'This is for bikkurim.' "
Though the mitzvah of bikkurim applies to all the seven
fruits with which Eretz Yisrael is praised (Devarim 26:2, Rashi),
the Mishnah mentions only these three to signify the particular
connection between them and the spies: that by bringing them
as bikkurim one rectifies the spies' crime against them.
(1‫)ר׳ מנחם זמבא הי״‬
When one who brought bikkurim concluded his recitation, a

Heavenly voice proclaimed, "You have brought bikkurim today;
may you merit to do so again next year" (Devarim 26:16, Rashi).
Thus, the mitzvah of bikkurim is a means to receive a Heavenly
blessing for longevity.
The spies, through their evil tongues shortened the lives of

the people i n the wilderness (14:29). Consequently, it is most
fitting that the mitzvah of bikkurim, which rectifies their iniquity,
should earn longevity for those who observe it.
‫למקום ההוא קרא נחל אשכול על אדות‬...‫״ויבאו עד נחל אשכל‬

‫האשכול אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל״‬
" T h e y a r r i v e d a t t h e V a l l e y of E s h c o l . . . T h a t p l a c e w a s c a l l e d t h e
V a l l e y of E s h c o l b e c a u s e of t h e c l u s t e r t h a t t h e C h i l d r e n of
I s r a e l c u t from t h e r e . " ( 1 3 : 2 3 - 2 4 )
QUESTION: Why i n the first pasuk is "Eshcol" spelled

without a , and i n the second pasuk w i t h a ?
ANSWER: A n added ‫״‬1‫ ״‬changes from singular to plural.
This can be seen from the teaching of the sages (Sukkah 6b) that
a Sukkah should have four walls, based on the Torah's spelling
the word "basukkot" twice without a and once with a
.
Originally, the valley was called Eshcol without a ‫״‬1‫״‬
because it was named after Eshcol, the confidant of Avraham
(Yalkut Shimoni 743), and his name is spelled i n the Torah
without a (see Bereishit 14:13). When they cut from there a
vine w i t h a cluster of grapes, which i n Hebrew is also called
"Eshcol," there was now an additional reason to call the valley
"Eshcol." Therefore, "The place was now called Eshcol" with a
‫״‬1‫ ״‬because of the two reasons — the person and the cluster of
grapes.
‫״וילכו ויבאו אל משה״‬

"They went a n d c a m e to M o s h e . " (13:26)
QUESTION: On these words Rashi comments that just as

they came back to Moshe with bad advice, they left originally
w i t h bad intentions.
On an earlier pasuk (13:3), Rashi comments that at the time
that the spies left for Eretz Yisrael they were all "kesheirim" —
SHELACH 99
"honorable." Why here does he comment that they left with

evil intentions?
ANSWER: The spies actually left for Eretz Yisrael w i t h evil
thoughts; however, the Gemara (Kiddushin 39b) states that man
is punished for evil thoughts only when they lead to evil
actions. Therefore the spies were considered "kesheirim"
because they d i d not actually do evil. However, when they
returned and acted on their thoughts, Rashi comments that
they were also evil when they left.
(‫)ר׳ אברהם מרדכי זצ״ל מגור‬
‫״‬...‫״ויספרו לו ויאמרו באנו אל הארץ‬

"They r e p o r t e d t o him a n d s a i d : 'We arrived a t t h e l a n d . . . ' "
(13:27)
QUESTION: Since it says "vayesaperu" — "and they

reported" — the word "vayomru" — "and they said" — is
redundant. Moreover, w h y does it say "lo" — "to h i m " — and
not "lahem" — "to them?"
ANSWER: Since Moshe was the one who initiated their
mission to survey Eretz Yisrael, upon returning they reported
first to him. They hoped to persuade h i m that it was not in the
best interests of the Jewish people to go to Eretz Yisrael. Thus,
he would cancel the plans and everyone would remain in the
wilderness. Upon realizing that they had failed to impress
Moshe, they decided to make a declaration to the entire com¬
munity, hoping to incite them against Moshe and Eretz Yisrael.
The pasuk alludes to this by saying, "vayesapru lo" — "they

first reported to him" — i.e. to Moshe — and only afterwards
"vayomru" — "they said" — i.e. they made a public declaration.
(‫)שפתי צדיק‬
‫״אפ• כי עז העם הישב בארץ והערים בצרות גדלת מאד״‬

" B u t t h e p e o p l e t h a t d w e l l s in t h e land i s powerful; t h e c i t i e s
a r e very greatly fortified." ( 1 3 : 2 8 )
QUESTION: Onkelos translates the word "betzurot" as

"krichan," which Rashi explains to mean "biraniot agulot" —
"round castles." What d i d the spies mean by emphasizing that

the Canaanite homes were round?
ANSWER: When Hashem told Moshe and Aharon to
convey to the Jewish people the laws of leprosy on houses, He
was actually giving them good tidings. The Amorites knew that
the Jews would ultimately conquer Eretz Yisrael and chase them
out of the land; therefore, throughout the forty years that the
Jews sojourned i n the wilderness, they hid their valuables i n the
walls of their houses. When leprosy struck a house, the walls
would need to be broken down and the hidden treasures
would be revealed (see Vayikra 14:34, Rashi).
According to halachah (Tumat Tzara'at 14:6) the law of
leprosy i n a house only applies to a house which has walls that
meet at the corners. Consequently, the spies, who attempted to
discourage the Jewish people from going Eretz Yisrael, were
saying, " I f your reason for going is the hope of finding
treasures, you w i l l be disappointed because their houses are
round."
(‫ הלולא דפסוזא‬- ‫)זכרון ישראל‬
‫״ ע מ ל ק ״ושב בארץ ה נ ג ב והחת״ והיבוסי והאמר״ ״ושב ב ה ר והכנעני‬

‫״ושב ע ל הים ועל ״ד הירדן״‬
" A m a l e k d w e l l s in t h e a r e a of t h e S o u t h ; t h e Hitites, t h e
J e b u s i t e s , a n d t h e A m o r i t e s dwell in t h e m o u n t a i n ; a n d t h e
C a n a a n i t e s dwell by t h e s e a a n d o n t h e b a n k of t h e J o r d a n .
(13:29)
QUESTION: Why d i d the spies tell the people where the

different nations were located?
ANSWER: Among all the nations living i n Eretz Yisrael the
Jews only knew Amalek. He was their arch enemy who
ruthlessly attacked them when they left the land of Egypt, and
they feared his strength.
In Eretz Yisrael, the South was the most inferior part (13:17,
Rashi). Had Amalek been the most powerful of the nations, he
undoubtedly would have conquered them and taken a better
part of the land for himself. Obviously, he was the weakest and
SHELACH 101
had to settle, therefore, for living i n the worst part of the

country.
In order to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the people,
the spies told them where Amalek and all the nations were
located; thus, they could conclude for themselves how much
mightier the others were than Amalek — and since they feared
Amalek, they would fear the others even more.
‫״ויה• כלב את העם אל משה ויאמר עלה נעלה וירשנו אתה״‬

" K a l e i v s i l e n c e d t h e p e o p l e t o w a r d M o s h e a n d s a i d , 'We s h a l l
surely a s c e n d and conquer it.'" (13:30)
QUESTION: Why didn't Yehoshua join Kaleiv i n this

proclamation?
ANSWER: Yehoshua heard Eldad and Meidad's prophesy
that Moshe would die and Yehoshua would bring the people of
Israel into the land (see 11:28 Rashi). Therefore, he was
reluctant to speak i n favor of going to Eretz Yisrael, lest he be
accused of personal interest, namely, wanting to become the
leader as quickly as possible. Hence, he remained silent while
Kaleiv rallied the people i n support of Moshe.
‫״ארץ אכלת יושביה״‬

"A land t h a t d e v o u r s its i n h a b i t a n t s . " ( 1 3 : 3 2 )
QUESTION: Rashi writes that the spies reported that

wherever they went they saw the Canaanites burying their
dead.
Why did so many Canaanites die when the spies toured
Eretz Yisrael?
ANSWER: The Canaanites of those days had a very strange
custom: When an ordinary person died, they would store his
body and delay the burial until a prominent person died. They
believed that since the prominent person was definitely going
to "heaven," he would take along all those who were buried at

the same time.
for a long time they were storing their dead, until finally
the famous and righteous Iyov passed away (see Rashi 14:9).
The day Iyov was buried people were busy throughout the
entire land burying all the deceased who had been i n storage.
The spies, unaware of this custom, were astounded by the
large number of funerals they encountered wherever they
visited. Since so many people were being buried, they
concluded that something was wrong w i t h the land.
(‫)שפתי כהן‬
‫״‬...‫״ויציאו דבת הארץ אשר תרו אתה אל בני ישראל לאמו־‬

" T h e y brought forth t o t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a n evil report o n
t h e land t h a t t h e y h a d s p i e d out, s a y i n g . . . " ( 1 3 : 3 2 )
QUESTION: When Moshe sent spies to Canaan they were

all kesheirim — honorable and righteous (see Rashi 13:3). Why
didn't they want the Jewish people to enter the land?
ANSWER: In the wilderness the Jews had no association
w i t h material and earthly matters. They ate manna from
heaven, water was provided from Miriam's well, and the
Clouds of Glory cleaned and ironed their clothing. Upon
entering the land of Israel, all this would change. The Jews
would have to be involved i n the daily activities of plowing
and planting the fields, etc.
The spies, therefore, considered it better to remain i n the
wilderness and be totally immersed i n Torah study and
spiritual matters than to enter the land of Israel, where they
would have to pursue mundane affairs.
(‫)לקוטי תורה‬
‫״‬...‫״ויציאו דבת הארץ אשר תרו אתה אל בני ישראל לאמר‬

" T h e y brought forth t o t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a n evil report o n
t h e land t h a t t h e y h a d s p i e d out, s a y i n g . . . " ( 1 3 : 3 2 )
QUESTION: When Moshe sent the spies to Canaan, he told

them to bring back a report about the land, the people, and the
SHELACH 103
fruit. This is exactly what they did. What crime d i d they

commit?
ANSWER: The spies were sent only to spy out and report
back; however, they went a step further. In addition to
reporting about the land, its inhabitants, and its fruit, they also
drew conclusions and shared them w i t h the people at large. It
was not for them to decide that, "We cannot go forward against
that people, for they are too strong for us."
No one asked the spies to tell how they felt i n relation to the
giants. Though they heard the giants talking about them and
comparing them to ants, they d i d not have to tell the people,
"We were like grasshoppers in our eyes" (14:1).
for these conclusions, which had a chilling effect on the
entire community and which incited them to rebel and not
want to enter Eretz Yisrael, they indeed deserved to be
punished.
‫קרעו בגדיהם״‬...‫״ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה‬

" Y e h o s h u a s o n of Nun a n d K a l e i v s o n of Y e f u n e h . . . t o r e their
garments." (14:6)
QUESTION: Yehoshua and Kaleiv directly announced their

opposition to the spies. Why did they also tear their garments?
ANSWER: The outer appearance of a person is the first
thing the eye perceives. For instance, a beard and peiyot are the
outer signs of a devout person. Unfortunately, sometimes it is
only a facade and the person is not really what he appears to
be. Likewise, clothing can be a cover-up to disguise a bodily
deformity.
The ten spies pretended to be observant and G-d fearing
Jews. However, inwardly they were debased and corrupt.
Yehoshua and Kaleiv tore off "their (the spies') clothing
(facade)" and exposed their true identity to the entire
community.
‫״ואתם אל תיראו את עם הארץ כי לחמנו הם • ר צלם מעליהם״‬

"Vou s h o u l d not f e a r t h e p e o p l e of t h e l a n d , for t h e y a r e our
b r e a d ; t h e i r protection h a s d e p a r t e d from t h e m . " ( 1 4 : 9 )
QUESTION: What is the significance of the comparison to

bread?
ANSWER: Bread is a staple which sustains life. If, G-d
forbid, a person lacks bread, he w i l l do everything possible,
including even the seemingly impossible, to obtain it.
With the words, "they are our bread" Yehoshua and Kaleiv
were declaring to the people that Eretz Yisrael was as important
to the Jewish people as bread to a living man. Consequently,
they had to be ready for anything, even mesirat nefesh — the
profoundest self sacrifice — i n order to acquire it.
(‫)ר׳ שלום מרדכי הכהן דיל מברעזאן‬
‫״ואתם אל תיראו את עם הארץ כי לחמנו הם • ר צלם מעליהם״‬

"Vou s h o u l d not f e a r t h e p e o p l e of t h e l a n d , for t h e y a r e our
b r e a d ; t h e i r protection h a s d e p a r t e d from t h e m . " ( 1 4 : 9 )
QUESTION: If Yehoshua and Kaleiv wanted to compare the

Canaanites to bread w h y the emphasis on "lachmeinu" — "our
bread"?
ANSWER: Throughout the sojourn of the Jewish people i n
the wilderness, they were sustained through the manna which
Moshe described to the Jews as "the bread which Hashem has
given you to eat" (Shemot 16:16). They gathered it morning by
morning, and when the sun grew hot it melted (16:21).
The spies instilled a fear i n the Jewish people about the
inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael. Yehoshua and Kaleiv dispelled this
by telling them they are like "our bread" — the manna. It is
only solid as long as it is i n the shade, but once exposed to the
heat, it melts. Similarly, their shade — i.e. protection — had
departed from them and it would be extremely easy to conquer
the Canaanites, because, like "our bread," they would melt i n
the Jews' presence.
(‫ כלי יקר‬,‫)אלשיך‬
SHELACH 105
‫״פקד עון אבות על בנים״‬

" R e c a l l i n g t h e iniquity of p a r e n t s u p o n c h i l d r e n . " ( 1 4 : 1 8 )
QUESTION: Even if the pasuk is referring to those children

who continue i n the bad ways of their parents (see Berachot 7a),
why should children be punished for their parents' sins?
ANSWER: This can be explained with the following
parable: A ravenous wolf wanted to devour a fox, whereupon
the sly fox said to him, " I am just skin and bones; there is a
healthy man nearby of whom you can make a good meal."
When the wolf replied that it is forbidden for animals to
attack human beings (Bereishit 9:2), the fox told him that he had
no cause to worry: since children pay for the crimes of their
parents, his children would be punished, and not he.
The wolf then took off to attack the man, and on the way he
fell into a trap, and his cries echoed throughout the forest.
When the fox came to the "rescue," the wolf cried out to him,
"You liar, didn't you tell me that I wouldn't be punished for my
sins?!"
The fox replied, "Fool that you are! You are not being
punished for your own sins; you are being punished for the
sins of your father who attacked people."
The wolf bellowed, "Why should I suffer for the crimes of
my father?"
The fox said, "Let your ears listen to what your mouth is
saying. You yourself were willing to commit a crime, content
that your children would suffer for it, so now it is fitting that
you should suffer for your father's sins."
Hashem's ways of retribution are middah keneged middah —
measure for measure. When children continue i n the bad
footsteps of their parents, obviously they don't care if their own
children suffer for their wrongdoings. Therefore, it is
appropriate that they suffer for iniquities committed by their
fathers, who also did not care that ultimately their children
would pay for it.
When one refrains from sinning because he does not want

his children to be punished for his crimes, he too w i l l not be
punished for the iniquities perpetrated by his father.
(‫ זי‬,‫ שמות ל׳׳ד‬,‫)פרדס יוסף‬
‫״במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו״‬

"In t h i s w i l d e r n e s s t h e y s h a l l b e c o n s u m e d , a n d t h e r e t h e y
shall die." (14:35)
QUESTION: In the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:3) Rabbi Akiva

derives from this pasuk that the Generation of the Wilderness
have no share i n Olam Haba — the World to Come. In the same
Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva also says that the Congregation of
Korach is not destined to be resurrected, as is stated, "The earth
covered over them" — i n this world; "and they were lost from
among the Congregation" — i n the World to Come (16:33).
The two teachings seem redundant since the Congregation
of Korach were also among the Generation of the Wilderness?
ANSWER: The emissaries Moshe sent to tour and spy out
the land of Canaan were representatives from all the tribes who
were destined to receive a share of the land. Thus, the tribe of
Levi d i d not send a representative. Upon their return, the spies
incited their respective tribes against going to Eretz Yisrael, and
all the people were thus punished to perish in the wilderness.
Since the tribe of Levi had no representative, they were not
involved i n the dispute, and were among those entitled to enter
Eretz Yisrael (see Midrash Rabbah 1:11).
Consequently, since Korach was a Levite, he and all his
Levite colleagues who joined h i m would have survived the
Generation of the Wilderness and received Olam Haba.
However, due to their link w i t h Korach's rebellion, they now
also lost their share i n the World to Come.
(‫)ויקהל משה בשם דגל מחנה אפרים בהיותו ילד‬
Alternatively, there is a question whether the affair of the

spies preceded or followed the Korach rebellion.
SHELACH 107
In Bamidbar (16:4), Rashi writes that when Korach's

rebellion took place, Moshe felt powerless to appeal to Hashem
to forgive the people because it was already the fourth time
they had defied H i m . The first was the incident of the golden
calf, then that of the "mit'onenim" — "those who complained"
(11:1) — afterwards the incident of the spies, and now the
Korach rebellion.
However, i n Devarim (1:1) when Moshe rebuked the Jews,
Rashi explains "Paran" to refer to the spies who were sent from
the Wilderness of Paran (12:16), and "Chatzeirot" to refer to the
Korach rebellion. Since the Torah says, "The people journeyed
from Chatzeirot and encamped i n the Wilderness of Paran,"
(12:16) it appears that Rashi now follows the opinion that
Korach's rebellion (Chatzeirot) preceded the spies (Paran).
According to the latter view, it is understood w h y Rabbi
Akiva says that both groups lost their share i n the world to
come, because the Korach group lost theirs prior to the spy
incident.
Rabbi Akiva i n the Mishnah speaks first of the Generation of
the Wilderness and then of the Korach group, though the
chronology is the reverse, because i n the Torah, Parshat Shelach,
which is about the spies, is before Parshat Korach.
(‫)עי׳ פרח לבנון על פרקי אבות ע׳ קי״וז‬
‫ויין לנסך רביעית‬...‫״כי תבאו אל ארץ מושבתיכם אשר אני נתן לכם‬
‫ההין״‬
" W h e n y o u will c o m e to t h e land of your dwelling p l a c e s t h a t I
give y o u . . . a n d a quarter-Wn of w i n e for a libation." ( 1 5 : 2 , 5 )
QUESTION: Why does the Biblical discussion of wine

libations follow the narrative of the episode of the spies?
ANSWER: The spies brought back a fig, a pomegranate,
and a cluster of grapes from Eretz Yisrael. These fruits were so
unusually large that one man had to carry the fig, another the
pomegranate, and eight others carried the grapes. They told the
Jews that just as the fruit of the land was unusual, so were the
inhabitants, and they thereby discouraged the Jews from

wanting to go to Eretz Yisrael.
Since the majority of the spies used grapes to malign Eretz
Yisrael, Hashem commanded the Jewish people that when they
would enter Eretz Yisrael and offer sacrifices, they were to
include a wine libation i n order to atone for the sin which was
committed by their ancestors through the grapes of Eretz
Yisrael.
(‫)נחל קדומים‬
‫ מראשית ערםתיכם תתנו‬... ‫״ראשית ערםתכם חלה תרימו תרומה‬

‫לה׳ תרומה לדרתיכם״‬
" T h e first of y o u r dough y o u s h a l l s e t a s i d e challah — a loaf a s
a portion ... from t h e first of your k n e a d i n g s h a l l y o u give a
portion t o G-d, for your g e n e r a t i o n s . " ( 1 5 : 2 0 - 2 1 )
QUESTION: If "arisoteichem" means "your dough," it

should have said "batzeikechem" (see Shemot 12:34), and if it
means your kneading, it should have said "lishatechem" (see
Bereishit 18:6)?
ANSWER: In Hebrew a bed (cradle) is called an "arisah."
Thus, the word "arisoteichem" can also mean "your beds." The
Torah is teaching that "meireishit arisoteichem" — as soon as a
person rises from his bed — he should give an offering to
Hashem.
The offering we give Hashem is our reciting of "Modeh ani,"
(in which we thank H i m for restoring to us our soul, the
essence of our life source) and making davening and Torah
study the first activity of our day.
(‫ דף קס״ה ע׳׳א‬,‫ קונטרסים‬- ‫)ספר המאמרים‬
Additionally, while a child is very young and still i n the

"arisah" — "cradle" — his parents should endeavor to inculcate
him w i t h a love for Torah and G-dliness by exposing the child
to Torah-oriented songs, toys, games and room decorations.
‫)כ״ק אדמו״ח‬
* * *
SHELACH 109
The word "challah" is an acronym for the early

connections that parents make between a child and Hashem.
The , which has the numerical value of eight, is the brit
milah — circumcision — which takes place when the child is
eight days old.
The , which has the numerical value of thirty, is for the
pidyon haben — the redemption of a firstborn son — after he is
thirty days old.
The , which adds up to five, is for the ruling of the
Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (5:22), " A t five years of age the study of
Scriptures should be commenced."
(‫)מעינה של תורה‬
‫״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה ועשו כל העדה פר בן בקר‬

‫ושעיר עזים אחד לחסת״‬...‫אחד לעלה‬
"If b e c a u s e of t h e e y e s [ l e a d e r s h i p ] of t h e a s s e m b l y it w a s
d o n e unintentionally, t h e e n t i r e a s s e m b l y s h a l l p r e p a r e o n e
y o u n g bull a s a n elevation-offering...and o n e he-goat a s a sin-
offering." (15:24)
QUESTION: Rashi explains that the word "lechatat" — "for

a sin-offering" — is spelled without an to teach that while
normally a chatat — sin-offering — is brought on the altar
before the olah — burnt-offering — that comes along w i t h it,
here it follows after the sin-offering.
Why is this case an exception to the rule?
ANSWER: A burnt-offering gains forgiveness for evil
thoughts and a sin-offering is for an actual deed (Midrash
Rabbah Vayikra 7:3). Since a person usually considers an action
in his mind before performing it, shouldn't the burnt-offering
precede the sin offering?
Hashem punishes one for evil thoughts only when they are
acted upon, but if a person plans to sin, and due to unforeseen
circumstances does not have the opportunity, he is not
punished. A n exception to this is idolatry: Then the thought
itself is the main sin, and when one transgresses and worships,
his major need for forgiveness is for the premeditation, as

Hashem stated, " I n order to seize the House of Israel for what is
in their heart, because they are all estranged from Me through
their idols (Ezekiel 14:5) (see Kiddushin 40a).
Consequently, for all transgressions the sin-offering
precedes the burnt-offering because it atones for the action, the
major part of the transgression. However, in the case of
idolatry, thinking that Hashem is not Omnipotent, and
considering detaching oneself from H i m , is the primary
iniquity, and therefore the sin-offering (which is for the
thought), is offered first.
* * *
Alternatively, unlike the burnt-offering which is consumed
entirely on the altar, only parts of a sin-offering are burnt on
the altar while the rest is eaten by the Kohanim. In a burnt-
offering, the altar's consumption is the source of forgiveness.
However, the Gemara (Pesachim 59b) says that in the case of a
sin-offering, the violator receives atonement also through the
Kohen's eating. Consequently, since the sin-offering provides
two forms of forgiveness (the altar's consumption and the
Kohen's eating), it has priority over the burnt-offering, which
only provides one.
When one commits idolatry, the sin-offering is entirely

burnt on the altar with nothing eaten by Kohanim (Rambam,
Ma'aseh Hakarbanot 1:16). Thus, this sin-offering, which does not
provide the usual two forms of forgiveness, is not offered
before the burnt-offering.
‫״ויניחו אותו במשמר כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו״‬

"And t h e y p l a c e d him in c u s t o d y b e c a u s e it h a d not b e e n
d e c l a r e d w h a t to do to h i m . " ( 1 5 : 3 4 )
QUESTION: In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 339:4) the

Rama writes that it is forbidden to put someone in prison on
Shabbat, even if it is feared that he w i l l flee, because it
resembles judgment, which is forbidden on Shabbat. The
SHELACH 111
Shabbat violator was immediately apprehended and brought to

Moshe; w h y were they permitted to place him under arrest?
ANSWER: Throughout the entire Torah, prison is never
described as a means of punishment. The only reference to
punitive imprisonment is in regard to Yosef, who allegedly
committed a sin in Egypt and who was judged by its system.
The "custody" mentioned i n our pasuk does not mean jail, but
protective custody.
The Shabbat violator outraged the people. It was only the
second Shabbat since their leaving Egypt and already someone
had violated it. If he had not been placed i n protective custody,
the people might have literally ripped him apart, perhaps
subjecting him to a fate harsher than the one imposed by his
still unspecified punishment.
Thus, although punitive incarceration on Shabbat is indeed
related to judgment and forbidden, placement i n protective
custody, which actually benefits the violator, is permitted.
(‫)כרם שלמה‬
‫״דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם ועשו להם ציצת״‬

" S p e a k to t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a n d s a y to t h e m t h a t t h e y
s h a l l m a k e t h e m s e l v e s tzitzit." ( 1 5 : 3 8 )
QUESTION: The word "ve'asu" — literally means, "and

they shall make." It should have said sheya'asu [say to them]
that they shall make [themselves tzitzit]."
ANSWER: The portion of tzitzit is immediately preceded by
the story of the mekosheish eitzim — the one who gathered wood
— on Shabbat. He was placed under custody until it would be
clarified what should be done. Hashem told Moshe that he was
to be put to death for desecrating the Shabbat.
According to a Midrash (Tana D'vei Eliyahu — see Yalkut
Shimoni) the reason for the juxtaposition of the two portions is
the following: Hashem said to Moshe "This person desecrated
the Shabbat." Moshe responded i n his defense, "You know that
every day he has tefillin on his head and arm. On Shabbat, he
was not donning Tefillin and therefore he sinned." Hashem told
Moshe, "Go and tell them about tzitzit. It is something that w i l l

apply always, even on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Upon seeing them
they w i l l remember all the commandments."
Some may erroneously think that tzitzit is merely an alter¬
native way to remember all the commandments, and one has the
option to now wear either tefillin or tzitzit. Therefore, Hashem
told Moshe to tell them that "ve'asu" — "and they should make
tzitzit." Not as an alternative, but i n addition to tefillin.
‫)אור החיים‬
‫״וראיתם אותו״‬
"And y o u s h a l l s e e h i m . " ( 1 5 : 3 9 )
QUESTION: The Ba'alei Mesorah indicate another two

pesukim w i t h the word "ure'item." One is Moshe's statement to
the spies, "ure'item et ha'aretz" — "and you shall see the land"
(13:18) — and the other is Pharaoh's statement to the Jewish
midwives, "ure'item al ha'avnayim" — "and you shall see on the
birthstool" (Shemot 1:16). What is the connection between these
three pesukim?
ANSWER: In Pirkei Avot (3:1) Akavia ben Mehallalleil says,
"Reflect upon three things and you w i l l not come to sin. Know
from where you come, and to where you are going, and before
Whom you are destined to give an accounting." These three
pesukim are an allusion to the three things we are to reflect upon.
1) "Ure'iten al ha'avnayim" — "and you shall see on the
birthstool" — teaches us to "see," i.e. bear i n mind, from where
we came and how we were born.
2) "Ure'item et ha'aretz" — "and you shall see the land" (lit.
"earth") — cautions us to remember to where we w i l l return.
3) "Ure'item oto" — "and you shall see H i m " — is a message
that ultimately we are destined to see H i m on the day of
judgment and, therefore, we should strenuously avoid sinning.
(‫)מעינה של אבות בשם ר׳ שמעלקע זצ״ל מניקלשבורג‬
KORACH 113
KORACH ‫קורח ־‬
‫״ו״קח ק ר ח ״‬
" K o r a c h s e p a r a t e d [lit., t o o k ] h i m s e l f . " ( 1 6 : 1 )
QUESTION: Korach assembled 250 prestigious men, and

clad them with tallitot — garments made entirely of blue wool.
They stood before Moshe saying, "a four cornered garment
requires tzitzit — fringes — and one string must be of techeilet
— blue wool; does a garment made entirely of blue wool
require a blue string or is it exempt?" (See Rashi)
Korach's dispute w i t h Moshe was over leadership. How is
his question relevant?
ANSWER: Korach was upset that Moshe and Aharon held
leadership positions and that his cousin Elitzafan was
appointed as leader of the Kohathite family. He argued that
leadership is needed only when there are different levels of
people in the community. Since the entire community was holy,
it was unjustified that one should become holier than the holy.
He substantiated his argument w i t h an example from the
mitzvah of tzitzit. A four-cornered garment requires fringes
(tzitzit) and among them is a blue string. However, when the
entire tallit is made of blue wool, logically a string of blue wool
is unnecessary. Likewise, when the entire community is holy,
there is no need for anyone to have special status.
Moshe responded that according to halachah even a tallit
entirely of blue wool requires a string of techeilet i n the tzitzit,
and regardless of the caliber of the community, leadership is
always necessary.
(‫)רבינו בחיי‬
‫״ו״קח קווו״‬
QUESTION: According to Midrash Rabbah (18:3) Korach

confronted Moshe with the following question: "Is it necessary
to place a mezuzah on the doorpost of a room filled w i t h Sifrei
Torah?" Moshe replied affirmatively, and Korach argued, "the
whole Torah which contains 275 parshiot cannot exempt the
house, yet a mezuzah which contains only two parshiot exempts
it?!"
Logically, Korach's reasoning made sense: Why should a
room filled w i t h Sifrei Torah require a mezuzah on the outside?
ANSWER: The slogan of the early Reform movement in
Germany was "Yehudi beveitecha ve'adam betzeitecha" — "Be a
true Jew at home, but on the outside be a person like everyone
else." Similarly, Korach said of the Jewish people "Kol ha'eida
kulam kedoshim" — "The entire community is holy" —
"uvetocham Hashem" — "and G-d is among them" (16:3). He
meant that the Jews were all holy since they all had G-d
"betocham" — i n their hearts. He asserted, thus, that it is
sufficient to be a good Jew on the "inside" without openly
showing it on the outside.
Moshe vehemently disagreed and insisted that even if a
home or individual is saturated with Torah, it is imperative to
also manifest one's Torah convictions in public, to let the world
know that the home is a Jewish one with a mezuzah. From the
turn of events, it was apparent that Hashem agreed with Moshe.
QUESTION: What was the nature of the ideological dispute

between Korach and Moshe, and what implication does it have
for our times?
ANSWER: During their confrontation, Korach challenged
Moshe about the requirement for a mezuzah on a house filled
w i t h Sifrei Torah. He also asked if a tallit made entirely of
KORACH 115
techeilet required a string of techeilet i n the tzitzit. Moshe

responded to both questions affirmatively.
Logically, Korach appeared correct. Moshe, however, told
him, "Torah and mitzvot cannot be approached with our cold
logic. A Jew must have kabbalat ol — complete submission to
the w i l l of Hashem — doing whatever He commands even
when human logic may dictate otherwise."
The name "Korach" conveys to us the nature of his
personality. It has the same letters as the Hebrew word "kerach"
— "ice." For an advocate of using a cold and frigid approach to
spiritual matters and serving Hashem only w i t h logic and
understanding, the name "Korach" — "kerach" — is
appropriate.
* * *
The two radically different approaches to Torah are

illustrated by a story of the Ba'al Shem Tov. He once told his
students that anything a Jew sees or hears is not a function of
mere chance, but caused by hashgachah peratit — Divine
providence — and intended as a message for the individual.
Afterwards, the disciples went out into the street and
noticed a group of villagers singing and dancing. It was a
holiday celebrated by chiseling out a cross from the frozen
water of the river and dancing w i t h it through the streets.
Deeply disturbed, the disciples hastened back to the Ba'al Shem
Tov and asked, "What lesson is being conveyed to us through
this mysterious scene?"
The Ba'al Shem Tov replied, "Water has very unusual

qualities. It enables a person who immerses i n it to regain his
purity. However, this can be accomplished only when the
water is i n the flowing state. When it freezes, then G-d forbid, it
can become an object of avodah zarah — idolatry. Likewise,
Torah is compared to flowing water (see Ta'anit 7a). Through it
one can reach the highest levels, but approaching it w i t h
coldness can make it 'freeze' and produce a radical spiritual
decline i n a person."
Korach's "chilly" approach deprived him of the warmth of

Torah and ultimately led to his downfall.
...‫ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים‬...‫ודתן ואבירם‬...‫״ויקח קרח‬

‫ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן״‬
" K o r a c h s e p a r a t e d himself... with D a t a n a n d Aviram... with two
hundred a n d fifty m e n from t h e Children of I s r a e l . . . t h e y
g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r a g a i n s t M o s h e a n d A h a r o n . " (16:1-3)
QUESTION: Pirkei Avot (5:17) states that a controversy

which is not for the sake of heaven w i l l not have an everlasting
result and cites the controversy of Korach and his followers.
How is it evident that Korach's controversy was not for the
sake of heaven?
ANSWER: The Mishnah, i n describing a "machloket shelo
lesheim shamayim" — "a controversy not for the sake of Heaven"
— does not say "machloket Korach ve'adato im Moshe" — "the
controversy of Korach and his followers with Moshe" — but
"machloket Korach vechol adato" — "the controversy of Korach
and all his followers" (with no mention of Moshe).
This indicates that, in addition to the rebellion against
Moshe, there was also quarreling and disagreement among
Korach and his seeming allies. The phrase "Vayikach Korach" —
"and Korach took" — is i n the singular, as opposed to
"Vayikechu" — "and they took" — because each of Korach's
allies had his own ambitions and desire for personal gain and
they did not see 'eye to eye' among themselves. The only
common denominator between them was that they were all
against Moshe, but each one was seeking his own agenda.
When unity is lacking among the people on one side of a
dispute, our Sages i n their wisdom teach us that such a
controversy is not for the sake of Heaven.
(‫ ועי׳ פון אונזער אלטען אוצר‬,‫)לקוטי בתר לקוטי בשם התורה והמצוה‬
* * *
Alternatively, Korach was upset that his cousin Elitzafan

was appointed in charge of the Kohathite family (3:30).
KORACH 117
According to his calculations, since his father was older than

Elitzafan's, the post belonged to him.
He challenged Moshe about this and also questioned if a
house filled w i t h Sifrei Torah requires a mezuzah and whether a
garment entirely of techeilet wool requires a single string of
techeilet i n its tzitzit.
These questions were totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
They were derisive questions through which he intended to
ridicule and embarrass Moshe i n the eyes of the community.
When two parties enter into a debate and adhere to the
issues, it is a dispute for the sake of Heaven. When Shammai
and Hillel, for instance, had a dispute over a halachic issue,
they would only argue the issue at hand and not bring in
irrelevant matters in the course of their debate.
However, when one digresses and introduces unrelated
matters it is a sign of weakness and a smoke-screen meant to
distract attention i n lieu of admitting default. When this occurs
it becomes apparent that the dispute is shelo lesheim shamayim —
not for the sake of Heaven.
(‫)שמעתי מדודי הרב ברוך הכהן דיל כהן מוז״ס קול תודה‬
QUESTION: Why does the Korach episode in the Torah

start w i t h the word "vayikach" — "and he took"?
ANSWER: There once appeared to Rabbi Nachum of
Chernobyl an impressive looking person who offered to teach
him esoteric Torah knowledge. He replied, "Before I can agree
to accept your offer, I must consult with my Rebbe, the Maggid
of Mezritz." The Maggid listened attentively and then said, " I t
was very wise of you not to immediately agree, because the
person who approached you was from the realm of evil.
Incidentally, tell me, where d i d you get the intuition to turn
down such a seemingly valuable offer?"
Rabbi Nachum told him that when he was a very young

boy, his mother passed away. His father remarried and his
step-mother treated him very harshly. "Once, when I came
home from cheider to eat lunch, my step-mother was not home.
On the stove were fried eggs. Knowing the size of the portion
my step-mother would usually give me, I took a somewhat
smaller portion for myself. She came home while I was eating
and slapped me. I asked her, 'What have I done wrong? You
were not home and I took less than what you would normally
have given me.'
"Her reply was 'Alein nemt men nit' — 'You do not take by
yourself.' This episode taught me a lesson which remained w i t h
me throughout my entire life. Regardless of all my calculations,
'Alein nemt men nit.'"
With the word "vayikach" — "and he took" — the Torah is
emphasizing Korach's fatal error. Though he was a wise
person, and according to all calculations he felt that he was
right, he unwisely wanted to take something on his own, and
"alein nemt men nit."
‫ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב ואון בן פלת בני ראובן״‬...‫״ויקח קרח‬

" K o r a c h s e p a r a t e d himself...with D a t a n a n d Aviram, s o n s of
Eliav, a n d O n s o n of P e l e t , t h e offspring of R e u v e n . " ( 1 6 : 1 )
QUESTION: In his quarrel w i t h Moshe, Korach was joined

by Datan, Aviram, and On son of Pelet. When the Torah
describes their punishment, however, On son of Pelet is no
longer mentioned (see 16:24). What happened to him?
ANSWER: On son of Pelet was among the people Korach
managed to persuade to join h i m in his rebellion against
Moshe. When his wife heard of his intentions, however, she
said to him, "Why are you getting involved i n this quarrel?
Don't you realize that regardless of who the leader is, you w i l l
remain the same ordinary person? Moshe is a holy man, and it
is foolish of you to join an attempt to overthrow him."
KORACH 119
On son of Pelet listened attentively to his wife and

responded, "You are right, but I have already promised them
that I w i l l join the rebellion. H o w can I let him down now?"
His wife replied, " I understand your dilemma; leave it up
to me and I w i l l get you out of it." She gave him wine to drink
and caused him to be drunk, and then put him to bed inside
their tent. She then sat at the entrance to their tent w i t h her hair
uncovered, a behavior considered immodest for a Jewish
married woman.
When Korach and his followers came to the tent to summon
him and noticed an immodest lady at the entrance, they
decided to leave without him. Thanks to his wife's intervention
his life was saved.
Regarding wise women, King Shlomo says: "Chachmot
nashim bantah beitah" — "the wise among women, each builds
her house" (Proverbs 14:1). This is a reference to the wife of On
son of Pelet, who by preventing him from accompanying
Korach to the fatal confrontation w i t h Moshe, "Built her house"
— that is, kept her family i n tact.
(‫)מס׳ סנהדרין ד ף ק״י ע׳׳א‬
‫״ואון בן פ ל ת בני ראובן״‬

"And O n s o n of P e l e t , t h e o f f s p r i n g of R e u v e n . " ( 1 6 : 1 )
QUESTION: According to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) he

was saved by his wife's sitting at the entrance to their tent with
her hair uncovered. Why, to act immodestly, d i d she
specifically uncover her hair and not another part of her body?
ANSWER: When the Jewish people arrived at Sinai to
receive the Torah, Hashem said to them, "You shall be to Me a
kingdom of Kohanim, and a holy nation" (Shemot 19:6). A t that
interval, they reached a level where all the effects of Adam's
transgression on the world were nullified, and Hashem was
ready to elevate them to a spiritual height where each would be
a Kohen Gadol. Had they not sinned afterwards w i t h the golden
calf, this would have remained in effect forever (see Yavamot
103a, Maharsha; Shemot 19:6, Ba'al Haturim).
The Gemara (Eiruvin 100b) says, "Since a woman (Chavah)

caused Adam to sin, thus bringing death upon humanity,
[married] women cover themselves like mourners" ("and are
ashamed to go out with their hair uncovered" — Rashi).
Korach argued that the entire people were holy: "We all
heard Hashem's message at Sinai." Consequently, he
demanded that they all be considered Kohanim Gedolim and not
just Aharon (see 16:6, Rashi). Obviously, he maintained that the
sin of Adam was forgiven or at least that the red heifer would
rectify that sin, as Rashi (19:22) explains, "Let the mother come
and clean up the dirt of her child." Hence, there was no longer
any reason for women to be i n mourning and cover their hair.
Therefore, to prove the hypocrisy of Korach, the wife of On
son of Pelet specifically uncovered her hair. If Korach would
avoid approaching her, it would prove that he considered it
immodest since after worshipping the golden calf, the Jewish
people reverted to their old status and were not i n fact all a
kingdom of Kohanim. In other words, Moshe was right.
(‫ עמוד ר׳‬,‫ ועי׳ אגרות קודש חי״א‬,‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
‫״ואון בן פ ל ת ב נ י ר א ו ב ן ״‬
"And O n s o n of P e l e t , t h e o f f s p r i n g of R e u v e n . " ( 1 6 : 1 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b) explains that the

name On ben Pelet implies: "On" — "sat i n mourning" (related
to the word "aninut" — "mourning") — "ben Pelet" ("son of
Pelet") — "miracles (related to the word "pela'ot" —
"miracles") — were performed for h i m " — to be saved from
Korach's fate.
Thanks to his wife's intervention, he did not join Korach's
contingent. Thus, he actually d i d nothing wrong, so w h y did he
sit in mourning?
ANSWER: When one plans a transgression, he is not held
liable unless he actually performs it. This does not apply
however, to intending idolatry (see Kiddushin 40a).
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) equates one who challenges,
quarrels with, or thinks i l l about his Torah teacher to one who
KORACH 121
challenges the Divine Presence. Thus, such acts are tantamount

to idolatry and are punishable even if not expressed in action.
Therefore, On deeply regretted his thought of opposing his
teacher Moshe, and mourned, i.e. repented, his participation in
the planning stage of Korach's insurrection.
‫״ ו י ק ה ל ו ע ל מ ש ה ו ע ל א ה ר ן ו י א מ ר ו א ל ה ם ר ב ל כ ם כ״ כ ל ה ע ד ה כ ל ם‬
‫״‬.‫קדשים‬
"They gathered together against M o s h e and against Aharon

a n d s a i d to t h e m ; 'It i s t o o m u c h for y o u ! F o r t h e e n t i r e
a s s e m b l y — all of t h e m — a r e holy." ( 1 6 : 3 )
QUESTION: According to the Midrash, Korach decided to

declare a rebellion against Moshe after learning of the parah
adumah — red heifer. What about the red heifer encouraged
him?
ANSWER: When the Jews sinned w i t h the golden calf,
Moshe argued to Hashem " I n reality they d i d not violate the
Torah. Though You declared, ' I am G-d your G-d' and 'You
shall not have any other gods.' You said this i n singular
because it only applied to me and not to the Jewish community
at large" (Shemot 20:2, Rashi). When Korach said to Moshe,
"The entire assembly is holy," Rashi explains that he meant,
" A l l the Jews heard at Sinai the Divine message, ' I am G-d your
G-d' and not just you alone."
Superficially, it is puzzling that Korach should raise such

an argument when it nullifies the defense that Moshe used for
the Jewish people when they worshipped the golden calf.
Korach should have been silent so as not to arouse Hashem's
wrath.
About the statute of the red heifer Rashi (19:22) cites Rabbi
Moshe Hadarshan, who explains that symbolically the cow was
to atone for the sin of the golden calf, as if to say, "Let the
mother clean up her child's mess." Consequently, when Korach
learned of the red heifer and that it rectified the sin of the
golden calf, he assumed that Moshe's defense was no longer
needed and felt free to tell Moshe, " A l l the Jews are holy; they
heard Hashem's message at Sinai, and there is no justification

for you to rise above them."
J
(‫)פנינים יקרים‬
Alternatively, regarding the preparation of the red heifer,

Hashem told Moshe and Aharon that, "You shall give it to
Elazar the Kohen!' (19:3), on which Rashi writes, "Mitzvatah
besegan" — "the preparation of the red heifer had to be done by
the deputy Kohen Gadol."
Till then Korach believed that Aharon was not guilty i n any
way for the making of the golden calf. N o w that he heard that
in lieu of Aharon, the deputy Kohen Gadol was assigned to
prepare it, he concluded that Hashem was not satisfied with
Aharon's involvement i n the calf, and had replaced him w i t h
Elazar. This led him to think that for the same reason Aharon
should not be the Kohen Gadol either, and that his appointment
had been Moshe's decision and not Hashem's. Therefore, he
declared a rebellion against Moshe.
(‫)בינה נבונים על מדרש פליאה בשם אמרות הי‬
* * *
Alternatively, the reason w h y Korach thought that he
should be the Kohen Gadol instead of Aharon was that Hashem
selected Elazar to prepare the red heifer, and the name Elazar
and Korach both have the same numerical value of
308.
‫״ ו י ש מ ע מ ש ה ויפל ע ל פניו״‬
" M o s h e h e a r d a n d fell o n h i s f a c e . " ( 1 6 : 4 )
QUESTION: Rashi comments that this was the fourth

offense committed by the Jewish people. On the previous three
occasions, Moshe was able to defend them, but now "nitrashelu
yadav" — "his hands sank down" — since he feared that
Hashem would no longer accept his advocacy.
Why was Moshe unable to defend them at this time?
ANSWER: When the Jews sinned w i t h the golden calf,
Moshe came to their defense and argued: " I n reality, the Jewish
people did not commit any sin. The commandment, 'You shall
KORACH 123
not have any other gods' was said i n singular and thus referred
only to me. Consequently, only I am obligated and not them"
(Rashi, Shemot 20:2). On the basis of this argument, Hashem
forgave the Jewish people.
Korach argued that "Everyone is holy" and all had heard
the commandments at Sinai (Rashi 16:3). Upon hearing these
words, Moshe became very frightened, because this
undermined the defense he presented i n the case of the golden
calf on behalf of the Jewish people.
(‫)זכרון ישראל‬
‫ ב ק ר ו י ד ע ה ׳ א ת א ש ר לו ו א ת ה ק ד ו ש ״‬. . . ‫״ ו י ד ב ר א ל ק ר ח‬
"He s p o k e to K o r a c h . . . 'In t h e m o r n i n g G-d will m a k e known t h e

o n e who i s His own a n d t h e holy o n e . ' " ( 1 6 : 5 )
QUESTION: Why d i d Moshe push them off until the

following morning?
ANSWER: When the Jewish people were i n the wilderness
their source of food was manna from Heaven, and each
morning they would go out and find their daily allotment.
According to the Gemara (Yoma 75a) the righteous (tzaddikim)
would find their manna on the doorsteps of their tents. A n
intermediate person (beinoni) had to leave the camp to gather it,
and a wicked person (rasha) had to go some distance and
expend considerable effort to gather his portion.
Therefore, Moshe told Korach and his followers that "In the
morning G-d w i l l make known — according to where you find
your manna it w i l l be obvious if Aharon is the tzaddik or you
and your followers."
(‫)מהר״ם שי״ף‬
Alternatively, the Gemara (Berachot 19a) says that if one sees
a Torah scholar commit a transgression during the evening, one
should not have suspicion about him during the day because it
is definite that by morning he w i l l have done teshuvah.
Korach and his people were Torah scholars and, i n essence,
great men. Moshe was confident that during the night they
would realize their mistake and do teshuvah. Hence, their
rebellion against him, which i n reality was a rebellion against

Hashem, would cease.
‫״רב ל כ ם ב נ י לו״‬
"It i s t o o m u c h for y o u , 0 o f f s p r i n g of L e v i . " ( 1 6 : 7 )
QUESTION: Rashi asks, "Since Korach was a wise man:

how could he have acted so foolishly?" "His eye caused him to
err because he saw that the prophet Shmuel would be among
his descendants, and i n his merit he would be saved." What
foolishness did Korach commit?
ANSWER: In describing Korach's confrontation w i t h
Moshe, the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel (16:2) writes, "They stood
audaciously, and in the presence of Moshe, rendered a halachic
decision regarding the laws of a techeilet (blue) string i n a four-
cornered garment."
The Gemara (Eiruvin 63b) states that for rendering halachic
decisions i n the presence of one's Rabbi, one of the
punishments is dying without survivors. Thus, Korach thought
that he was allowed to question and dispute Moshe's various
appointments, but to decide halachic matters i n his presence
was foolish since he risked dying without any survivors.
However, when Korach envisioned that the prophet
Shmuel would be one of his descendants, he fearlessly and
foolishly expressed an halachic opinion i n Moshe's presence,
convinced that he would not receive the prescribed punish¬
ment.
(‫ כרם חמד‬- ‫)ילקוט האורים‬
‫״ ר ב ל כ ם ב נ י לו״״‬
"It i s t o o m u c h for y o u , 0 o f f s p r i n g of L e v i . " ( 1 6 : 7 )
QUESTION: The Midrash Rabbah (18:2) asks, "Korach was a

wise man and among those who carried the Ark. How could he
have acted so foolishly? He erred because he saw that among
his offspring would be the prophet Shmuel; therefore, he was
sure that he would triumph over Moshe and Aharon."
KORACH 125
What encouragement d i d Korach derive from seeing that

the prophet Shmuel would be among his descendants?
ANSWER: Korach objected to Elitzafan's appointment as
leader of his family. He argued that the position should have
been given to him since his father was older than Elitzafan's.
The Gemara (Chagigah 14a) says that a leader of the community
must have two qualities, 1) learned i n Torah and 2) at least fifty
years old. Though Korach was learned and thus met one of the
prerequisites needed to be a leader, since he was among those
who bore the A r k , he must have been under the age of fifty,
because a Levite may only bear the A r k until that age (see 8:25,
Rashi).
The prophet Shmuel led the Jewish community for eleven

years and passed away at the age of fifty-two. Seeing
prophetically that his descendant Shmuel would be a leader of
the community though he was under fifty, Korach concluded
that even one quality is sufficient and despite his own relative
youth, his Torah scholarship qualified him to be a leader.
(‫)ר׳ יהונתן דיל אייבישיץ‬
‫״ ר ב ל כ ם בנ״ לו״״‬
"It i s t o o m u c h for y o u , s o n s of L e v i . " ( 1 6 : 7 )
QUESTION: The Midrash Rabbah (18:2) asks, "Korach was a

wise man and among those who carried the Ark. How could he
have acted so foolishly?" Why does his being among those who
carried the A r k make it difficult to comprehend w h y he
engaged i n the dispute?
ANSWER: The Ark that housed the Torah was two and one
half cubits long, one and one half cubits wide, and one and one
half cubits tall (Shemot 25:10). The dimensions all being in
fractions conveys a lesson i n humility. Namely, one who
acquires Torah knowledge should learn from the A r k to be
humble.
Declaring war against Moshe and Aharon was an act of
brazen arrogance. The Midrash therefore wonders, since Korach
was a wise person, w h y d i d he act so foolishly? Moreover,
being among those who carried the Ark, he should have known
the Ark's message and not acted so arrogantly against Moshe
and Aharon.
(‫)עיטורי תורה בשם ר׳ עקיבא דיל סופר‬
‫ ו י ק ר ב א ת ך ו א ת כ ל א ח י ך ב נ י לוי א ת ך ו ב ק ש ת ם ג ם‬. . . ‫״ ה מ ע • מ כ ם‬
‫כהנה״‬
" I s it not e n o u g h for you...And He h a s d r a w n y o u n e a r , a n d all

your b r e t h r e n , t h e o f f s p r i n g of L e v i , with you — y e t you s e e k
priesthood a s well!" (16:9-10)
QUESTION: Grammatically it should have said, "lachem"

— "for you" — instead of "mikem" — "of you"?
ANSWER: When the census of the Jewish people was taken,
the tribe of Levi contained the smallest number of people (see
3:39). One reason for this was that they carried the Ark, and any
disrespect to the A r k was punished w i t h death.
Moshe told Korach and his people, "hame'at — The reason
that there are so few — mikem — of you — is because of your
exalted and holy position." "Uvikashtem gam kehunah" — "Why
are you seeking priesthood!? This w i l l increase the possibility
of even greater peril. If while performing the daily service in
the Beit Hamikdash you act improperly, Hashem may, G-d
forbid, reduce your numbers further. Therefore, for your own
welfare, you should desist in your demands."
‫״ ה מ ע • כי ה ע ל י ת נ ו מ א ר ץ ז ב ת ח ל ב ו ד ב ש ל ה מ י ת נ ו ב מ ד ב ר כי‬
‫ת ש ת ר ר עלינו ג ם ה ש ת ר ר ״‬
" I s it not e n o u g h t h a t y o u h a v e brought u s up from a land

flowing with milk a n d h o n e y to kill u s in t h e w i l d e r n e s s , y e t you
s e e k to d o m i n a t e u s , e v e n to d o m i n a t e f u r t h e r . " ( 1 6 : 1 3 )
QUESTION: It would be sufficient to say, "lehistareir aleinu"

— "you seek to dominate us." The words, "gam histareir" —
"even to dominate further" — seem superfluous?
ANSWER: The Torah relates that as the brothers noticed
Yosef approaching them in the field, they said one to another,
"Let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits, and we w i l l
KORACH 127
say, ' A w i l d beast devoured him,' and we shall see what w i l l

become of his dreams. Reuven heard and he rescued him from
their hand" (Bereishit 37:20-21). According to the Midrash (see
Rashi), the words "We shall see what w i l l become of his
dreams" were said by Hashem i n response to their plan. "You
say let us kill him, but I say let us see whose plan w i l l prevail —
yours or Mine." Reuven heard this Divine statement, and thus,
decided that it was his obligation to save Yosef.
Datan and Aviram brazenly castigated Moshe as a failed
leader and audaciously said, "Yet you seek to dominate us."
Suddenly a voice emanated from Heaven and said, "Gam
histareir" — "He w i l l indeed also dominate further —
regardless of your plans."
‫ ל א ח מ ו ר‬. . . ‫ ו״חר ל מ ש ה מ א ד‬. ‫״הע״נ״ ה א נ ש י ם ה ה ם ת נ ק ר ל א נ ע ל ה‬

‫אחד מהם נשאתי״‬
" E v e n if y o u would blind t h e e y e s of t h o s e m e n w e s h a l l not g o

up. This d i s t r e s s e d M o s h e g r e a t l y a n d h e s a i d . . . 'I h a v e not
t a k e n e v e n a s i n g l e d o n k e y of t h e i r s . ' " ( 1 6 : 1 4 - 1 5 )
QUESTION: 1) What were they alluding to when they

spoke of blindness? 2) How does Moshe's mention of not
taking even one donkey answer their complaint against him?
ANSWER: When the Torah forbids taking bribes it says,
"For a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise" (Devarim 16:19). The
infamous troublemakers Datan and Aviram, who joined with
Korach i n his rebellion against Moshe, thus saw an opportunity
for personal gain. When Moshe summoned Datan and Aviram,
they told the emissaries that even if Moshe would attempt to
blind them — i.e. bribe them — they would not come to see
him. In reality however, they were merely assuming a
demeanor of mock indignation, and actually hoping Moshe
would get the hint and give them a handsome bribe.
Moshe was offended by their insinuation that if he wanted
their cooperation he should bribe them. Greatly outraged, he
said, " I have been the judge of the entire people and had many
opportunities to succumb to greed, yet it never dawned upon
me to violate the Torah and I have not taken even a single
donkey of theirs. How do they have the audacity to think that I

would consider such a thing?! I have never taken a bribe and
w i l l never give one!"
‫לא ח מ ו ר א ח ד מ ה ם נ ש א ת י ״‬...‫״ויחר ל מ ש ה מ א ד ויאמר‬
" T h i s d i s t r e s s e d M o s h e greatly, a n d h e s a i d . . . 'I h a v e not t a k e n

e v e n a s i n g l e d o n k e y of t h e i r s . ' " ( 1 6 : 1 5 )
QUESTION: What justification did he have for taking

donkeys, that he prided himself that he did not take one
nevertheless?
ANSWER: Employees of charitable organizations usually
have travel expense accounts, and some spend lavishly while
traveling. When Moshe traveled to Egypt to tell Pharaoh to
release the Children of Israel, he would have been justified in
presenting them w i t h a bill for the expenses incurred on their
behalf.
Nevertheless, he used his own donkey to transport himself
and his family (Shemot 4:20) and did not ask for reimbursement.
(‫ יי‬,‫)מדרש רבה י״ח‬

QUESTION: How is this point supposed to convince them

of his correctness?
ANSWER: The donkey which Moshe used to go to Egypt
was no ordinary one. It was the son of the she-donkey
mentioned in Pirkei Avot (5:6) among the things Hashem
created at twilight on Erev Shabbat. This donkey was previously
used by Avraham when he went w i t h Yitzchak to Mount
Moriah for the Akeidah, and it w i l l again be used by Mashiach
the descendent of David when he reveals himself to the Jewish
people (see Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 31).
Moshe said in dismay, " I do not understand why they think
I am acting without prior instructions from Hashem. M y
KORACH 129
donkey was not 'echad meihem' — like one of the usual donkeys.
This shows my connection to Hashem."
(‫)דבש וחלב‬
* * *
It is related i n the Gemara (Megillah 9a) that the Egyptian

king, Ptolemy I I (3476-3515 or 246-285 BCE) commanded 72
Torah sages to translate the Written Torah into Greek.
He placed them all in separate rooms, where they would be
unable to communicate with each other. By placing them all in
solitary confinement, he hoped to demonstrate that their
separate translations would reflect many differences of opinion,
proving that the Torah is not Divine in origin, G-d forbid.
G-d inspired them all to produce the same exact translation,
known among non-Jews to this day as the Septuagint, from the
Greek word meaning "seventy." A l l 72 sages made certain
identical changes from the literal meaning of the Torah in
several places to forestall possible misunderstandings by non-
Jews seeking to confirm their own mistaken beliefs.
One of these changes was in the pasuk, "Moshe took his
wife and sons 'vayarkiveim al hachamor' — "and mounted them
on the donkey" (Shemot 4:20). The sages were worried that non-
Jews would mock, "Didn't Moshe have a horse or a camel?"
and therefore they all individually translated it into Greek as
"he mounted them on a carrier of people," which the Gemara
quotes as "vayarkiveim al nosei b'nei adam." The word "adam"
is an acronym for the only three for whom this special
donkey was created — .
(‫)דבש וחלב‬

QUESTION: The word "meihem" — "of theirs" — seems

superfluous?
ANSWER: The Jews left Egypt with great wealth: Everyone
had 90 donkeys laden w i t h gold and silver taken from the
Egyptians (Bechorot 5b). Moshe, who led the Jews triumphantly

out of Egypt, was considered a king (see Devarim 31:3 Targum
Yonatan, and Rambam, Beit Habechirah 6:11). According to
halachah (Rambam, Melachim 4:9), the king is entitled to half of
the plunder taken in battle. Consequently, Moshe was entitled
to receive 45 laden donkeys from each member of the Jewish
community.
Moshe became upset when he saw the Jewish people's lack

of appreciation for all that he had done for them. He was thus
saying, " I was entitled to half of their wealth, yet I did not take
even one donkey meihem — of heim — the 45 that I was entitled
to. (The word "heim" has the numerical value of 45.) When
w i l l they begin to appreciate all the good I have done for
them?"
‫״ולא ה ר ע ת י א ת א ח ד מ ה ם ״‬
" N e i t h e r h a v e I w r o n g e d o n e of t h e m . " ( 1 6 : 1 5 )
QUESTION: The words, "et achad meihem" — "one of them"

— seem extra. He could have simply stated, "Lo harei'oti lahem"
— " I d i d not wrong them."
ANSWER: When Moshe visited his brethren i n the field, he
noticed two Jews, Datan and Aviram, fighting amongst
themselves. When one lifted a hand against the other, he
exclaimed, "Why do you strike your brother?" (Shemot 2:13)
Moshe broke up the fight and thus spared the other a beating.
When Korach came to argue with Moshe, he was joined by
the infamous rebels, Datan and Aviram. Moshe was shocked to
see them and said i n amazement, "The one I stopped from
beating up his friend may have reason to be angry w i t h me, but
velo harei'oti et achad meihem — to one of them I did no evil — in
fact I rescued him — w h y does he join my adversaries?"
KORACH 131
‫״ ו י ק ם מ ש ה ו י ל ך א ל ד ת ן ו א ב י ר ם וילכו א ח ר י ו ז ק נ י י ש ר א ל ״‬
"And M o s h e r o s e up a n d w e n t t o D a t a n a n d A v i r a m ; a n d t h e
e l d e r s of I s r a e l followed h i m . " ( 1 6 : 2 5 )
QUESTION: 1) The words "vayakam Moshe" — "and Moshe

rose up" — seem superfluous? 2) Why d i d the elders follow
him?
ANSWER: On a similar phraseology, "vayakam sedei Efron"
— "the field of Efron was confirmed" (Bereishit 23:17) — Rashi
writes that the term "vayakam" (lit. "rose up") is used to teach
that, "tekumah hayata lo" — the property became elevated
because it passed from a commoner's possession to that of a
king, Avraham. Similarly, i n our case, the words "vayakam
Moshe" — "and Moshe rose up" — mean that he experienced
an elevation and appeared i n his full glory as the King of K'lal
Yisrael. Witnessing Moshe i n this exalted spirit, immediately the
elders of Israel followed behind him.
As far as Hashem was concerned, the fate of Datan and
Aviram was sealed. Hashem instructed Moshe only to speak to
the assembly, and indeed Moshe had no intention of
approaching Datan and Aviram to speak to them. He merely
hoped that when they saw his majestic disposition and the
entourage behind him, they would respect him and repent (see
Rashi).
From this episode one can derive a striking example of
Moshe's great love for each and every Jew. Regardless of how
low Datan and Aviram stooped, Moshe tried to save them from
sinking alive into the depths. H o w much more is it incumbent
upon everyone to do the utmost to help Jews who are not
rebels, but simply alienated due to lack of Torah education.
‫״ ו י א מ ר מ ש ה ב ז א ת ת ד ע ו ן כי ה׳ ש ל ח נ י ל ע ש ו ת א ת כ ל ה מ ע ש י ם‬
‫ה א ל ה כי ל א מ ל ב י ״‬
" M o s h e s a i d , 'Through t h i s s h a l l y o u k n o w t h a t G-d s e n t m e to

perform all t h e s e a c t s , t h a t it w a s not from my h e a r t . ' " ( 1 6 : 2 8 )
QUESTION: The words "ki lo milibi" — "that it was not

from my heart" — are superfluous. Once he proved that
Hashem sent him "to perform all these acts," obviously they
were not his doing?
ANSWER: During the Divine revelation at the burning
bush, Hashem pleaded w i t h Moshe for seven days to be His
emissary to take the Jewish people out of Egypt. Since Moshe
was reluctant, Hashem told him, "The post of Kohen Gadol,
which I originally planned for you, w i l l go to your brother
Aharon" (Shemot, 4:14 Rashi). During the seven days of
inauguration of the Mishkan, Moshe served as a Kohen Gadol
and hoped that he would retain this position for life. However,
on the eighth day, Aharon became the Kohen Gadol instead of
him.
One of the complaints of Korach and his cohorts was "Why
did Moshe make decisions on his own and appoint his brother
as Kohen Gadol?" Moshe told them, "Be assured that I did not
do anything on my own. A l l my actions were in accordance
w i t h instructions from Hashem (16:3, 28, Rashi). Moreover, 'ki
lo milibi' — 'it was not from my heart' — that Aharon should
become Kohen Gadol since the position was originally meant for
me and I greatly desired it."
* * *
It is interesting to note that Onkelos writes "arei la

meire'uti"; the word "meire'uti" is Aramaic for "ratzon" —
" w i l l . " Thus, he was telling them, "The selection of Aharon as
Kohen Gadol was not my choice, and actually contrary to my
desires."
KORACH 133
‫״ ו א ם ב ר י א ה ״ברא ה ׳ ו פ צ ת ה ה א ד מ ה א ת פ י ה ו ב ל ע ה א ת ם ו א ת כ ל‬
‫א ש ר ל ה ם וירדו ח י י ם ש א ל ה ״‬
" B u t if G-d will c r e a t e a n e w p h e n o m e n o n , a n d t h e e a r t h o p e n

its mouth a n d s w a l l o w t h e m a n d all t h a t i s t h e i r s , a n d t h e y will
d e s c e n d alive to t h e pit." ( 1 6 : 3 0 )
QUESTION: Why did Moshe wish such a strange death

upon Korach and his followers?
ANSWER: Moshe loved all the Jewish people, including
Korach and his followers. These people were sinning terribly,
since by quarreling with him, they were actually defying
Hashem's will. Had they died immediately, they would have
left this world without doing teshuvah, and they would thus
have lost their share in Olam Haba — the World to Come.
Therefore, he prayed that they descend alive to the pit, hoping
that while still alive, they would regret their wrongdoings and
do teshuvah.
According to an opinion in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b)

Korach and his followers do indeed have a share in Olam Haba.
(‫)מרגליות הים על מס׳ סנהדרין‬
‫״ותפתח ה א ר ץ א ת פיה ותבלע אתם״‬
" T h e e a r t h o p e n e d its mouth a n d s w a l l o w e d t h e m . " ( 1 6 : 3 2 )
QUESTION: The words "et pihah" — "its mouth" — are

superfluous. It should have said simply "the earth opened up
and swallowed them"?
ANSWER: When a Jew does good or, G-d forbid, evil,
Hashem rewards or punishes him measure for measure (middah
keneged middah). Korach and his followers ridiculed Moshe with
their mouths, by going around in the community agitating, and
spreading blatant lies about him. Since they sinned by opening
their mouths and saying improper things, they were punished
w i t h the earth's opening its "mouth" and swallowing them.
(‫)ר׳ שלום זצ״ל מבעלז‬
‫״ותפתח ה א ר ץ א ת פיה ותבלע א ת ם ואת בתיהם״‬
"The e a r t h o p e n e d its mouth a n d s w a l l o w e d t h e m a n d t h e i r

houses." (16:32)
QUESTION: Previously (16:27) it is stated that Datan and

Aviram went out and stood, "petach ahaleihem" — "at the
entrance of their tents." Why does it say that they were
swallowed w i t h "bateihem" — "their houses" — and not
"ahaleihem" — "their tents"?
ANSWER: The difference between a tent (ohel) and a house
(bayit) is that a tent is temporary and a house is permanent. The
sojourn i n the wilderness was a temporary stop-over between
Egypt and Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, all the people lived i n tents
and were looking forward to their permanent residences. Now,
as the earth swallowed them, Korach and his people could no
longer anticipate coming to Eretz Yisrael, and thus, "ahaleihem"
— "their tents" — i n which they temporarily dwelled, now
became "bateihem" — their permanent houses — i n which they
would remain underground for a very long time.
(‫)ר׳ שלמה דיל קלוגער‬
‫״וירדו ה ם ו כ ל א ש ר ל ה ם ח י י ם ש א ל ה ״‬
" T h e y a n d all t h a t w a s t h e i r s d e s c e n d e d a l i v e to t h e pit."

(16:33)
QUESTION: Why d i d Korach and his people receive such a

strange punishment?
ANSWER: Korach opposed the leadership of Moshe and
Aharon. He argued, "The entire community is holy; w h y rise
above the assembly of G-d?" (16:3). Korach, i n effect, was
advocating a government of anarchy.
Rabbi Chanina says, "Pray for the welfare of the
government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would
swallow one another alive" (Pirkei Avot 3:2). The punishment
that Korach received was a message to him and to all future
generations that without leadership, eventually one gets
swallowed up alive.
KORACH 135
‫״ ו כ ל י ש ר א ל א ש ר • ב י ב ת י ה ם נ ס ו ל ק ל ם כי א מ ר ו פ ! ת ב ל ע נ ו ה א ר ץ ״‬
"All t h e J e w s w h o w e r e a r o u n d t h e m fled a t their s o u n d s for

they said, 'Lest the earth swallow u s . ' " (16:34)
QUESTION: Instead of "nasu lekolom," which literally

means "fled to their sounds" it should have said "nasu mikolom"
— "fled from their sounds"?
ANSWER: When Yitzchak blessed Yaakov he said, "Hakol
kol Yaakov vehayadayim yedei Eisav" — "The voice is Yaakov's
voice, but the hands are Eisav's" (Bereishit 27:22). According to
the Gemara (Gittin 57b), "Yitzchak meant that Yaakov's power is
in the voice that prays and Eisav's power is in his murderous
hands. Whenever a prayer is effective, a descendant of Yaakov
must have been present, and whenever an army is victorious,
Eisav's descendants must have contributed."
Upon seeing what was happening to Korach and his

contingent, the people were afraid that the earth would
swallow them, too. Therefore, immediately "nasu lekolom" —
"they ran to their voices" — they recited prayers to Hashem to
be spared such a fate.
(‫)ר׳ חנוך זצ״ל מאלכסנדר‬
‫״ ו ת פ ת ח ה א ר ץ א ת פיה ו ת ב ל ע א ת ם ואת בתיהם ואת כל האדם‬

‫ ו א ש י צ א ה מ א ת ה׳ ו ת א כ ל א ת ה ח מ ש י ם ו מ א ת י ם‬....‫א ש ר לקרח‬
‫איש מקריב הקסרת״‬
" T h e e a r t h o p e n e d its mouth a n d s w a l l o w e d t h e m a n d t h e i r

h o u s e s a n d all t h e p e o p l e who w e r e with K o r a c h . . . . A f l a m e
c a m e forth from G-d a n d c o n s u m e d t h e two h u n d r e d a n d fifty
m e n w h o w e r e offering t h e i n c e n s e . " ( 1 6 : 3 2 , 3 5 )
QUESTION: The 250 people who joined Korach were

burned to death. Datan and Aviram were swallowed alive in
the earth. What happened to Korach?
ANSWER: There is an opinion in the Gemara (Sanhedrin
110a) that Korach did not die w i t h those who were burnt or
swallowed by the earth, but that he actually died later in a
plague (see Rashi, ibid.). Another opinion says that Korach was
both burnt and swallowed into the earth: When the 250 people
began to bring their ketoret, Korach joined them and was

consumed by fire. He was standing near the pit which opened
up for Datan and Aviram, and he rolled into the open mouth of
the earth.
According to the latter opinion, the reason Korach received
both punishments is that if he had only been burnt and not
swallowed, Datan and Aviram would have complained, "Why
were we burned as followers of Korach, while Korach himself
was not?" If he would have been swallowed but not burnt, the
250 people burnt would have had a similar complaint.
Therefore, he received both punishments.
The fire of the ketoret burned his neshamah, and his body
rolled into the open mouth of the earth. Thus, all his people
witnessed him receiving his just deserts.
(‫)מהרש״א ועץ יוסף מס׳ סנהדרין‬
* * *
A halachic consequence of how Korach died is the
following:
Regarding the fire-pans used by Korach's contingent to
offer ketoret the Torah says "Elazer the Kohen took the fire-pans,
that were offered by haserufin — the ones who were burned —
and hammered them out as a covering for the altar."
Consequently, if Korach was not among the ones who died
by being burned, his fire pan was not among those used as a
covering for the altar.
(‫)צפנת פענח‬
‫ויגמל ש ק ד י ם ״‬...‫״והנה פ ר ח מ ס ה אהרן ל ב י ת לוי‬
"And b e h o l d t h e s t a f f of A h a r o n of t h e h o u s e of Levi h a d
b l o s s o m e d . . . a n d b o r e ripe a l m o n d s . " ( 1 7 : 2 3 )
QUESTION: Why almonds?

ANSWER: In his complaint against Moshe, Korach argued,
"For the entire assembly is holy. Why do you exalt yourself
over the congregation of Hashem?" (16:3). Essentially, he
advocated a government of anarchy where there would be total
equality.
KORACH 137
Almonds blossom more quickly than any other fruit (see

Rashi). The message was that in every facet of the universe,
there is a hierarchy. Just as some fruit ripen faster than others,
likewise it is necessary to elevate some human beings over
others in order that law and order prevail.
* * *
Alternatively, among the tribes it was Levi who was singled

out to be closer to Hashem, because like the almonds which
grow speedily, they responded with alacrity to Moshe's call,
"Mi laHashem eilai" — "Whoever is for Hashem join me"
(Shemot 32:26) — executing those who would have brought
chaos to the Jewish community through the golden calf.
‫״ ו י א מ ר ה׳ א ל מ ש ה ה ש ב א ת מ ס ה א ה ר ן לפני ה ע ד ו ת ל מ ש מ ר ת ״‬
"G-d s a i d to M o s h e , 'Bring b a c k t h e s t a f f of A h a r o n b e f o r e t h e
holy Ark a s a s a f e k e e p i n g . ' " ( 1 7 : 2 5 )
QUESTION: Aharon's staff that bloomed was placed in

front of the holy A r k together with a flask of manna (Shemot
16:33). When the A r k was hidden, so was the jar of manna and
Aharon's staff (Yoma 52b).
What is the connection between the Ark, the staff, and the
manna?
ANSWER: The A r k represents Torah. In it were the Tablets
and the sefer Torah written by Moshe (Bava Batra 14a). Aharon's
staff symbolizes the human craving for peace. Aharon was the
ultimate peace lover, and through his staff Korach's rebellion
was put to rest. Manna, which was the source of sufficient
nourishment for all, on the other hand, represents economic
security. Thus, the storing of manna and the staff near the A r k
conveys the message that the staff of Aharon and the jar of
manna go together w i t h the A r k of Hashem; there can be no
economic security or enduring peace i n the world without the
moral and ethical standards of the Torah.
When the A r k is "lost" — when its sacred influence is

eliminated from the arena of life — the staff of Aharon and the
jar of manna and all that they represent, disappear. A l l

deliberations and plans for economic security and enduring
peace come to naught because they are neither enshrined i n the
Ark, representing Torah, nor guided by the teachings of the
Tablets contained therein.
‫״ ו י ד ב ר ה ׳ א ל א ה ר ן ואני ה נ ה נ ת ת י ל ך א ת מ ש מ ר ת ת ר ו מ ת י ״‬
"G-d s p o k e to A h a r o n : 'And I, b e h o l d , I h a v e g i v e n y o u t h e
s a f e g u a r d of My h e a v e - o f f e r i n g s . ' " ( 1 8 : 8 )
QUESTION: Because Korach challenged the Priesthood of

Aharon, the Torah allocates to Aharon twenty-four Matanot
Kehunah — priestly gifts (Rashi).
Why twenty-four?
ANSWER: Korach did not openly attack or personally
affront Aharon for being appointed Kohen Gadol. Waging his
war i n a deceptive and stealthy way instead, Korach argued,
"The entire community is holy; w h y rise above the assembly of
Hashem?" (16:3). With this he meant to say that no one should
be singled out for leadership.
In addition to his original group of cohorts, he also incited
the entire community to participate i n the debacle. He visited
all the tribes and told them that he was not seeking personal
gain, but rather battling on their behalf for fairness and justice.
They were convinced and joined w i t h h i m (16:19, Rashi).
One who steals i n a hidden and secretive way is a ganav —
thief — and i n addition to paying back the principal, must also
pay double. Since people of all twelve tribes schemed stealthily
against Aharon's priesthood, the Jewish people had to give
double — 24 gifts — to Aharon and his children to receive
pardon.
KORACH 139
‫״אך פ ד ה ת פ ד ה א ת בכור האדם ואת בכור הבהמה ה ס מ א ה ת פ ד ה ״‬

" B u t y o u s h a l l s u r e l y r e d e e m t h e firstborn of m a n , a n d t h e
firstborn of a n impure b e a s t s h a l l y o u r e d e e m . " ( 1 8 : 1 5 )
QUESTION: Why only for man is there a double expression

"padoh tifdeh" — "you shall surely redeem" — and not for
animals?
ANSWER: According to the Gemara (Bechorot 12b), if a
person sets aside a sheep to redeem his firstborn donkey and
the sheep dies, he is not required to replace it. However, if the
money one sets aside to redeem a son is lost, one must provide
replacement money (Bechorot 51a).
Therefore, regarding the redemption of man, the Torah uses
a double expression to indicate that there is a possibility for a
double expenditure; however, this is not so i n regard to the
redemption of an animal.
( ‫)לוח א ח‬
* * *
Alternatively, to redeem a firstborn male the Torah
prescribes that the father give five shekels to the Kohen.
According to halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Yorah Dei'ah 305:7), even
if the father divides the five shekels between two kohanim, and
even if this is done on separate days, the child is redeemed.
However, since the Torah prescribes using a live sheep for the
redemption of a firstborn donkey the process must be done
through one Kohen only since a live sheep is not dividable.
Money may be used for the redemption, if one does not have a
sheep (Yoreh Dei'ah 321:5), and according to the principle of "lo
pelug" (not to make extra distinctions), the rule about one Kohen
also applies.
To allude that specifically a pidyon haben can be done

through more than one Kohen and at intervals, the Torah writes
the double expression "padoh tifdeh."
‫״ופדויו מ ב ן ח ד ש ת פ ד ה ב ע ר כ ך כ ס ף ח מ ש ת ש ק ל י ם ״‬
" T h o s e t h a t a r e t o b e r e d e e m e d — from o n e m o n t h s h a l l y o u
r e d e e m t h e m a c c o r d i n g to your v a l u a t i o n , five s i l v e r s h e k e l s . "
(18:16)
QUESTION: According to the Torah, a day starts w i t h the

preceding night. Why is it customary to make a pidyon haben on
the thirty-first day and not the night before? (See Yorah Dei'ah
305:12, Shach.) Moreover, the Torah states the reason for pidyon
haben because "on the day I struck down every firstborn in the
land of Egypt I sanctified every firstborn in Israel for Myself"
(3:13), and the slaying of the firstborn was at midnight?
ANSWER: Since the firstborn were slain at midnight,

instead of saying, "beyom hakoti kol bechor" — "on the day when
I struck every firstborn" — it should say "beleil" — "on the
night."
The use of the term "beyom" — "the day" — can be
explained w i t h the Zohar's statement (Shemot 38a) that the
night Hashem revealed Himself in Egypt was as bright as
broad daylight, as King David says, " A n d night is luminous as
day" (Psalms 139:12). To commemorate the slaying of the
Egyptian firstborn and the saving of the Jewish firstborn, which
brought about the concept of pidyon haben, and which took
place when it was light, we perform the pidyon haben during the
day.
* * *
Rabbi Yaakov Emden writes in his siddur, " i f necessary a

pidyon haben may be done after chatzot — midnight." The reason
for this may be that since the pidyon haben commemorates the
miracle of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the saving
of the Jewish firstborn, which took place at midnight, it stands
to reason that a pidyon haben may be performed after midnight.
KORACH 141
‫ברית מ ל ח עולם הוא״‬...‫ נ ת ת י לך ולבניך‬. . . ‫״כל ת ר ו מ ת ה ק ד ש י ם‬
" E v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s s e p a r a t e d from t h e holy t h i n g s . . . h a v e I given

to y o u a n d your s o n s . . . i t i s a n e t e r n a l c o v e n a n t of s a l t . " ( 1 8 : 1 9 )
QUESTION: What is the connection between salt and the

priestly gifts?
ANSWER: Some people, unfortunately, do not give tzedakah
because they are reluctant to give away part of their wealth.
The Torah, therefore, is telling us that tzedakah is like salt; it
causes meat to shrink somewhat, but the preservative effect far
outweighs the loss. Similarly, though on the surface it appears
that one's net value is shrinking, i n reality, thanks to the
tzedakah, one's earnings are preserved.
* * *
It is related (Ketuvot 66b) that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai

was once traveling on the outskirts of Jerusalem. A young girl
who was picking barley from the garbage in the street
approached him and said, "Rabbi, please support me."
He asked her, "Whose daughter are you?"
She replied, " I am the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion."
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai knew him to be one of the
wealthiest people i n Jerusalem (see Gittin 56a) and
incredulously asked her "What happened to all your father's
wealth?"
She responded with the famous parable: "melach mamon,
chaseir" — if a person wants to "salt" his money, i.e. preserve it
to be long-lasting, he should reduce his assets by giving some
to tzedakah. Unfortunately, her father did not properly observe
this mitzvah, and therefore his fortunes were not preserved.
CHUKAT ‫ה ק ת ־‬
‫ו״קחו אליך פ ר ה א ד מ ה ״‬...‫״ ז א ת ח ק ת התורה‬
" T h i s i s t h e s t a t u t e of T o r a h . . . a n d t h e y s h a l l t a k e t o y o u a red
heifer." (19:2)
QUESTION: Why does it say "Zot chukat haTorah" — "This

is the statute of the Torah" — instead of "Zot chukat parah
adumah" — "This is the statute of the red heifer"?
ANSWER: The laws concerning the parah adumah are
paradoxical. On the one hand, when the mixture is sprinkled on
the defiled person he becomes cleansed. On the other hand,
those who are involved in the preparation of the parah adumah
become defiled.
The people appointed to prepare the parah adumah may
rationally argue, "Why should we become defiled for the sake
of those who were not careful to avoid contact w i t h a corpse?"
Through the statute of parah adumah the Torah is teaching
that a Jew must help another Jew even if it requires sacrifice.
This is "chukat haTorah" — "a basic principle of Torah" — and
though we may not easily comprehend it, we must practice it in
our daily lives.
‫)כ׳׳ק אדמו״ח‬
* * *
There is a popular adage, "Give till it hurts." Unfortunately,

many people give when it hurts, but very few give till it hurts.
The statute of parah adumah, which is described as "the statute
of Torah," teaches us to help another Jew even if it hurts.
CHUKAT 143
‫״זאת ח ק ת התורה׳‬
" T h i s i s t h e d e c r e e of t h e T o r a h . . . " ( 1 9 : 2 )
QUESTION: The Ba'al Haturim writes, "The pasuk, 'Zot

chukat haTorah' — 'this is the decree of the Torah' — follows the
final pasuk of Parshat Korach, which states, 'Beharimchem et chelbo
mimenu' — 'When you raise up its best from it' — to hint that
Torah was given to those that ate the manna."
How is this derived from these two pesukim?
ANSWER: The word "mimenu" (‫" — )ממנו‬from i t " — has
the numerical value of 136, and the word "chelbo" (‫" — )חלבו‬its
best" — adds up to 46. When one "raises up" (‫)בהרימכם‬, i.e.
subtracts "chelbo" (46) from "mimenu" (136), the remainder is
90, the numerical value of the word "mann" (‫" — )מן‬manna."
The pesukim are alluding that one who lives off manna —
i.e. one whose income is provided (such as a Kohen who
receives Terumah) or one who has no worries of parnasah, must
make full-time Torah study a "decree," i.e. something
imperative, and dedicate himself to uninterrupted, diligent
Torah study.
‫זאת‬...‫כל הנגע ב מ ת ב נ פ ש האדם‬...‫״הנגע ב מ ת לכל נ פ ש אדם‬

‫ה ת ו ר ה א ד ם כ״ ״מות ב א ה ל ״‬
" W h o e v e r t o u c h e s t h e c o r p s e of a n y h u m a n being...Whoever
t o u c h e s t h e d e a d body of a h u m a n being...This i s t h e t e a c h i n g
r e g a r d i n g a m a n w h o would d i e in a t e n t . " ( 1 9 : 1 1 , 1 3 - 1 4 )
QUESTION: Why isn't the term "adam" or "ha'adam" used

consistently?
ANSWER: According to halachah, if a person comes into a
tent containing a Jewish corpse, he becomes defiled, even if he
does not touch it. However, if one touches a corpse (even
outside a tent) he becomes defiled even if it is of a non-Jew
(Tumat Meit, 1:12-13).
The Gemara (Yevamot 61a) says that the term "adam" (‫ )אדם‬is
reserved for the Jewish people and "ha'adam" (‫ )האדם‬also
includes non-Jews. Therefore, the first pasuk, which talks of
physical contact and uses the term "adam," is teaching that one
becomes defiled when he touches a Jewish corpse. The second
pasuk also discusses defilement through contact and uses the
word "ha'adam" to indicate that this law applies to a non-Jewish
corpse as well. The third pasuk discusses "tumat ohel" —
entering a tent where there is a corpse — and it uses the term
"adam" to emphasize that, as i n the first pasuk, this applies only
to a Jewish corpse.
(‫)ימין יוסף‬
* * *
The term "adam" is reserved for the Jewish people because
the word has two contrasting meanings:
1) Stemming from the word "adamah" — "earth" — " A n d
G-d formed the man of dust from the ground" (Bereishit 2:7,
Midrash Rabbah 17:4).
2) As i n "Adameh le'Elyon" — " I [man] resemble the One
above" (see Shelah, Toldot Adam 3a).
These contrasting meanings of the title "adam" impart that
Jewish people have the unique ability that even when, G-d
forbid, they stoop to the lowest level, through teshuvah they can
rise to the loftiest heights.
There was once a chaplain who visited a jail to deliver a
sermon to the inmates. While ascending the podium to speak,
he tripped and fell flat on his face. The room erupted i n
laughter. He picked himself up and went over to the podium
and said, " I have just concluded my sermon; the moral is that
even when a person falls flat on his face, he can rise up again."
‫״ ז א ת ה ת ו ר ה א ד ם כי י מ ו ת ב א ה ל ״‬
" T h i s i s t h e t e a c h i n g r e g a r d i n g a m a n w h o would die in a t e n t . "

(19:14)
QUESTION: The introductory words "zot haTorah" are

superfluous; it would have been sufficient to start w i t h "adam"?
ANSWER: A corpse i n a tent defiles the entire tent, and one
who enters becomes defiled even without touching the corpse
itself. In the Gemara (Niddah 70b) there is a question whether
CHUKAT 145
Lot's wife, who turned into a pillar of salt and who was thus
not a normal corpse, would similarly defile a tent. The Gemara
concludes that only a normal corpse can defile and not a pillar
of salt.
Tosafot asks, "We have a rule that when the Torah uses the
expression 'adam' it refers only to a member of the Jewish
people (see Yevamot 61a). Consequently, Lot's wife could not
defile a tent even if she died a normal death because she was
not a Jewess?"
Tosafot answers that the term "adam" is a title of distinction
which the Jewish people acquired upon receiving the Torah.
However, before the Torah was given, the laws of transmitting
defilement were universal and even a non-Jew's corpse could
defile everything in a tent.
A source for the theory expounded in Tosafot may be our
pasuk. The Torah conveys the laws of defilement of a tent w i t h
the term "adam," which leads to the conclusion that these laws
only apply to the Jewish people. preceding it w i t h the words
"zot haTorah" emphasizes that this law applies only to —
"adam" — a member of the Jewish people — because of "zot
haTorah" — "this Torah" — which the Jewish people had
received.
(‫ איילינבערג‬,‫)תולדות יעקב‬
‫״ ז א ת ה ת ו ר ה א ד ם כי י מ ו ת ב א ה ל ״‬
" T h i s i s t h e t e a c h i n g r e g a r d i n g a m a n w h o would die in a t e n t . "

(19:14)
QUESTION: Regarding this pasuk the Gemara (Berachot 63b)

says: "Ein divrei Torah mitkaymin ela bemi shemeimit atzmo
aleihah" — "Torah has a lasting effect only w i t h one who kills
himself for it."
Suicide is forbidden! How can a dead man study Torah?
ANSWER: Often when people sit down to study, they
permit various factors to interrupt them, such as a telephone
call or the arrival of visitors. There is no way, however, of
disturbing a dead person with a telephone call or the like. The
Gemara is teaching that a person who wants to succeed i n his
learning must consider himself "dead": He cannot permit

anything whatsoever to interrupt him.
(‫)ר׳ אפרים זלמן דיל מרגלית‬
‫״ולקחו ל ס מ א מ ע פ ר ש ר פ ת ה ח ס א ת ״‬
" T h e y s h a l l t a k e for t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d p e r s o n s o m e of t h e
a s h e s of t h e burning of t h e purification a n i m a l . " ( 1 9 : 1 7 )
QUESTION: Since the parshah is discussing one who has

become defiled and has already said that the heifer should be
burned to ash, the word "latamei" — "for the contaminated
person" — is superfluous, it should simply have said "velakechu
mei'afar" — "they shall take from the ashes [and put upon it
spring water]"?
ANSWER: The Torah refers to the purification process
through the red heifer as a "chok" — a "statute" — meaning
that it is incomprehensible to man. Even King Shlomo the wis¬
est of all men exclaimed, " I said I would be wise, but it is far
from me" (Ecclesiastes 7:23). Our sages (Midrash Rabbah 19:3,6)
explain that with his wisdom he thought he would be able to
comprehend the reason for the red heifer, but he did not suc¬
ceed; Moshe was the only one to whom Hashem explained it.
The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 21b) explains the pasuk "Kohelet
(Shlomo) sought to find words of delight" (Ecclesiastes 12:10) to
mean that Kohelet wanted to be equal i n wisdom to Moshe.
However, a Heavenly voice responded, "Vekatub yosher divrei
emet," what is written in the Book of Devarim (which is known
as "Sefer Hayasher" — "Book of Fairness" — see Avodah Zarah
25a), are words of truth, and it states that "Never again has
there arisen i n Israel a prophet like Moshe" (Devarim 34:10).
What gave Shlomo the idea that he could duplicate Moshe's

achievement and understand the concept of the red heifer?
The first letters of the words can
be arranged to spell (Shlomo), and since he found an
allusion to his name in the portion that discusses the red heifer,
he assumed that with proper diligence and assiduous study he
could understand its meaning and significance.
CHUKAT 147
The Heavenly message can be explained to mean "Vekatub

yashar" — "That which is written i n the "proper order" — is
definitely "divrei emet" — "words of truth." Thus, while there is
indeed a hint to Shlomo's name i n the parshah, the letters i n
sequence do not spell "Shlomo" but rather ‫" — ״למשה״‬to
Moshe" — meaning that the understanding of the red heifer is
revealed only to Moshe and no one else.
J
(‫ פני דוד‬- ‫)וזיד׳א‬
Throughout the history of the Jewish people the ashes of

nine red heifers were prepared, and the tenth one w i l l be
prepared when Mashiach comes. (See Yalkut Re'uveini and Parah
3:5.) When Hashem conveyed to Moshe the statute of the red
heifer, He said to him, "veyikchu eilecha parah adumah" — "they
shall take to you a completely red heifer" — which our sages
explain to mean, "It w i l l always be accredited to 'you' (Moshe)
because even i n the ashes of all future red heifers there shall be
mixed i n some of the ash from the original one which you
prepared."
The acrostic of which is spelled by the words
— "[and they shall take] for the
contaminated person some of the ashes from the burning of the
purification animal" indicates that throughout all generations
the Jewish people shall take for the contaminated, ashes which
are mixed together with some of the ashes prepared by Moshe.
(‫)שפתי כהן‬
‫שם״‬ ‫״ותמת ש ם מרים ותקבר‬
"And Miriam d i e d t h e r e a n d s h e w a s buried t h e r e . " ( 2 0 : 1 )
QUESTION: If she died, obviously she was buried. Why

does the pasuk mention it?
ANSWER: When the spies returned from their journey to
Eretz Yisrael and incited the people against it, Hashem was very
angry. As a punishment, all the people who had left Egypt
between the ages of twenty and sixty perished during the forty
years they sojourned i n the wilderness. Every year, on Erev
Tisha B'Av, the people dug graves for themselves and slept i n
them throughout the night. Those who were supposed to die
that year passed away, and those that survived returned to

their tents (Bava Batra 121a, Rashbam).
Accordingly, throughout the forty years, the people were
first buried and then died. Miriam was the first person to die
and be buried after her death.
J
(‫)שני המאורות‬
l ‫״ולמה העליתנו מ מ צ ר י ם להביא אתנו אל המקום ה ר ע הזה ל א‬

‫מ ק ו ם ז ר ע ו ת א נ ה ו ג פ ן ו ר מ ו ! ו מ י ם אי! ל ש ת ו ת ״‬
"And why did Y o u h a v e u s a s c e n d from E g y p t t o bring u s t o t h i s

evil p l a c e ? Not a p l a c e of s e e d , or fig, or g r a p e , or
p o m e g r a n a t e ; a n d t h e r e i s no w a t e r to d r i n k ! " ( 2 0 : 5 )
QUESTION: If a poor man were to come begging and say,

"Help me, I don't have any gourmet food," people would laugh
at him. The Jewish people should have only complained that
they had no water to drink. What sympathy did they hope to
evoke w i t h their complaint about "figs, grapes, or
pomegranates"?
ANSWER: In printed chumashim there is a vertical line
(indicating a pause) between the word "lo" — "no" — and the
words "mekom zera" — "place of seed." This vertical line serves
as an explanation as to what the people complained about.
When Hashem took them out of Egypt, He never promised
them that He would provide them w i t h luscious fruit during
their travels. However, it is self-understood that He was
required to give them at least the bare necessities and not let
them perish from thirst.
Consequently, when they arrived in the Wilderness of Tzin
and there was no water, the people became upset and
quarreled w i t h Moshe. When they bemoaned their situation
they proclaimed, "Why did you take us out of Egypt to bring us
to this place? 'Lo' (pause) — our complaint is not — 'mekom zera
ute'einah vegefen verimon' — that this is not a place of seed, fig,
or grape or pomegranate — because we can get along without
these. However, our complaint is 'mayim ayin lishtot' — there is
no water to drink. Water is a bare necessity for human
existence!"
CHUKAT 149
‫״ ל א מ ק ו ם ז ר ע ו ת א נ ה ו ג פ ן ו ר מ ו ! ו מ י ם אי! ל ש ת ו ת ״‬
"It i s not a p l a c e of s e e d , or f i g s , or v i n e s or p o m e g r a n a t e s ;
a n d t h e r e i s no w a t e r to drink." ( 2 0 : 5 )
QUESTION: Throughout the sojourn of the Jewish people

in the wilderness, a well of water accompanied them i n the
merit of Miriam. When she died, the well ceased. Why did they
now complain about the lack of tasty fruit i n addition to the
lack of water?
ANSWER: Some have a custom to fetch water from a well
or a spring after Shabbat ends. This is because on Saturday night
Miriam's well, which is i n the sea of Tiberias, travels
throughout all wells and springs. Whoever is fortunate to drink
of its water is immediately healed from all sicknesses (Orach
Chaim 299:10).
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 17b) lists the prerequisites a city must
have in order for a talmid chacham to dwell there. According to
Rabbi Akiva, one of them is a variety of different fruits, because
through them, the eyesight of a person is improved.
Consequently, before Miriam's passing they did not
complain about the lack of fruit because the drinking water
healed them of all their ailments. Now that they had neither
water nor fruit, they quarreled with Moshe and argued that
their health was in jeopardy and that it was no longer
permissible to remain i n the wilderness.
‫ ו ד ב ר ת ם א ל ה ס ל ע לעיניהם ונתן מימיו״‬. . . ‫״קח א ת ה מ ס ה‬
" T a k e t h e s t a f f . . . a n d s p e a k to t h e r o c k b e f o r e t h e i r e y e s t h a t it
s h a l l give i t s w a t e r s . " ( 2 0 : 8 )
QUESTION: Which staff was Moshe instructed to take?

What purpose was the staff to serve, and what was Moshe to
say to the rock?
ANSWER: Aharon and Moshe each had his own staff.
When Hashem wanted Moshe or Aharon to take his own staff,
He would say "matecha" — "your staff" (see Shemot 7:9). Since in
this pasuk it says "hamateh" — "the staff" — obviously it was a
special one w i t h unique qualities.
In Parshat Korach, Moshe told the leaders of each tribe to

bring a staff to be put i n the Tabernacle. On each would be
written the name of the tribal leader, w i t h Aharon's name
written on the staff of the tribe of Levi. The staff belonging to
the one who was Divinely-chosen would blossom. The staff of
Aharon blossomed and produced almonds and eventually was
put next to the holy A r k for posterity. It was this staff that
Moshe was to take. This corresponds to the verse, "Moshe took
the staff from before G-d" (20:9).
The purpose of taking the staff was to show it to the rock as
if to say, "Learn this lesson; just as this dry piece of wood
suddenly became moist and alive i n order to sanctify Hashem's
name, so should you sanctify Hashem's name by giving water,
even though it is not your nature."
‫״ ו ד ב ר ת ם א ל ה ס ל ע לעיניהם ונתן מימיו״‬
"And s p e a k t o t h e r o c k b e f o r e their e y e s t h a t it s h a l l give its

waters." (20:8)
QUESTION: Why now did Hashem instruct Moshe to

speak to the rock whereas i n Rephidim (Shemot 17:6), when
they thirsted for water and complained, Hashem told him,
"You shall strike the rock and water w i l l come forth"?
ANSWER: Hashem said to Moshe, "When the child is
young his teacher hits him and teaches him. Once he becomes
older, he reprimands him w i t h words. Similarly, when the rock
was small you hit it, but now you shall speak to it. Teach it and
it w i l l bring forth water" (Yalkut Shimoni).
This may be further expounded: The rock is analogous to
people who at times seem to be "hard as rock" and obstinately
refuse to direct their lives morally and ethically as a Jew
should.
The incident i n Rephidim occurred before the Torah was
given. The only method available then to guide a Jew i n the
right path was to strike him harshly. The episode in our parshah
however, took place after the Torah was given. The way to
reach a Jew now, is not through striking him, but through
CHUKAT 151
talking to him w i t h sincerity and warmth and introducing him

to the beauty of Torah.
The Torah assures that w i t h such an approach one w i l l
successfully penetrate and "venatan meimav" — "he shall give
his waters." One w i l l eventually bring to surface the beautiful
"pintele Yid" — the spark of Judaism hidden within him.
(‫)שמעתי מאחי הרב שמואל פסח שי׳ באגאמילסקי‬
‫״וין־ א ת ה ס ל ע ב מ ס ה ו פ ע מ י ם ״‬
"And h e s t r u c k t h e r o c k with h i s s t a f f t w i c e . " ( 2 0 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Why did he strike the rock twice?

ANSWER: The letters of the word "sela" (‫" — )סלע‬rock" —
spelled out in full are . The middle letters of the
name of each letter spell the word "mayim" — "water."
Thus, in a rock — "sela" — there is hidden water — "mayim."
Moshe, by striking the rock twice, knocked off the first
letters as well as the last letters, leaving the middle letters ,
and water flowed forth abundantly.
(‫)באר מים חיים‬
‫״ ו י א מ ר ה ׳ א ל מ ש ה ו א ל א ה ר ן י ע ן ל א ה א מ נ ת ם בי ל ה ק ד י ש נ י ל ע י נ י‬
‫ב נ י י ש ר א ל לכן ל א ת ב י א ו א ת ה ק ה ל ה ז ה א ל ה א ר ץ א ש ר נ ת ת י ל ה ם ״‬
"G-d s a i d to M o s h e a n d to A h a r o n , ' B e c a u s e y o u did not b e l i e v e

in M e to s a n c t i f y M e in t h e e y e s of t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l ,
t h e r e f o r e y o u will not bring t h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n t o t h e l a n d t h a t I
have given t h e m . ' " (20:12)
QUESTION: Why didn't Moshe speak to the rock?

ANSWER: Had Moshe spoken to the rock, Hashem would
have indeed been sanctified. Every Jew would have come to the
conclusion: " I f a rock, which does not speak and does not hear,
performs Hashem's w i l l , how much more so are we required to
listen to Him!"
However, Moshe thought to himself that this logic could
also be used by Satan against the Jewish people when they
sinned. He would come before the heavenly tribunal as a

prosecutor and say to Hashem, "Your children, the Jewish
people, are even worse than an inert rock. The rock does what
You want, and Your people for whom You do so much do not
perform Your w i l l . "
Not wanting to give Satan any ammunition against the
Jewish people, Moshe jeopardized his life and future, and
decided not to speak to the rock.
(‫ ילקוט יהושע‬- ‫)עיטורי תורה‬
* * *
On Shemini Atzeret during the repetition of the Mussaf

Amidah a special prayer for Geshem — rain — is recited. We
beseech Hashem to remember the Patriarchs, Moshe, Aaron,
and the twelve tribes who were so dedicated to H i m , and we
ask that abundant water should fall i n their righteous merit.
Regarding Moshe, we declare that he should be
remembered because "al hasela hach vayeitzu mayim" — "[at the
time Your treasured people thirsted for water,] he struck the
rock and out came water."
QUESTION: This obviously refers to the incident i n our
parshah and not Shemot 17:6 because there it talks of a rock
referred to as a "tzur" and here it talks of a rock referred to as a
sela. " I f so, w h y is this listed as one of Moshe's great deeds
when he was punished for it most severely?
ANSWER: According to the above, Moshe intentionally d i d
not speak to the rock due to the ramifications it would have for
Klal Yisrael. Thus, he literally sacrificed himself due to his
infinite love for Klal Yisrael. Such a leader is indeed meritorious;
and therefore, we pray "for the sake of his righteousness, grant
abundant water."
(‫)ר׳ מאיר דיל שפירא מלובלין‬
CHUKAT 153
‫ ל כ ן‬. . . ‫״ ו י א מ ר ה ׳ א ל מ ש ה ו א ל א ה ר ן י ע ן ל א ה א מ נ ת ם ב״ ל ה ק ד י ש נ י‬
‫ל א תביאו א ת ה ק ה ל הזה א ל ה א ר ץ א ש ר נתת״ להם״‬
"G-d s a i d to M o s h e a n d to A h a r o n , ' B e c a u s e y o u did not b e l i e v e

in M e to s a n c t i f y Me... t h e r e f o r e y o u will not bring t h i s
c o n g r e g a t i o n to t h e l a n d t h a t I h a v e given t h e m . ' " ( 2 0 : 1 2 )
QUESTION: It was Moshe who disobeyed and struck the

rock; why was Aharon also punished?
ANSWER: Aharon was punished because the act was
repeated. Possibly, at first he did not know what Moshe was
about to do and could justifiably claim innocence. However,
after Moshe struck the rock the first time, he should have
protested saying, "We were told to speak, not smite." Now
Aharon was also liable and equally punished.
‫״וישלח מ ש ה מ ל א כ י ם מ ק ד ש א ל מ ל ך אדום כה א מ ר אחיך י ש ר א ל‬

‫א ת ה ידעת א ת כל ה ת ל א ה א ש ר מ צ א ת נ ו ״‬
" M o s h e s e n t e m i s s a r i e s from K a d e s h to t h e k i n g of E d o m : ' S o

s a i d your brother I s r a e l : Y o u know all t h e h a r d s h i p t h a t h a s
befallen us. " (20:14)
QUESTION: The Jews were only seeking permission to

travel through the land of Edom; why was it necessary to tell
them that, "Our forefathers descended to Egypt, and the
Egyptians mistreated us, and we cried out to Hashem, and He
sent an emissary who took us out of Egypt"?
ANSWER: If the Jewish people were actually not law-
abiding citizens and left Egypt after being victorious in a
rebellion, it would have been logical for Edom to deny them
permission to pass through his land. Therefore, they declared
to them that "We dwelled in Egypt for many years. We were
not rebellious or disruptive; on the contrary, it was the
Egyptians who were evil to us and our forefathers.
Nevertheless, instead of rebelling, we cried to Hashem, and He
heard our voices and sent an emissary, who took us out of
Egypt. Thus, there is no reason at all for you to fear our passage
through your land."
Despite this reassurance, the inherent hatred of Edom for

the Jews manifested itself, and they went out against them w i t h
a massive throng and strong hand.
(‫)משך חכמה‬
‫״ ו י א מ ר אליו א ד ו ם ל א ת ע ב ר ב״ פ ן ב ח ר ב א צ א ל ק ר א ת ך ״‬
"The k i n g of E d o m s a i d t o h i m , You s h a l l not p a s s t h r o u g h ;

,
m a y b e I will c o m e a g a i n s t y o u with t h e s w o r d . ' " ( 2 0 : 1 8 )
QUESTION: 1) Instead of saying "pen" — "maybe" — w h y

doesn't he simply say, " I f you pass through, I w i l l come against
you...."? 2) Why was he so unsympathetic to the plea of the
Jewish people to pass through the land?
ANSWER: In reality, Edom would not have minded the
Jews passing through the territory, particularly when they were
offered a handsome profit on all the food to be consumed.
However, the nations of the world are anti-Semitic, and one
nation w i l l always rally to the support of the other when they
are at war with the Jews. Thus, his concern was that perhaps in
the future, the Jews would be at war w i t h another nation who
would call upon Edom for assistance.
Consequently, their response to the Jews was, "You shall

not pass through because, pen bacherev eitzei likeratecha —
maybe in the future our allies w i l l solicit our assistance against
you in battle. If we permit you entry, you may explore our
country and learn all our strategic installations. Hence, it w i l l
help you retaliate against us, and we w i l l be at a military
disadvantage."
‫וילחם ב י ש ר א ל ״‬...‫״ ו י ש מ ע הכנעני‬
"And t h e C a n a a n i t e h e a r d . . . A n d h e fought a g a i n s t I s r a e l . "

(21:1)
QUESTION: The "Canaanite" was Amalek. Upon hearing

that Aharon had died and that the Clouds of Glory had
departed, he thought that permission was granted to battle
w i t h Israel (Rashi, ibid. and 33:40).
CHUKAT 155
When Miriam died, the well ceased and the Jewish people
quarreled with Moshe. Why was there no uproar from the
people when the clouds departed? Moreover, how and when
the well returned is clearly detailed i n the Scriptural text (see
20:8-11); w h y isn't there an indication concerning how the
clouds returned?
ANSWER: Careful analysis of the pesukim shows that there
were two types of clouds:
1) ananei hakavod — Clouds of Glory —
2) ordinary clouds (see Rashi 20:29, 26:13 and Rashi Vayikra
23:43).
The Clouds of Glory hovered over the camp of Israel, and
their presence proclaimed the glory of K'lal Yisrael. The others
surrounded them from all four sides and also from above and
beneath. They served as protection against alien attacks and
shielded them from heat and sun (see 10:35, 20:22, Rashi).
In accordance with peshuto shel mikra — the simple explana¬
tion of the text — it was not the ordinary clouds that departed
but the Clouds of Glory, which i n actuality never returned af¬
terwards. Though Amalek knew very well the purpose of the
Clouds of Glory, upon witnessing their departure, his audacity
led him foolishly to think that Hashem had now granted per¬
mission to attack the Jewish people.
The Jews d i d not raise a protest when they departed
because the Clouds of Glory were a special gift to the Jewish
people i n merit of Aharon and d i d not serve the personal needs
of the people (unlike the well which provided their drinking
water), so they had no basis for murmuring and demanding
their return.
Moshe, as a sincere and dedicated shepherd of K'lal Yisrael,
considered it his obligation to do everything i n his power to
ensure that their needs were provided for. Therefore, he made
sure that the water supply (well) returned after the demise of
Miriam but d i d not request from Hashem the return of the
Clouds of Glory.
‫)לקוטי שיחות וזי״וז( ]ומה דאיתא בתענית ט׳ ע״א !חזרו בזכות משה‬
[‫׳ אות בי‬1:‫ ועי׳ שפתי חכמים כ״ה‬,‫אינו לפי פשוטו של מקרא‬
‫״ ו י ש מ ע ה כ נ ע נ י מ ל ך ע ר ד י ש ב ה נ ג ב כי ב א י ש ר א ל ד ר ך ה א ת ר י ם‬
‫וילחם ב י ש ר א ל ״‬
"And t h e C a n a a n i t e k i n g of A r a d , w h o d w e l l e d in t h e s o u t h ,
h e a r d t h a t I s r a e l h a d c o m e by t h e route of t h e s p i e s , a n d h e
warred against Israel." (21:1)
QUESTION: Of what significance to the war with the

Canaanites is the fact that the Jews had come "derech ha'atarim"
— "by the route of the spies"?
ANSWER: The spies who went to the land of Canaan (Eretz
Yisrael) outwardly presented themselves as righteous people,
but inwardly they were wicked and corrupt.
In reality, the nation that launched the attack mentioned in
our pasuk was Amalek, not Canaan. They merely altered their
dialect to speak like the Canaanites so that the Jewish would
erroneously pray to Hashem for protection from the
Canaanites, and thus their prayers would be of no avail.
Hashem conducts Himself w i t h the Jewish people middah
keneged middah — measure for measure. If he punishes them,
G-d forbid, he does so in a way that echoes the offense. With
the words "derech ha'atarim" — "the route of the spies" — the
Torah is telling us that this occurrence was Hashem's way of
punishing measure for measure. Since the Jews "followed the
route" — i.e. succumbed to the influence — of the spies, who
endeavored to disguise themselves, Hashem now sent upon
them the Amalekites, disguised as Canaanites.
( ‫)לוח א ח‬
‫ ו י ש מ ע ה׳‬. ‫״ א ם נ ת ! ת ת ! א ת ה ע ם ה ז ה ב י ד י ו ה ח ר מ ת י א ת ע ר י ה ם‬
‫ב ק ו ל י ש ר א ל וית! א ת ה כ נ ע נ י ו י ת ר ם א ת ה ם ו א ת ע ר י ה ם ״‬
"If Y o u will deliver t h i s p e o p l e into my h a n d , I will utterly

d e s t r o y t h e i r c i t i e s . G-d h e a r d t h e v o i c e of I s r a e l a n d He
d e l i v e r e d t h e C a n a a n i t e a n d t h e y utterly d e s t r o y e d t h e m a n d
their c i t i e s . " ( 2 1 : 2-3)
QUESTION: The Jews only vowed to utterly destroy their

cities, why afterwards did they utterly destroy them, too?
CHUKAT 157
ANSWER: The Canaanites who attacked the Jewish people

were actually Amalekites. Although they dressed like
Amalekites, to mislead the Jewish people they spoke the
language of Canaan. Thus, when the Jews would pray to
Hashem to deliver them from the Canaanites, their prayers
would be of no avail.
Thinking that they were being attacked by Canaanites, the
Jewish people vowed to destroy only their cities. However
upon realizing their true identity, and cognizant of the mitzvah
"You shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the
heaven" (Devarim 25:19), they utterly destroyed them, too.
‫ ו י ע ש מ ש ה‬. . . 0 ‫״ ו י א מ ר ה׳ א ל מ ש ה ע ש ה ל ך ש ר ף ו ש י ם א ת ו ע ל נ‬
‫נ ח ש נ ח ש ת וישמהו על הנם״‬
"G-d s a i d to M o s h e , ' M a k e y o u r s e l f a fiery s e r p e n t a n d p l a c e it

on a p o l e ' . . . M o s h e m a d e a s e r p e n t of c o p p e r a n d p l a c e d it o n
t h e p o l e . " (21:8-9)
QUESTION: Why didn't Moshe follow Hashem's

instructions to make a fiery serpent?
ANSWER: The Jewish people complained about the
heavenly food Hashem provided to sustain them, and also
about Moshe's taking them out of Egypt and their having to be
in the wilderness. Thus, their sin was twofold: they spoke evil
against both Hashem and Moshe (21:5).
The serpent was for the sin of speaking evil about Hashem,
as Rashi (21:6) states, "Let the serpent who was punished for
slandering G-d to Chavah (Bereishit 3:1-15) come and punish
the ungrateful slanderers." For slandering Moshe, our great
teacher, the appropriate punishment was a fiery serpent, as
stated i n Pirkei Avot (2:11), "Warm yourself by the fire of the
sages, but beware of their glowing embers lest you be
burnt...for their hiss is the hiss of a fiery serpent."
Hashem is more concerned about the honor of the
righteous than His own. Therefore He said to Moshe, "While I
may pardon them for sinning against me, they must be
punished for slandering you. Hence, make yourself — i.e. for the
sin against you — a fiery serpent. place it on a pole so that they

may see it and confront their offense against you."
Moshe had exceptional love for the Jewish people, and like
a loving father who forgives his children, he always
magnanimously forgave their insurrections against him.
However, he wanted them to repent and beg forgiveness for
speaking evil about Hashem. Consequently, he did not make a
fiery serpent, but a copper ordinary one, so that instead of
thinking of the significance of the serpent being fiery (the sin
against Moshe), they would focus on the significance of the sin
against Hashem.
The purpose of placing it on a pole was as the Gemara (Rosh
Hashanah 29a) says, "When the people looked 'upward' and
subjected their hearts to their Father i n Heaven, they were
healed — forgiven."
‫״ ו ה י ה א ם נ ש ך ה נ ח ש א ת א י ש ו ה ב י • א ל נ ח ש ה נ ח ש ת וחי״‬
" S o it w a s t h a t if t h e s e r p e n t bit a m a n , h e would s t a r e a t t h e

c o p p e r s e r p e n t a n d live." ( 2 1 : 9 )
QUESTION: The word "vehayah" denotes "simchah" —

"joy." It is definitely no pleasure to be bitten. Wouldn't it be
more appropriate to say "vayehi" which denotes pain and
sorrow? (See Midrash Rabbah Bereishit 42:3.)
ANSWER: Regarding the serpent, the Torah says, "vehayah
kol hanashuch" — "anyone who was bitten [will look at it and
live]." The word "kol" — "anyone" — which is superfluous, is
written to emphasize that "anyone" (including a person
terminally ill from another sickness) who was bitten and then
looked at the copper serpent would be healed from all his
illnesses and remain alive. To him, being bitten was indeed an
occurrence which brought joy.
BALAK 159
BALAK ‫בלק ־‬
‫״וירא ב ל ק ״‬
"And B a l a k s a w . " ( 2 2 : 2 )
QUESTION: The names of the three parshiot, Korach,

Chukat and Balak each contain the letter ‫ ״ ק ״‬. Of what
significance is the fact that in Korah the ‫ ק‬is at the beginning
(‫)קרח‬, in Chukat it is in the middle (‫)חקת‬, and in Balak it is at the
end ?
ANSWER: The letter ‫ ״‬p ‫ ״‬is the first letter of the word
kedushah — holiness. The kufs at the beginning, middle and end
represent past, present and future.
Korach's attachment to holiness was a thing of the past. His
geneology is traced to Yaakov. When one is defiled he is
detached from holiness. Through being sprinkled with the
ashes of the red heifer he now becomes cleansed of his
defilement and thus regains his sanctity. Balak's attachment to
holiness was a matter of the future. Among his future would be
his granddaughter Ruth, who was the ancestor to King David
and Mashiach.
(!‫)שמן הטוב בשם ר׳ שמעלקא דיל טויבענפעל‬
‫ ו ב ל ק בן צ פ ו ר‬. . . ‫״ ו י ר א ב ל ק בן צ פ ו ר א ת כ ל א ש ר ע ש ה י ש ר א ל ל א מ ר י‬
‫מ ל ך למואב ב ע ת ההוא״‬
"And B a l a k s a w all t h a t I s r a e l h a d d o n e to t h e Amorite...And

B a l a k w a s k i n g of Moav a t t h a t t i m e . " ( 2 2 : 2 , 4 )
QUESTION: Why isn't he referred to as "king" in the first

pasuk?
ANSWER: Balak was not actually the king of Moav, but
rather an exceptional Jew-hater who only "saw" what the Jews
did to the Amorites. He refused to understand that the Jews
only acted i n self-defense against the Amorites, who, for no

reason, declared war against the Jews.
Balak began to agitate among the people of Moav and make
them afraid of the "Jewish peril." Because of his intense anti-
Semitism, the people of Moav then decided to make h i m king.
(‫)ר׳ חיים דיל סאלאווייטשיק‬
‫״ ו י ג ר מ ו א ב מ פ נ י ה ע ם מ א ד כי ר ב ה י א י ״ ק ץ מ ו א ב מ פ נ י ב נ י י ש ר א ל ״‬
" M o a b b e c a m e very f r i g h t e n e d of t h e p e o p l e , b e c a u s e it w a s
n u m e r o u s a n d M o a b w a s d i s g u s t e d b e c a u s e of t h e C h i l d r e n of
Israel." (22:3)
QUESTION: Why does it first say "am" — "people" — and

then "B'nei Yisrael" — "Children of Israel"?
ANSWER: When the Jewish people left Egypt, a large
contingent of Egyptians went along w i t h them. They were
known as the "Eirev-rav" — "mixed multitude" (Shemot 12:38).
Moab was well aware that Hashem forbade the Jewish
people to attack them (Devarim 2:9). However, their fear was
that the Eirev-rav would not consider themselves bound by this
prohibition and attack anyway.
Inherent in the gentile world is hatred for Jews. Regardless
of what situation the Jews may be in, be it good or bad, the
world hates them simply because they are an independent
people who do not assimilate.
Therefore, to describe the feelings of Moab, the pasuk says
that they feared ha'am — the people — i.e. the Eirev-rav and in
addition, "vayakutzu mipenei B'nei Yisrael" — "they were
disgusted with the Children of Israel." Though they were
confident the Jews would not harm them, being gentiles, they
hated them simply because they were Jews.
(‫)אלשיך‬
‫״ ו י ש ל ח מ ל א כ י ם א ל ב ל ע ם בן ב ע ו ר פ ת ו ר ה ״‬
"He s e n t m e s s e n g e r s to B i l a a m s o n of B e ' o r t o P e t h o r . " ( 2 2 : 5 )
QUESTION: What is the significance of the name "Bilaam"?

BALAK 161
ANSWER: According to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel (31:8)

Bilaam was notorious for four attempts to destroy the Jewish
people. 1) He was Lavan the Aramean, who wanted to destroy
our forefather Yaakov. 2) He advised Pharaoh to torture the
Jews i n Egypt. 3) He incited the wicked Amalek to declare war
against the Jews. 4) Upon Balak's invitation, he came to curse
the Jews, and he advised Balak to encourage harlotry among
the Jews.
The word Bilaam is an acronym for
.
(‫)פאר אהרן בהגש״פ בית אהרן‬
‫״ ה נ ה ע ם י צ א מ מ צ ר י ם ה נ ה כ ס ה א ת עין ה א ר ץ ״‬
" B e h o l d ! A p e o p l e h a s c o m e o u t of Egypt, behold it h a s c o v e r e d
t h e s u r f a c e of t h e e a r t h . " ( 2 2 : 5 )
QUESTION: The entire world knew that the Jews had left
Egypt. Why did Balak need to mention it now to Bilaam?
ANSWER: When Yaakov and his family came to Egypt,
they miraculously grew in number. pharaoh, fearing that
ultimately the Jews would take control of the land, consulted
his three advisors: Bilaam, Iyov, and Yitro. Bilaam advised him
to stop the growth of the Jewish people by casting the newborn
babies into the Nile River and torturing the people with
excruciating labor (Sotah 11a).
Balak now complained to Bilaam, "Obviously your idea
failed: Not only d i d they multiply and survive, but they even
managed to leave Egypt valiantly. Since they pose a threat to
me, it is incumbent upon you to do something to stop these
people. I implore you to curse them!"
(‫ ועי׳ אור החיים‬,‫)נחל קדומים‬
* * *
Balak sent messengers to convey his request that Bilaam

come to curse the Jewish people, saying, "ulai uchal nakeh bo" —
"perhaps I w i l l be able to strike them" (22:6). Instead of
expressing doubt, he should have spoken w i t h confidence,
telling Bilaam that with his curses he would definitely be able
to defeat the people?
In view of the above, that he was disappointed with

Bilaam's performance, it is clear that although he wanted
Bilaam to try again to harm the Jewish people, inwardly he
doubted that Bilaam could really accomplish anything.
‫״ ו ע ת ה ל ך נ א א ר ה ל״ א ת ה ע ם ה ז ה כ״ ע צ ו ם ה ו א מ מ נ י ״‬
" S o now, I b e s e e c h y o u , c o m e a n d c u r s e t h i s p e o p l e for m e , for

it i s t o o powerful for m e . " ( 2 2 : 6 )
QUESTION: The word "li" — "for me" — seems

superfluous; would it not have been sufficient to say, "Come
and curse this people"?
ANSWER: Moshe was commanded by Hashem not to be at
enmity w i t h Moav and not to contend with them i n battle
(Devarim 2:9). They merited this because a Moabite woman, the
pure and righteous Ruth, would be the ancestor of King David
and Mashiach (Bava Kamma 38b). According to the Gemara (Sotah
47a) Ruth was the daughter of King Eglon, who was a
descendant of Balak, king of Moav.
Balak, the king of Moav hated the Jewish people and
wanted to hurt them i n any way possible. Consequently, he
called upon Bilaam and beseeched him "arah li" — "curse me"
— "pray that something catastrophic happen to me, and thus
there w i l l be no Ruth, no David and no Mashiach." The lack of
King David and Mashiach, G-d forbid, would be the greatest
curse against the Jewish people.
° r r (‫)חומת אנך‬
* * *
When Balak sent his request to Bilaam he said "ki atzum hu

mimeni" — "for he is too powerful for me." Since he was talking
about the Jewish community he should have spoken i n plural:
"ki atzumim heim mimenu" — "for they are too powerful for us."
In accordance w i t h the above, that Balak's concern was to
prevent the existence of King David, he asked for a curse
against himself because he feared King David's future power.
Moav was destined to be destroyed by h i m (see 24:17 and I I
Samuel 8:2), but w i t h Balak wiped out, King David would
never be born.
BALAK 163
He intentionally used the singular "Atzum hu mimeni"

because he meant that David's strength is inherited — "mimeni"
— from me — since he is my descendent."
‫ א ו ל י א ו כ ל נ כ ה בו ו א ג ר ש נ ו‬. . . . ‫״ ו ע ת ה ל כ ה נ א א ר ה ל״ א ת ה ע ם ה ז ה‬
‫מן הארץ״‬
" S o now, I b e s e e c h y o u , c o m e a n d c u r s e t h i s p e o p l e for m e . . .

p e r h a p s I will b e a b l e to s t r i k e t h e m a n d drive t h e m a w a y from
the land." (22:6)
QUESTION: The words "ve'agareshenu min ha'aretz" — "and
drive them away from the land" — are superfluous. Don't the
words "nakeh bo" — strike him — imply that the Jewish
presence would be permanently removed?
ANSWER: The Midrash Rabbah (20:7) says that Balak told
Bilaam that just as when one buys produce he expects one
twenty-fourth of every se'ah (1 se'ah = approx. 2.2 gallons) to be
spoiled (Bava Batra 93b), likewise, he sought to reduce the
number of Jews by one twenty-fourth of every thousand people.
Why did Balak seek to reduce them specifically by this amount?
The count of the Jewish people recorded i n the beginning of
Bamidbar (2:32) was 603,550. In addition to this, the tribe of Levi
was counted separately and totaled 22,300 (3:39, Rashi). Thus,
the census of the Jewish people totaled 625,850. One twenty-
fourth of the total count of the Jewish people amounts to 26,077.
If Balak had realized his wish, the remaining total of the Jewish
people would have been only 599,773.
According to a Midrash, in order for the Jewish people to be
worthy of entering Eretz Yisrael, their number had to be at least
600,000. Consequently, if their number had been reduced by one
twenty-fourth, they would not have been able to enter Eretz
Yisrael and would have remained wandering in the desert.
Balak vehemently hated and feared the people of Israel, and
intended two types of harm against them: 1) "Nakeh bo" —
physical defeat, and 2) "ve'agareshenu min ha'aretz" — expulsion
from the land. By reducing the people by one twenty-fourth,
they would not be worthy to enter "the land" — Eretz Yisrael —
and would remain wandering i n the wilderness.
‫״ א ו ל י א ו כ ל נ כ ה בו ו א ג ר ש נ ו מ ן ה א ר ץ כי י ד ע ת י א ת א ש ר ת ב ר ך‬
‫מ ב ר ך ו א ש ר ת א ר יואר״‬
" P e r h a p s I will b e a b l e t o s t r i k e t h e m a n d drive t h e m a w a y from

t h e l a n d , for I know t h a t w h o m e v e r y o u b l e s s i s b l e s s e d a n d
w h o m e v e r you c u r s e i s c u r s e d . " ( 2 2 : 6 )
QUESTION: 1) Since Balak hated and feared the Jewish
people, why did he only ask for the ability to chase them away,
not to annihilate them?
2) Balak wanted Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; why did
he mention his power of blessing?
3) Grammatically it should read "yevurach" — "will
be blessed" in future tense, the same as "yuar" — " w i l l be
cursed"?
ANSWER: According to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 105a) Bilaam
was originally Lavan, the brother of Rivkah. Before she left
home to marry Yitzchak, he blessed her, "Our sister, may you
come to be thousands of myriads, and may your offspring
inherit the gate of its foes" (Bereishit 24:60).
Consequently, Bilaam said to Balak, "Seeing the great na¬
tion that has emerged from your sister, I know you are a great
prophet, and whoever you bless is definitely mevorach —
blessed. Thus, there is no question that I w i l l not be able to
wipe them out because you have already blessed them to de¬
stroy their foes. Hence, all I am asking of you is to place a curse
upon them so that I may at least drive them from the land."
‫ כ י י ד ע ת י א ת א ש ר ת ב ר ך מ ב ר ך‬. . . ‫״ ו ע ת ה ל ך א ר ה לי א ת ה ע ם ה ז ה‬
‫ו א ש ר ת א ר יואר״‬
" S o now, I b e s e e c h y o u , c o m e a n d c u r s e t h i s p e o p l e for m e . . .

for I k n o w w h o m e v e r you b l e s s i s b l e s s e d a n d w h o m e v e r you
c u r s e is c u r s e d . " (22:6)
QUESTION: 1) Since Balak knew Bilaam's blessing power,
why didn't he simply ask that he bless him to be victorious
over the Jews? 2) Why regarding cursing did he say "yuar" —
in the future tense — " w i l l be cursed" — while regarding
blessing he said "mevorach" — "is [already] blessed" and not
"yevurach" — " w i l l be blessed"?
BALAK 165
ANSWER: For a blessing to be meaningful, it must be given

w i t h good intentions and a kind heart. To give a blessing one
must be devoid of jealousy and ill w i l l . Therefore, the Kohanim
were selected to bless the Jewish people since they are the
descendants of Aharon, who was the quintessential lover of his
fellow man.
Balak said to Bilaam, " I have known you for quite some
time as a vicious person without one iota of kindness, one who
always looks upon other people w i t h an evil eye. Consequently,
your blessings are of absolutely no value because when you
bless you do not mean it. When you bless someone and the
blessing later seems to be fulfilled, it is definitely not thanks to
you, but because mevorach — the person happens to be already
blessed.
"Knowing your viciousness and animosity towards people,
I am confident that your curses are sincere and come from the
bottom of your heart. Therefore, I w i l l not waste my time
asking you to bless me, but curse the Jews since those who you
curse, undoubtedly, 'yuar' — ' w i l l be cursed.' "
(‫)מצאתי בכתבי אבי הרב שמואל פסח דיל באגאמילסקי‬
‫ ״‬. ‫ או ג ד ו ל ה‬mop ‫״ ל א א ו כ ל ל ע ב ר א ת פ״ ה׳ אלק״ ל ע ש ו ת‬
"I c a n n o t t r a n s g r e s s t h e word of G-d, my G-d, t o d o a n y t h i n g

s m a l l or g r e a t . " ( 2 2 : 1 8 )
QUESTION: If he could not do a small thing, obviously he

could not do a great one. He should have said the reverse, " I
cannot do a great or even a small thing against G-d"?
ANSWER: The various names of Hashem represent
attributes that He reveals to the Jewish people. The four-
lettered Tetragramatton expresses His mercy, and the name
Elokim indicates severity and judgment (see Bereishit 1:1,
Rashi). The name "Keil" is a sign of kindness, as it is stated
"Chessed Keil kol hayom" — "The kindness of G-d is all day
long" (psalms 52:3). The two letters, of the four-lettered
name, as a separate name, are a sign of 'gevurah' — severity (see
Shemot 17:16).
Thus, i n order to curse the Jewish people, Bilaam
endeavored to evoke the wrath of Hashem by pronouncing the
name "Elokim" and the name "Kah," the first two letters of
Hashem's four-lettered name.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 105b) explains the pasuk, "G-d put
davar — a thing — i n Bilaam's mouth" (23:5) to mean either that
He stationed an angel who controlled his mouth, or that He
fastened a hook, as it were, to Bilaam's jaw, so that he was
prevented from cursing the Jews. Thus, when Bilaam attempted
to pronounce the name "Elokim," the hook permitted h i m only
to say the first two letters, "Keil." Further, when he wanted to
say only the first two letters of the four lettered name, his
mouth was forced to complete the Tetragrammaton.
When Balak's messengers invited Bilaam to come to curse

the Jewish people, he told them that he was not i n control of his
powers and it would be impossible for him to do "anything
small" — i.e. to say only two letters of the four-lettered name —
or to do "anything great" — i.e. to pronounce the name
"Elokim" i n its entirety.
(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות בשם ברכת טוב‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
‫ ״‬. ‫״ א ם י ת ן לי ב ל ק מ ל א ב י ת ו כ ס ף ו ז ה ב‬
"If B a l a k would give m e h i s h o u s e full of s i l v e r a n d g o l d . "

(22:18)
QUESTION: Rashi comments that from his words it is

obvious that he was very greedy.
Pirkei Avot (6:9) relates that Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma was
offered a position as Rabbi of a city. He responded, "Even if
you were to give me all the silver and gold, precious stones and
pearls i n the world, I would dwell nowhere but i n a place of
Torah." Why isn't the same conclusion drawn — that Rabbi
Yosei ben Kisma was greedy?
ANSWER: Balak never offered to pay Bilaam for his
services. He only said to him, " I shall honor you greatly"
(22:17). Even though there had been no talk of money, Bilaam
referred to a large and specific quantity, so it is obvious that he
was very greedy.
BALAK 167
On the other hand, Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma was offered a

million gold pieces. His response that "all the money in the
world w i l l not sway my opinion" demonstrates his exceptional
character.
(‫)תורה תמימה‬
‫״ויקם ב ל ע ם ב ב ק ר ו י ח ב ש א ת א ת נ ו ״‬
" B i l a a m a r o s e in t h e m o r n i n g a n d s a d d l e d h i s s h e - d o n k e y . "
(22:21)
QUESTION: Rashi writes that when Bilaam personally

saddled his she-donkey, Hashem said to him, "Wicked one,
Avraham already preceded you, as it is stated, 'Avraham woke
up early i n the morning and saddled his donkey' " (Bereishit
22:3). How does Avraham's saddling his donkey affect
Bilaam's?
ANSWER: Avraham interpreted Hashem's request to bring
up his son as an offering to mean that he should literally
slaughter him. Consequently, he woke up early in the morning
and saddled his donkey i n order to speedily fulfill Hashem's
w i l l , although simultaneously the continuity of the Jewish
people would cease. After binding Yitzchak on the altar, he
stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son,
but suddenly an angel from heaven stopped him and explained
that Hashem never told h i m to slaughter his son, but only to
bring him up and prepare him for a burnt-offering (see Rashi,
Bereishit 22:2).
Bilaam on the other hand, permeated w i t h evil intentions,
wanted to curse the Jewish people, and thus end their existence.
Upon noticing the alacrity with which Bilaam approached to
destroy the Jewish people, Hashem said to him, "You wicked
fool! Had I wanted to destroy the Jewish people I could have
done it years ago through my faithful servant Avraham. If I d i d
not do it then through him, I w i l l surely not permit a wicked
person like you to destroy them."
(‫)ר׳ מנחם מענדל זצ״ל מקוצק‬
‫״ו״חר א ף א ל ק ״ ם כ״ ה ו ל ך ה ו א ו״ת״צב מ ל א ך ה׳ ב ד ר ך ל ש ס ן לו ו ה ו א‬
‫רכב על אתנו״‬
"G-d's w r a t h f l a r e d b e c a u s e h e w a s going, a n d a n a n g e l of G-d

s t o o d o n t h e r o a d t o i m p e d e h i m . H e w a s riding o n h i s s h e -
donkey." (22:22)
QUESTION: Why is it necessary for the Torah to tell us that

Bilaam was riding on his she-donkey?
ANSWER: When Balak's messengers originally came to
Bilaam asking him to go and curse the Jewish people, Hashem
instructed h i m not to go. Balak sent a contingent of more
prominent messengers and Bilaam greatly desired to fulfill
Balak's request, but Hashem told him, " I f the men have come to
summon you, 'kum leich itam' — 'arise and go w i t h them' "
(22:20). Hashem did not tell h i m to travel by donkey, but He
meant for h i m to arise and go by foot w i t h them. Observing the
peak intensity of Bilaam's hatred for the Jewish people and lust
to become rich at their expense, Hashem thought that if it
would take him a prolonged journey to reach his destination,
perhaps his "fit" would subside.
Once Bilaam received permission from Hashem to go to
Balak, he saddled his donkey i n anticipation of completing his
journey as quickly as possible. When Hashem noticed Bilaam's
actions, He sent an angel who stood on the road to impede him
because "vehu rocheiv al atono" — "he was riding on his she-
donkey" — and d i d not follow Hashem's instructions to go by
foot.
(‫)פרח לבנון‬
‫ ו ת ל ח ץ א ת רגל בלעם א ל הקיר״‬. . . ‫״ותרא האתו! א ת מ ל א ך ה‬
"The s h e - d o n k e y s a w t h e a n g e l of G-d...and it p r e s s e d B i l a a m ' s

leg a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . " ( 2 2 : 2 5 )
QUESTION: Why did the donkey crush Bilaam's leg

against the wall?
ANSWER: Many years earlier, Lavan and Yaakov made a
peace treaty. First Yaakov took a stone and raised it up as a
monument. Then they took stones and made a mound. Then
Lavan declared: "This mound shall be witness and the
BALAK 169
monument shall be witness that I may not cross over to you

past this mound, nor may you cross over to me past this
mound and this monument for evil" (Bereishit 31:45,52)
Bilaam was a descendant of Lavan (Sanhedrin 105a). By
coming to curse the Jewish people, he was the first to violate
this ancestral agreement. When one deserves a punishment for
transgressing before witnesses, the Torah prescribes that "yad
ha'eidim tiheyeh bo barishonah" — "the witnesses should be first
to administer the punishment" (Devarim 17:7).
The fences i n the vineyard where the angel stood were of
stone (Rashi). Since Bilaam had blatantly defied the agreement
not to cause harm to the Jewish people, he was punished by
having his leg crushed by the witnesses — the stones of the
wall.
‫״ ו ת ל ח ץ א ת רגל בלעם א ל הקיר״‬
"And it p r e s s e d B i l a a m ' s l e g a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . " ( 2 2 : 2 5 )
QUESTION: Why d i d Hashem make him injure his foot

specifically?
ANSWER: There is a saying, "Sheker ein lo raglayim" —
"Falsehood has no feet" — which means that lies cannot "stand
up" for long. Eventually truth prevails and lies dissipate.
Bilaam was permeated w i t h falsehood. His lust for glory and
money, so blinded h i m that he thought that he could even
deceive Hashem. Therefore Hashem caused the donkey to
injure his foot as a message that his attempts to hurt the Jewish
people would be short-lived.
r r
(‫)פרדס יוסף החדש בשם נחלת יעקב יהושע‬
* * *
In Hebrew the word for falsehood is "sheker" , and
truth is "emet" (‫)אמת‬. Emet is spelled w i t h an ‫ ״ א ״‬, a ‫ ״ מ ״‬, and a
, each of which stand on two feet. On the other hand, the
letters and have only one foot, and the has one foot
longer than the other, which makes it imbalanced. Truth stands
firmly on two feet and can stand forever. One may be able to
stand on one foot, but not for long.
* * *
‫ ״ א ״‬is the first letter of the alef-beit, ‫ ״ מ ״‬is the middle letter,
and is the last letter. These three letters together spell the
word "emet" — "truth" — because something true is true from
beginning to end.
‫״ ו ת א מ ר האתון א ל ב ל ע ם הלוא אנכי א ת נ ך א ש ר ר כ ב ת עלי מ ע ו ד ך‬

‫ע ד היום ה ז ה ה ה ם כ ן ה ס כ נ ת י ל ע ש ו ת ל ך כ ה ו י א מ ר ל א ״‬
" T h e d o n k e y s a i d to B i l a a m , 'Am I not your d o n k e y t h a t y o u

h a v e ridden all your life until t h i s d a y ? H a v e I e v e r b e e n
a c c u s t o m e d to do s u c h a thing t o y o u ? ' He s a i d , ' N o . ' " ( 2 2 : 3 0 )
QUESTION: According to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 105b)

during the dialogue between Bilaam and the donkey, she asked
him, "Why did you take me and not ride on a horse?" and
Bilaam replied, " M y horse was out in the field." Why didn't the
donkey ask him, "Why didn't you go to the field to get your
horse?"
ANSWER: prior to the plague of hail, Moshe warned
Pharaoh to send a message to his people: " 'Gather your
livestock from the field; otherwise the hail shall descend upon
them and they shall die.' Whoever among the servants of
Pharaoh feared the word of G-d chased his servants and
livestock into his house. A n d whoever did not take the word of
G-d to heart, left his servants and livestock in the field" (Shemot
9:19-21).
According to the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel, "The one who
feared the words of G-d" was Pharaoh's adviser Iyov, and the
one who "did not take the word of G-d to heart" was his
adviser Bilaam. Thus, during the plague of hail Bilaam's horse
was out in the field and died. Bilaam's "wise" donkey wanted
to ridicule him for not listening to Hashem and asked him,
"Why didn't you ride on your horse?" Though she knew very
well that he had no horse, she was eager to force his
embarrassing admission that he had disregarded Hashem's
word.
(‫)ילקוט האורים‬
BALAK 171
‫״ ב נ ה לי ב ז ה ש ב ע ה מ ז ב ח ת והכן לי ב ז ה ש ב ע ה פ ר י ם ו ש ב ע ה‬
‫אילים״‬
"Build m e h e r e s e v e n a l t a r s a n d p r e p a r e m e h e r e s e v e n o x e n
and s e v e n rams." (23:1)
QUESTION: The word "bazeh" — "here" — mentioned
twice i n the pasuk seems superfluous?
ANSWER: Concerning the statement "There d i d not arise
another prophet i n Israel like Moshe" (Devarim 34:10), the Sifri
(Devarim 31:43) comments that although there was no equal to
Moshe among the Jewish people, the gentile world could boast
of Bilaam, who was his equal.
The only prophet to whom Hashem spoke directly and
prophesied w i t h the expression "zeh" — "this is" — was
Moshe. A l l others prophesied w i t h the word "koh" — "thus"
(Rashi 30:2).
Immensely impressed by his own powers, Bilaam arrived
in Moav and told Balak to build altars and to prepare animals
so that Hashem would reveal Himself and instruct him to
prophesy w i t h the term "zeh" as He had done to his
counterpart, Moshe. To his great surprise and humiliation,
Hashem limited Bilaam's power of speech and told him, "Shuv
el Balak vechoh tedaber" — "Return to Balak and speak w i t h the
term 'koh' and not 'zeh'" (23:5).
(‫ חרש אבן‬- ‫)עיטורי תורה‬
‫״ ו י ע ש ב ל ק כ א ש ר ד ב ר ב ל ע ם ויעל ב ל ק ו ב ל ע ם פ ר ואיל ב מ ז ב ח ״‬
" B a l a k did a s B i l a a m h a d s p o k e n , a n d B a l a k a n d B i l a a m
brought up a bull a n d a r a m o n e a c h a l t a r . " ( 2 3 : 2 )
QUESTION: The Jewish people offer oxen, rams and lambs
as sacrifices. Why didn't Bilaam and Balak also offer lambs on
their altars?
ANSWER: The continual daily sacrifice i n the Beit
Hamikdash consisted of two lambs (28:3). Though oxen are more
select i n the animal kingdom, the lamb was selected because it
represents humility. According to the Midrash the Jewish
people are compared to lambs, which demonstrate the trait of
humility by walking head to tail.
The Gemara (Chullin 89a) explains the pasuk, "ki atem hame'at
mikol ha'amim" — "for you are the least among all the nations of
the w o r l d " — to mean "you make yourself least" —
insignificant and unimportant — while the nations of the world
are the reverse — arrogant and conceited. Thus, the lamb,
representing the character of the Jewish people, was selected to
be the daily offering in the Beit Hamikdash. However, the
haughty Balak and Bilaam considered the humble lamb
unworthy to be offered by such "exalted" personages as
themselves.
‫״וילך ש פ י ״‬
"And h e w e n t a l o n e . " ( 2 3 : 3 )
QUESTION: Of what importance is it to know how he

went?
ANSWER: Bilaam knew very well that he was under
Hashem's control and that he could not harm the Jewish people
without His consent. Nevertheless, his hatred of Jews and
greed overpowered his better judgment. Ultimately he
admitted his folly. Prior to his departure, he advised Balak of a
way to destroy the Jewish community. He told him, "Their G-d
hates immorality. See to it that the Jewish people mingle with
the Moabite women and their doom w i l l be sealed." Balak
followed Bilaam's advice and a grave plague took its toll.
In an effort to prevent the Jewish people from intermarrying,
the sages have forbidden the oil, bread and wine of non-Jews
(Shabbat 17b). The word "shefi" — "alone" — is an acronym
for "shemanan" — "their oil" — "pitan" — their bread
— and "yeinan" (‫" — )יינן‬their wine."
Bilaam knew that he would not succeed i n cursing the Jews,
but his wicked mind was occupied with getting the Jewish
people to eat together w i t h the Moabites, so that they would
eventually intermarry and, G-d forbid, their destruction would
follow.
Consequently, "vayeilech shefi" — he went the route of
"shefi" (‫ — )שפי‬advising Balak to invite the Jews to their festivi-
BALAK 173
ties, where they would partake of non-Jewish oil, bread and

wine.
(‫ שיר מעון‬- ‫)לקוטי בתר לקוטי‬
‫״מה אקב לא קבה א ל ״‬
" H o w s h a l l I c u r s e w h o m G-d h a s not c u r s e d . " ( 2 3 : 8 )
QUESTION: What was Bilaam's proof that Hashem had not

cursed the Jewish people?
ANSWER: In the wilderness the tribes were divided into
four groups and each had its own banner. On the banner of
Yehudah were the letters , which are the first letters of the
names of the Patriarchs: ‫ יעקב‬,‫ יצחק‬,‫אברהם‬. On Reuven's banner
were the letters , the second letters of the names of the
Patriarchs. On Ephraim's banner were the letters , the
third letters, and on Dan's were the letters , the final
letters. The letter the fourth letter of Avraham's name,
hovered over all of the camps and protected them as they
traveled from one destination to the other.
Since i n Avraham's name is the fourth letter, shouldn't
the banner of Dan bear the letters , the fourth letters of
the Patriarchs' names, and the remaining should hover
over the Jewish camp. The reason that Hashem did not so
instruct is because the letters can be arranged to form
the word "kavah" , which means "to curse."
When Bilaam arrived and saw the banners of the Jewish
people, he immediately realized from the Hebrew letters upon
them that Hashem does not want anything resembling a curse
to be attached to the Jewish people. Accordingly, he told Balak,
"How do you expect me to curse them?"
‫ כ״ מ ר א ש צ ר י ם‬. ‫״ מ ה א ק ב ל א ק ב ה א ל ו מ ה א ז ע ם ל א ז ע ם ה‬
‫אראנו ומגבעות אשורנו״‬
" H o w s h a l l I c u r s e w h o m G-d h a s not c u r s e d . How s h a l l I bring

a n g e r upon w h o m G-d i s not angry. F o r from its origins, I s e e it
rock-like, a n d from hills do I s e e it." (23:8-9)
QUESTION: Rashi explains that "tzurim" and "geva'ot"

mean the patriarchs and matriarchs [of the Jewish people].
What does this have to do w i t h Bilaam's inability to curse the

Jews?
ANSWER: There are a total of thirteen letters in the names
of the patriarchs, , and thirteen letters i n the
names of the matriarchs, . Thus, the letters
of the names of the patriarchs and matriarchs together add up
to twenty-six, which is also the numerical value of the four-
lettered holy name of Hashem, the Tetragrammaton.
Afterwards, Yaakov received an additional name, "Yisrael"
, which added five more letters to the names of the
patriarchs, and together with the letters of the matriarchs'
names, the total is thirty-one, which equals the Divine name of
"Keil" £‫ל‬-‫)א‬.
The four-lettered holy name represents Hashem's mercy
and compassion (see Bereishit 1:1, Rashi). The name "Keil," too,
is a revelation of Hashem's kindness, as it is stated "Chessed Keil
kal hayom" — "The kindness of G-d is all day long" (Psalms
52:3). Thus, Bilaam told Balak, "Since through their patriarchs
and matriarchs they are strongly connected with Hashem's
attribute of mercy and kindness, how can my curse have any
effect?"
(‫)אדרת אליהו‬
‫״הן ע ם ל ב ד ד י ש כ ך ׳‬
" B e h o l d it i s a nation t h a t will dwell in s o l i t u d e . " ( 2 3 : 9 )
QUESTION: The word "Hen" (‫" — )הן‬Behold" — seems

superfluous?
ANSWER: The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet serve both
as letters and numerals and are divided into three categories.
From ‫ ״ א ״‬to ‫ ״ ט ״‬are the single numerals, from ‫ ״<־״‬to ‫ ״צ״‬are the
tens, and from to are the hundreds. In the single
category, the first and last letters can be added to equal ten: i.e.
10 = ‫ ״ א ״‬+ ‫ ; ״ ט ״‬the second and second-to-last, ‫ ״ב״‬+ ‫ ״‬n 1 0 = ‫״‬ ,
etc. The only letter that remains single, without a pair, is . In
the category of tens, the first and last letters can be paired
together to equal 100: i.e. + = 100; The second and
second-to-last, + = 100, etc. The only letter which
remains unpaired is the .
BALAK 175
Bilaam, i n describing the Jewish people, was alluding to a

Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 15:7) i n which Hashem says, "Just as i n
the alef-beit the ‫ יה׳‬and the ‫ )הן( ע׳‬remain alone without a pair, so
too the Jewish nation is separate from the entire world and
cannot join w i t h any other nation."
‫״הן ע ם ל ב ד ד י ש כ ן ו ב ג ו י ם ל א י ת ח ש ב ״‬
" B e h o l d ! It i s a nation t h a t will dwell in s o l i t u d e a n d not b e

reckoned among the nations." (23:9)
QUESTION: What d i d Bilaam mean with this description of

the Jewish people?
ANSWER: Bilaam was amazed by the Jewish people's
survival i n the face of constant oppression and persecution.
What was the secret, he wondered, of their success?
In praise of the Jewish people, he proclaimed, "The reason
they continue to exist is that they are 'a people apart.' They
always bear i n mind that the nations of the world do not
consider them significant, and they realize that efforts to find
favor i n the eyes of the nations are futile. Even if on the surface
it appears that they are accepted, they do not assimilate since
they know that 'ubagoyim lo yitchashav' — among the nations, i.e.
in their hearts, the Jew is not reckoned and w i l l never be given
respect and acceptance."
* * *
Alternatively, the success of the Jewish people lies i n the
fact that they direct their lives according to the fundamentals
and teachings of their Torah, "ubagoyim lo yitchashav" — they
do not "reckon" (care or worry about) what the nations of the
world think or say about them.
(‫)דגל מחנה אפרים בשם הבעש״ט‬
* * *
Alternatively, Bilaam was prophesying about the Jewish

people: As long as they are "am levadad" — a people apart from
the entire world — "yishkon" — they w i l l dwell and remain an
entity. However, when, G-d forbid, "uvagoyim" — they w i l l
assimilate or adopt the lifestyles of the nations of the world —
then "lo yitchashav" — they w i l l lose their uniqueness and no

one w i l l reckon them as anything.
(‫)דברי אליעזר‬
‫ מ י מ נ ה ע פ ר י ע ק ב ו מ ס פ ר‬. ‫״הן ע ם ל ב ד ד י ש כ ן ו ב ג ו י ם ל א י ת ח ש ב‬
‫א ת ר ב ע י ש ר א ל ת מ ת נ פ ש י מ ו ת ישרים ותהי אחריתי כמהו״‬
" B e h o l d ! It i s a nation t h a t will dwell in s o l i t u d e a n d not b e

r e c k o n e d a m o n g t h e n a t i o n s . W h o h a s c o u n t e d t h e d u s t of
Y a a k o v or n u m b e r e d a q u a r t e r of I s r a e l ? May my s o u l die t h e
d e a t h of t h e upright, a n d m a y my e n d b e like h i s ! " ( 2 3 : 9 - 1 0 )
QUESTION: Why, when describing the uniqueness of the

Jewish people, did Bilaam express the wish that his end be like
theirs?
ANSWER: A n argument that Christianity makes to the
Jewish people is, "You are the fewest of the peoples (Devarim
7:7), and your Torah requires you to follow the majority (Shemot
23:2). Why don't you join our faith since we outnumber you?"
One of the answers to this argument is that the Torah says
about the Jews who cleave to Hashem, "Chaim kulchem hayom"
— "You are all alive today" (Devarim 4:4). Even those who are
not alive physically are still considered alive since they w i l l be
resurrected after Mashiach comes. Thus, taking into account all
the Jews of previous generations, we outnumber the Christians.
Bilaam, puzzled, exclaimed of the Jewish people, " I t is a
nation that dwells i n solitude; they keep themselves separate
and distinct. Since they are the minority, w h y don't they
assimilate and join the nations of the world?" Then Bilaam
himself offered an answer to his question. "Mi manah afar
Yaakov — Who counted the dust of Yaakov? — if one counts the
members of Yaakov who have returned to the dust over the
years and who are going to be resurrected, one discovers that
they are i n fact the majority. Consequently, I yearn that i n death
I join the majority and that my end be like theirs — resurrected
in the days of Mashiach."
BALAK 177
• ‫״ ו י א מ ר אליו ב ל ק ל ך נ א א ת י א ל מ ק ו ם א ח ר א ש ר ת ר א נ ו מ ש ם א פ‬
‫ק צ ה ו ת ר א ה וכלו ל א ת ר א ה ״‬
" B a l a k s a i d to h i m , 'Go now with m e to a different p l a c e from

w h i c h y o u will s e e t h e m ; h o w e v e r , y o u will s e e their e d g e but
not s e e all of t h e m . ' " ( 2 3 : 1 3 )
QUESTION: Balak was interested in the destruction of the

entire people of Israel. Why did he ask Bilaam to curse them
from a place where he could only see some of them?
ANSWER: Bilaam's attempts to curse the Jewish people
were to no avail and his debut turned out to be a colossal
failure. Balak said to Bilaam, "Perhaps your difficulty is that
you look at the Jewish people as one entity. When you judge
them as a whole, you see their collective splendor. Blind your
eyes to their general excellence and concentrate only on certain
aspects, and surely you w i l l be able to find faults in
individuals."
To their dismay, their efforts were futile because each and
every Jew in his own right was holy and righteous.
(‫)ר׳ מנחם מענדל זצ״ל מקאצק‬
‫״הן ע ם כ ל ב י א יקום ו כ א ר י י ת נ ש א ״‬
" B e h o l d t h e p e o p l e will a r i s e like a lion c u b a n d r a i s e i t s e l f like

a lion." (23:24)
QUESTION: Rashi explains that lion-like "From the

moment the Jews arise in the morning they strengthen
themselves to seize mitzvot: put on tallit, read the shema, and
put on tefillin."
The Gemara (Berachot 14b) says, "He who reads shema
without tefillin is compared to one who gives a false testimony
about himself." If so, why does Rashi mention reciting shema
before donning tefillin?
ANSWER: It is considered false testimony only when a
person recites shema and does not put on tefillin at all. Thus, he
speaks about the mitzvah of wearing tefillin, but does not
actually perform it. However, if later on in the day he puts on
tefillin, his recital of shema is not considered false testimony.
This can be substantiated from the Gemara (ibid.), which

discusses the analogous case of one who brings a sacrifice
without the libations. Though libations are indeed required
w i t h many sacrifices, the Gemara (Menachot 15b) clearly rules
that it is unnecessary to bring them together. When one brings
a sacrifice and a few days later brings the libations, he has
properly fulfilled his obligation.
r r J
° (‫)החוזה מלובלין זצ״ל‬
When one fears missing the deadline for the reciting shema,
it is proper to recite it immediately without tefillin, and don the
tefillin later on in the day.
(‫ ועי׳ משנה ברורה סי׳ כ״ה סקי״! וסי׳ נייח סק״ה‬,‫)כ׳׳ק אדמו״ר שלח ונשי״ב‬
‫״ ו י ש א מ ש ל ו ו י א מ ר נ א ם ב ל ע ם בנו ב ע ר ו נ א ם ה ג ב ר ש ת ם ה ע י ! ״‬
" H e d e c l a i m e d h i s p a r a b l e a n d s a i d : 'The w o r d s of B i l a a m s o n
of B e o r , t h e w o r d s of t h e m a n with t h e o p e n e y e . ' " ( 2 4 : 3 )
QUESTION: Rashi interprets "shetum ha'ayin" to mean

"blind in one eye." Why did Bilaam praise himself w i t h his
blindness?
ANSWER: When the previous lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi
Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, was a young boy he asked his
father the following question: "Why did Hashem create me
w i t h two eyes. One eye would be sufficient because when I
close one eye, I can see just as well?"
His father explained that people have two eyes for a reason.
There are certain things at which one should "look with the
right eye" — i.e. love and concern — and there are things
which one should "look w i t h the left eye" — i.e. apathy and
indifference. When one looks at a Jew, one should always look
w i t h the right eye and find his good qualities. The left eye is for
worldly matters and things of minor importance. Sometimes
one should even close it and not pursue materialistic desires.
Balak was extremely disappointed w i t h Bilaam because
instead of cursing the Jews, he was praising and blessing them.
Bilaam comforted Balak and told him, "Do not fear, I am blind
in one eye. M y right eye has no vision, and thus I cannot see
any good in the Jewish people."
BALAK 179
‫״מה • ב ו אהליך יעקב מ ש כ נ ת י ך ישראל״‬
"How goodly a r e your t e n t s , 0 Y a a k o v , your dwelling p l a c e s , 0

Israel." (24:5)
QUESTION: Rashi comments that Bilaam was amazed

when "he saw that the openings [of their tents] were not lined
up one w i t h the other." Why did he focus on their "openings"?
ANSWER: The Midrash Rabbah (Song of Songs 5:2) says that
Hashem urges the Jewish people to do teshuvah, saying: "Pitchu
li petach kechuda shel machat ve'Ani potei'ach lachem petachim
shetiheyu agalot nichnasot bo" — "Make a small opening like that
of the head of a needle and I w i l l open for you an opening
through which caravans can enter." In other words, the Jew
merely has to begin the teshuvah process and Hashem w i l l help
him to attain the most lofty goals. Thus, the "openings" that
Jews have to make and Hashem's reciprocal "opening" are not
comparable.
Therefore, i n praise and envy Bilaam said, "You Jews are so
lucky; your opening and Hashem's opening are not 'lined up'
— identical — to each other. You only have to put i n a little
effort and Hashem opens for you the vast gates of teshuvah. If
your G-d loves you so much, how can my cursing possibly
have an effect?"
(‫)ר׳ ברוך זצ״ל ממעזיבה‬
‫״מה • ב ו אהליך יעקב מ ש כ נ ת י ך ישראל״‬
"How goodly a r e your t e n t s , 0 Y a a k o v , your dwelling p l a c e s , 0

Israel." (24:5)
QUESTION: Why do we open our daily prayers with words

of the vile Bilaam, uttered in an attempt to annihilate the Jewish
people? (In fact, some omit it and start from "Va'ani berov
chasdecha" — see Responsa Maharshal 64).
ANSWER: Inherent humility and insecurity usually inhibits
a person from thinking highly of or praising his own endeavors
and accomplishments. Very often he needs the assurance of an
outsider to be convinced that his decision or action was correct.
A popular adage states: " A stranger for a while sees for a

mile." Particularly one who is familiar with "both sides of the
fence" is in the best position to honestly appraise one's virtues.
Bilaam the non-Jewish prophet had a profound insight of
the secular world. When he took a close look at the Jewish
people, he was stunned and flabbergasted at their beauty.
knowing keenly the shortcomings and faults of the gentile
world, he involuntarily proclaimed, "How goodly are your
tents, O Yaakov."
In order to dispel any doubts that we may have about our
convictions of G-dliness and Judaism, we proclaim these words
at the very beginning of prayers. We thus recall that even the
great gentile prophet, Bilaam, attested to the beauty and
superiority of our religion.
‫״ועתה ברח לך אל מקומך״‬
"Now, f l e e to your p l a c e . " ( 2 4 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Why did Balak tell Bilaam to flee?

ANSWER: Balak was very much afraid of the Jewish
people. Since he would otherwise have had to engage armies to
fight the Jews and incur great expenditures, he agreed to pay
Bilaam a large fee for his services. Bilaam was confident that he
would succeed and "lived it up" lavishly in the city of Moav.
Now that his failure was obvious and he would not be
remunerated, Balak advised Bilaam, "Run away quickly before
the creditors get hold of you and kill you or put you in prison."
(‫)פון אנזער אלטען אוצר‬
‫״לכה א י ע צ ך א ש ר י ע ש ה ה ע ם הזה ל ע מ ך באחרית הימים״‬
" G o , I s h a l l a d v i s e you w h a t t h i s p e o p l e s h a l l do to your p e o p l e

in t h e e n d of d a y s . " ( 2 4 : 1 4 )
QUESTION: In lieu of "lechah" — "go" — shouldn't he have

said "bo" — "come"?
ANSWER: Balak feared the Jewish people would wipe out
the people of Moav. Therefore, he hired Bilaam to annihilate
BALAK 181
the Jewish people through his power of cursing. Bilaam's

attempts failed and he had to flee in shame.
In parting, he said to Balak, "There is really no reason for
you to be afraid of the Jewish people — lechah i'atzecha — I
advise you — lechah — to go on — with your activities and not
pay any attention to them. What you have seen — asher ya'aseh
ha'am hazeh le'amcha — what this people shall do to your people
— i.e. the Jewish people w i l l destroy Moav — is correct.
However, this w i l l not take place i n your days, but be'acharit
hayamim — in a later period — when k i n g David w i l l reign. I
see that then 'a star of Jacob shall step forth who w i l l smite the
corners of Moav' " (24:17).
‫״לכה א י ע צ ך א ש ר י ע ש ה ה ע ם הזה ל ע מ ך באחרית הימים״‬
" C o m e , I s h a l l a d v i s e y o u w h a t t h i s p e o p l e will do to your

p e o p l e in t h e e n d of D a y s . " ( 2 4 : 1 4 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 106a) says that Bilaam

advised Balak "The G-d of these people hates immorality" and
presented him w i t h a plan to entice the Jewish people to
commit harlotry, so that Hashem would be angry and punish
them. The episode related in the Torah about the relationship
between the Jewish people and the daughters of Moav was a
result of Bilaam's advice.
Where is there an indication in the pasuk that Bilaam
advised Balak to promote harlotry w i t h the Jewish people?
ANSWER: Bilaam sought to annihilate the Jewish people.
Unable to succeed w i t h his prophetic powers, he tried to
destroy them through enticing them to intermarry. According
to the Gemara (Kiddushin 68b), when a Jewish man marries a
gentile woman, the children are considered non-Jewish.
Consequently, Bilaam advised harlotry with the anticipation
that the Jews would assimilate and cease to exist, G-d forbid.
This is derived from our pasuk, which superficially is hard
to understand. Instead of saying, "What this people [the Jews]
w i l l do to your people [Moav]," he should have advised him,
"What your people [Moav] should do to this people [the Jews]."
Bilaam was actually saying to Balak, " I w i l l advise you

what this people [i.e. Moav] should do, le'amecha — to cause the
Jewish people to become a part of amecha — your people.
Embark on a campaign to encourage intermarriage between
Israel and Moav, and ultimately they w i l l cease to exist as Jews
and become Moabites."
‫״ו״קם ב ל ע ם ו י ל ך ו י ש ב ל מ ק ו מ ו ו ג ם ב ל ק ה ל ך ל ד ר כ ו ״‬
" B i l a a m r o s e up a n d w e n t a n d r e t u r n e d to h i s p l a c e , a n d B a l a k
a l s o went on his way." (24:25)
QUESTION: Bilaam returned to his homeland of Pethor in

Aram; to where and to what d i d Balak return?
ANSWER: Bilaam's endeavors to curse the Jewish people
ended i n a colossal failure. prior to leaving, he advised Moab
not to fear the Jewish people, for though i n years to come the
Jews under k i n g David would wipe out Moab, at present they
would not harm them. After conveying this knowledge, he
realized that there was no reason to stay and returned to his
homeland.
Now, Balak was not really a native Moabite, but a
Midianite. Fearing the Jewish people, and cognizant of Balak's
intense hatred of the Jews, the Moabites invited him to become
their king (see p. 165). Upon hearing from Bilaam that the Jews
posed no present threat, they concluded that there was no
longer any need for the arch anti-Semite to be their king.
Consequently, he was forced to resign and he returned to his
native country, Midian, so that his reign was short-lived.
(‫)אור החיים‬
‫״ ו ת ק ר א ן ל ע ם ל ז ב ח ״ אלה״הן ו י א כ ל ה ע ם ו י ש ת ח ו ו ל א ל ה ״ ה ן ו ״ צ מ ד‬
‫ישראל לבעל פעור״‬
" T h e y invited t h e p e o p l e t o t h e f e a s t s of their g o d s ; t h e p e o p l e

a t e a n d p r o s t r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s to their g o d s . I s r a e l b e c a m e
attached to Ba'al Pe'or." (25:2,3)
QUESTION: Hashem was angry w i t h the Jews who

worshipped Ba'al Pe'or. Why is it necessary to tell us that they
were invited to meals and that the people ate the food?
BALAK 183
ANSWER: The worship of Ba'al Pe'or involved scatological

practices. The people would undress and defecate before it (see
Rashi). In the wilderness the Jews were sustained on manna
from heaven which was entirely digested without creating any
need to ease themselves (Yoma 75b). If so, how was it possible
for them to attach themselves to Ba'al Pe'or and worship it?
Therefore, the Torah tells us that, "They invited the people
to feasts which were prepared i n honor of their gods; the
people participated and ate Moabite food." Consequently, they
were able to perform the scatological practices associated with
Ba'al Pe'or.
(‫ איילינבערג‬- ‫)תולדות יעקב‬
‫״והמה בכים פ ת ח א ה ל מועד״‬
"And t h e y w e r e w e e p i n g a t t h e e n t r a n c e of t h e T e n t of
Meeting." (25:6)
QUESTION: Targum Yonatan ben Uziel writes that they were

weeping "vekaryan Shema" — "and reciting Shema." Why did
they say Shema at this time?
ANSWER: In the census of the Jewish people at the
beginning of Bamidbar they numbered 603,550. In addition,
there were 22,300 Levites, making a grand total of 625,850. In
Parshat Pinchas, after the plague which struck the Jewish
community for the Pe'or incident, the Jewish people were again
counted, and together w i t h the Levites they totaled 624,730
(601,730 + 23,000 Levites, see 27:51, 62). Thus, the total
reduction of the Jewish population was 1,120. Included i n this
were also the blasphemer and the Shabbat desecrator, who were
killed for their own sins (Vayikra 24:23, Bamidbar 15:36). Thus,
the actual reduction due to the plague was 1,118.
The words of the pasuk "Shema Yisrael...Hashem echad" have
the numerical value of 1,118. Thus, the Targum is saying that
they were weeping "and reciting Shema," i.e. weeping over the
loss of 1,118 people from the total Jewish population since the
last census.
(‫)קובץ כרם שלמה בשם ר׳ מיכאל דוב ע״ה ווייסמאנדעל‬
Alternatively, i n the recitation of the Shema 248 words are

said (see Orach Chayim 61:3). In this prayer the Jew affirms his
acceptance of the heavenly yoke (kabbalat ol malchut shamayim)
and acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot (kabbalat ol mitzvot).
When Pinchas observed the heinous crime, the Torah
relates that "vayikach romach beyado" — "he took a spear i n his
hand" (25:7). The word "romach" has the numerical value
of 248. The Targum is saying that Pinchas approached the
sinners w i t h confidence because he took, i.e. relied upon, the
merit of K'lal Yisrael, who were reciting the Shema and declaring
their dedication to Hashem.
nm ‫״ ו י ר א פ י נ ת • בן א ל ע ז ר ב ן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ו״קם מ ת ו ך ה ע ד ה ו״קח‬
‫בידו׳‬
" P i n c h a s , t h e s o n of E l a z a r s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen, s a w , a n d
h e s t o o d up from a m i d t h e a s s e m b l y a n d t o o k a s p e a r in h i s
hand." (25:7)
QUESTION: Why didn't Moshe or Elazar take action?

ANSWER: When Zimri decided to commit an act of
adultery w i t h kazbi, he brazenly confronted Moshe and asked,
"Is she forbidden or permitted? If you dare say she is
forbidden, who permitted you to marry the daughter of a
Midianite?"
When one is a "nogei'ah bedavar" — "an interested party" —
he may not rule in the matter since his decisions may be
motivated by personal interest. Consequently, Moshe did not
take action against Zimri. For the same reason Elazar, too, who
was married to the daughters of Putiel — Yitro — (see Shemot
25:6) did not take any action.
Though Pinchas was the son of Elazar, and if his father
married a woman who was forbidden, it would make him a
challal — disqualified Kohen — (see Rambam Isurei Be'ah 19:56),
he did not hesitate to act, because Hashem declared him a
Kohen only after killing Zimri. Hence, at that time he could
absolutely not be accused of conflict of interest.
(‫ חוברת ני‬,‫)רשימות כ״ק אדמו״ר‬
BALAK 185
nm ‫״ ו י ר א פ י נ ת • בן א ל ע ז ר ב ן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ו״קם מ ת ו ך ה ע ד ה ו״קח‬
‫וידקר א ת שניהם״‬...‫בידו‬
" P i n c h a s , t h e s o n of E l a z a r , s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen, s a w , a n d
h e s t o o d up from a m i d t h e a s s e m b l y a n d t o o k a s p e a r in h i s
hand...And p i e r c e d both of t h e m . " (25:7-8)
QUESTION: Pinchas guided himself by the halachah that if a

person publicly violates the prohibition against having
relations w i t h a gentile, "kana'im pogim bo" — "zealots may slay
him." Of this law the Gemara (Sanhedrin 82a) says, though it is
the halachah, "ve'ein morin kein" — when one inquires if he may
slay the violator "we do not rule it."
If it is halachah, w h y don't we so rule? If we do not so rule,
in what sense is it the halachah?
ANSWER: A zealot is one who reacts to a situation
instantly. Upon seeing wrongdoing, he takes immediate action.
In certain instances, the Torah has approved and legalized such
behavior. However, if a person sees a heinous crime being
committed and before taking immediate action he runs to the
Rabbis to ask if he is permitted to act, obviously he is not a true
zealot.
Hence, when one's instinct directs him to take immediate
action, he may do so and it is within the parameters of the
halachah, but once one comes to ask a "she'eilah" — "a question"
— this halachah is not ruled for him, because he has proven
himself not to be a zealot.
PINCHAS ‫פינחס ־‬
‫״ פ י נ ה • בן א ל ע ז ר בן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ׳‬
" P i n c h a s , s o n of E l a z a r , s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen." (25:11)
QUESTION: Rashi writes, "The tribes were mocking him,

'This grandson of someone who fattened calves to be sacrificed
to idols killed a Prince in Israel.' Therefore, the Torah draws his
lineage to Aharon." Through his other grandfather, doesn't he
remain the descendant of an idolater, so that the mockery still
stands?
ANSWER: Children inherit many of the characteristic traits
of their parents and ancestors. According to the Gemara (Yevamot
79a) the Jewish people are known to be merciful, bashful and
kind-hearted. On the other hand, many gentiles are vengeful,
arrogant, and cruel. The people observing the vengeance with
which Pinchas killed Zimri ben Salu, the Prince of the tribe of
Shimon, began to accuse him of being a wanton murder and
attributed it to his descent from a family whose grandfather was
a non-Jew who fattened calves to be sacrificed to idols.
In order to dispel this notion, the Torah traces his lineage to
his other grandfather, Aharon, who was known to be a lover
and pursuer of peace so that Pinchas would be applauded for
his brave act on Hashem's behalf of punishing one who
practiced rampant immorality.
r r 3
(‫)מעדני מלך‬
‫״ פ י נ ה • בן א ל ע ז ר בן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ״‬
" P i n c h a s s o n of E l a z a r , s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen." (25:11)
QUESTION: Our sages write that "Pinchas zeh Eliyahu" —

"Pinchas is Eliyahu" — since Eliyahu lived generations after
Pinchas, the saying should have been "Eliyahu is Pinchas"?
PINCHAS 187
ANSWER: Eliyahu was one of the angels whom Hashem

consulted when he said "Na'aseh adam" — "Let us create man"
(Bereishit 1:26). Afterwards, the angel came to this mundane
world clothed in the body of Pinchas and lived over 500 years
to become the famous prophet Eliyahu. consequently, Eliyahu
preceded Pinchas by many years.
(‫)מדבר קדמות להחיד״א ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות חייב‬
Alternatively, when Pinchas killed Zimri, he also expired

(Zohar 219a). A t that time, however, he reached a spiritual level
which merited him the name "Eliyahu" (a name is a life-force,
see Tanya, Shaar Hayichud 1) through which he was enabled to
return to earth. He continued, however, to be called by the
name "Pinchas," although in reality "Pinchas zeh Eliyahu" — the
person called "Pinchas" now had the life-force of Eliyahu.
(343 ‫ ועי׳ לקוטי שיחות חל״ב ע׳‬,‫)קדושת לוי‬
* * *
incidentally, according to the above it is understood why
the Torah never identifies his father and mother. He is never
mentioned as Eliyahu son of so and so, but known by the title
"Navi," "Tishbi," or "Giladi."
(‫)שו״ת תירוש ויצהר סי׳ ע״א בשם ר׳ משה דיליאן דיל‬
* * *
QUESTION: Why was Pinchas rewarded w i t h longevity?

ANSWER: Hashem's way of rewarding is midah keneged
midah — measure for measure. Thanks to Pinchas' zealous act,
the plague that struck killed only 24,000, and fortunately,
Hashem, "did not consume the Children of Israel in M y
vengeance" (25:11).
Since he brought life to K'lal Yisrael, he was rewarded with
long life.
(‫)רבינו בחיי‬
‫״ פ י נ ה • בן א ל ע ז ר בן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ״‬
" P i n c h a s , s o n of E l a z a r , s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen." (25:11)
QUESTION: In the Torah the name Pinchas is written w i t h

a "yud" £‫)פינחס‬, and according to the Zohar (237b) Pinchas with
a "yud" has the numerical value of two hundred and eight, as

does the name of the patriarch Yitzchak .
What is the connection between Pinchas and Yitzchak?
ANSWER: The prophet Eliyahu encountered the false
prophets of the idol Ba'al and challenged them to prove whose
G-d was the true one. It was agreed that he and they would
each prepare an offering, and the one whose offering would be
consumed by a fire descending from heaven would be the
representative of the authentic G-d. A l l their attempts to bring
down fire were to no avail. When Eliyahu prayed, "Aneini
Hashem aneini" — "Please G-d answer me" — a fire descended
from heaven (see I Kings 18:19-40).
According to the Gemara (Berachot 26b) the three prayers of
the day, Shacharit, Minchah, and Maariv were originated by the
patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov respectively, and
the Gemara (ibid. 6b) says that one should be very careful with
praying the Minchah services since Eliyahu's prayers were
answered during the afternoon prayer of Minchah.
Consequently, his name is written w i t h a "yud," indicating
the parallel between him and Yitzchak, hinting that Pinchas
who is Eliyahu, would be answered in his confrontation w i t h
the false prophets when he would recite Yitzchak's prayer —
Minchah.
‫״ פ י נ ח ס בן א ל ע ז ר בן א ה ר ן ה כ ה ן ה ש י ב א ת ח מ ת י מ ע ל ב נ י י ש ר א ל ״‬
" P i n c h a s , s o n of E l a z a r , s o n of A h a r o n t h e Kohen, t u r n e d b a c k
My wrath from upon t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l . " ( 2 5 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Instead of saying "heishiv" — "turned back" —

it should have said "bateil" — "nullified"?
ANSWER: King David says, "Pinchas arose and executed
judgment and the plague was halted. It was counted to him
litzedakah — as a righteous deed — for all generations, forever"
(Psalms 106:30-31). What does the act of Pinchas have to do
w i t h tzedakah?
PINCHAS 189
According to Torah law every Jew is obligated to give

annually machatzit hashekel — a half-shekel — for the purchase
of Karbonot Tzibur — communal offerings (Shemot 30:15 Rashi).
The word "machatzit" consists of five letters, the middle
one being a , the first letter of the word "tzedakah" .
Immediately flanking the are a and a , which spell
"chai" — "life" — and at the outer ends are the letters
and , which spell the word "meit" — "death." Thus, the
word machatzit alludes that through tzedakah one is attached to
life and distanced from death. As king Shlomo said, "utzedakah
tatzil mimavet" — "charity saves from death" (Proverbs 10:2).
Pinchas through his zealousness removed the plague from
the children of Israel, thus committing an act of tzedakah
whereby life was reaffirmed and death was excluded from the
community.
In the word "chamati" — " M y wrath" — it is the
reverse. The middle letters are a and a , which spell
"meit" — "dead" — and the outer letters are a and a ,
which spell "life." Hashem was saying that Pinchas "heishiv et
chamati" — "inverted the word 'chamati'" — expelling death
and bringing i n life.
(‫)הגר״א‬
‫״בקנאו א ת קנאתי בתוכם״‬
" W h e n h e z e a l o u s l y a v e n g e d My v e n g e a n c e a m o n g t h e m . "
(25:11)
QUESTION: The word "betocham" — "among them" —

seems superfluous?
ANSWER: Often when a zealot witnesses wrongdoing, he
organizes a support group around him and instigates them to
detach themselves from the violators and create their own
community. Thus, a split occurs and the community becomes
fragmented.
When Pinchas saw the shameless immorality and
impudence of Zimri, he realized that drastic action was
necessary. In lieu of splitting the community, he acted
zealously and at the same time he remained "betocham" — part

and parcel of the entire community. He d i d not create a break¬
away group consisting of the pious, but kept the community
intact and uprooted Zimri and his companion from among
them.
Thus, the important teaching is to always strive for
community unity, and i n attempting to correct a situation, one
should also work from "within," motivated w i t h Ahavat Yisrael.
(‫)ר׳ פנחס זצ״ל מקוריץ‬
Alternatively, in reality every Jew was terribly upset with

Zimri and the rampant immorality. They were all filled w i t h
anger and convinced that something drastic must be done.
With the extra word "betocham" the Torah is attesting that it
was not only Pinchas who acted zealously, with the others not
emotionally involved, but that on the contrary, what he did
was really "betocham" — i n the heart of each and every G-d-
fearing and right-thinking member of K'lal Yisrael.
‫ ה נ נ י נ ת ! לו א ת ב ר י ת י ש ל ו ם ״‬. . . ‫״ ב ק נ א ו א ת ק נ א ת י ב ת ו כ ם‬
" W h e n h e z e a l o u s l y a v e n g e d My v e n g e a n c e a m o n g
t h e m . . . B e h o l d ! I give him My c o v e n a n t of p e a c e . " ( 2 5 : 1 1 - 1 2 )
QUESTION: Superficially, both Pinchas and Korach were

zealots. They both saw something that they considered wrong
and took drastic action. Why was Pinchas so handsomely
rewarded and Korach so severely punished?
ANSWER: The major difference between them was not i n
what they did, but how they did it. Of Pinchas the Torah attests
that whatever he d i d was "betocham" — "among them." He
remained within the community and d i d not harm community
unity i n any way. About Korach the Torah writes, "vayikach
Korach" — "Korach took" — and Onkelos translates "ve'itpeleig
Korach," which means that Korach separated himself.
Thus, for Korach's endeavors to separate himself and
divisively create a following of his own, he was severely
PINCHAS 191
punished, though he may have been motivated by a spirit of

zealousness.
(‫)שמעתי מהרב רפאל דיל שטיין‬
‫ ה נ נ י נ ת ! לו א ת ב ר י ת י ש ל ו ם ״‬. . . ‫״ ב ק נ א ו א ת ק נ א ת י ב ת ו כ ם‬
" W h e n h e z e a l o u s l y a v e n g e d My v e n g e a n c e a m o n g t h e m . . .
B e h o l d ! I give him My C o v e n a n t of P e a c e . " ( 2 5 : 1 1 - 1 2 )
QUESTION: What is the connection between zealous

vengeance and peace?
ANSWER: A Jewish leader, on one hand, must be zealous
and fight vehemently against those who threaten the continuity
of Torah or who try to deface and demoralize the Jewish
people. On the other hand, when necessary, he must be the
"lover and pursuer of peace" and make every endeavor to
promote harmony, and unity. A Jewish leader must embody
these two contrasting character traits and exercise them when
necessary.
Consequently, when Hashem witnessed that Pinchas
excelled i n kana'ut — zealous vengeance — and acted with
alacrity to destroy the people who attempted to infiltrate the
Jewish community w i t h immorality, He said, " I w i l l give him
briti shalom — M y Covenant of Peace — i.e. bless him with the
ability to make peace, and thus, he w i l l be an accomplished
leader i n Israel."
* * *
According to our sages, Pinchas was the prophet Eliyahu.

What is the connection between them?
Eliyahu was one of the outstanding zealots in history. He
protested vehemently against the false prophets of Ba'al, and
challenged them to a confrontation on Mount Carmel. After
successfully proving their falsehood he slaughtered them (see I
Kings 18). On the other hand, the last Mishnah of Eiduyot says
that one of the functions of Eliyahu when he comes to
announce the revelation of Mashiach w i l l be "la'asot shalom
be'olam" — "to make peace i n the w o r l d " — and unite the
Jewish people. Thus, upon receiving Hashem's blessing of
peace, Pinchas embodied the two contrasting character traits

which would be demonstrated by the great prophet Eliyahu.
* * *
Prior to Eliyahu's ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot, his

dedicated disciple and successor Elisha asked "Vehi na pi
shenayim beruchacha eilai" — "May my power of prophecy be
double that of yours" (II Kings 2:9). Isn't it audacious for a
student to speak this way to his teacher?
Elisha realized that he would have to succeed his beloved
teacher as the prophet and leader of the Jewish people. He
admired immensely the dual character traits of his teacher,
Eliyahu, and realized that they were a prerequisite for a leader.
Therefore, with the utmost humility he begged his teacher to
bless h i m that the "pi shenayim beruchacha" — "the double
spirit" — i.e. the capability to be a zealot and also a peace¬
maker which he so exemplified — be bestowed "eilai" — "upon
me."
(‫)ילקוט מרגליות‬
‫״ ה נ נ י נ ו ת ן לו א ת ב ר י ת י ש ל ו ם ״‬
" B e h o l d ! I give him My c o v e n a n t of p e a c e . " ( 2 5 : 1 2 )
Question: What is the "covenant of peace"?

Answer: When Hashem asked Moshe to go to Egypt and
redeem the Jewish People, Moshe pleaded "Please send the one
whom you w i l l eventually send" (Shemot 4:13). The Targum
Yonatan ben Uziel explains that Moshe was saying to Hashem,
"Please send Pinchas, who is destined to be Eliyahu, and
inform the Jewish People of the coming of Mashiach." (This is a
source for the famous statement that Pinchas is Eliyahu).
The word "shalom" (‫ )שלום‬has the numerical value of 376
which is the same numerical value as the words "zehu
Mashiach" — "this is Mashiach." The Rambam
(Melachim 12:5) writes that i n those days [of Mashiach] there w i l l
be no hunger, jealousy or competition.
PINCHAS 193
Hence, Hashem was alluding that Pinchas w i l l be Eliyahu

who w i l l announce the coming of Mashiach, and that the Jewish
people w i l l then enter an era in which they w i l l experience the
highest degree of shalom.
‫״ ה נ נ י נ ו ת ן לו א ת ב ר י ת י ש ל ו ם ״‬
" B e h o l d ! give him My c o v e n a n t of p e a c e . ( 2 5 : 1 2 )
QUESTION: Why in a Torah scroll is the foot of the ‫״‬V‫ ׳‬in

the word "shalom" split?
ANSWER: The name of Eliyahu is written five times in the
Torah without its usual while the name of Yaakov is
written five times w i t h an extra . Rashi explains that
Yaakov took the from Eliyahu as a pledge that he w i l l
herald the coming of Mashiach to the Jewish People (Vayikra
26:42).
Therefore, the is incomplete to allude that as long as
Pinchas — Eliyahu — does not reveal the coming of Mashiach,
the Jewish people have no real peace and the taken by
Yaakov w i l l not be returned.
In Psalms 14:7, King David says, "When Hashem returns

the captivity of His nation, yagail Yaakov yismach Yisrael — Jacob
w i l l exult, Israel w i l l rejoice." The word "yismach" (‫ )ישמח‬can be
rearranged to spell "Mashiach" . In David's statement,
Yaakov's name is spelled without a because at the time
when Yismach — Mashiach — w i l l reveal himself to Yisrael —
the Jewish people — Yaakov w i l l happily give up the he
held as a pledge and return it to Eliyahu.
‫ ו ה י ת ה לו ו ל ז ר ע ו א ח ר י ו ב ר י ת‬. ‫״לכ! א מ ר ה נ נ י נ ת ! לו א ת ב ר י ת י ש ל ם‬
‫כ ה נ ת עולם ת ח ת א ש ר ק נ א לאלקיו ו י כ פ ר ע ל בני י ש ר א ל ״‬
" T h e r e f o r e , s a y : ' B e h o l d ! I give him My c o v e n a n t of p e a c e . ' And

it s h a l l b e for him a n d h i s o f f s p r i n g after h i m , a c o v e n a n t of
e t e r n a l p r i e s t h o o d , b e c a u s e h e t o o k v e n g e a n c e for h i s G-d, a n d
h e a t o n e d for t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l . " ( 2 5 : 1 2 , 1 3 )
QUESTION: Why d i d Pinchas receive such a reward?

ANSWER: Pinchas executed Zimri and Cozbi without first
consulting Moshe. He took the law i n his own hands and acted
on the spur of the moment. With Moshe present, he was in the
category of "moreh halachah bifnei rabbo" — "One who decides a
halachic question on his own in the presence of his teacher."
Our sages (Eruvin 63a) have spoken out very strongly against
such conduct and identify three punishments for it: 1) The
person is demoted from a position of authority. 2) He dies
without children surviving him. 3) He is bitten by a snake.
Since people might have thought that Pinchas sinned and

would ultimately be punished, Hashem emphasized that the
opposite would be the case.
1) Because he sanctified Hashem's name, he would not be
demoted, but rather elevated, receiving "brit kehunat olam" —
"a Covenant of Eternal Priesthood."
2) He would not, G-d forbid, die without children, but on
the contrary, "vehayatah lo ulezaro acharov" — "it shall be for him
and his offspring after him."
3) He would not be attacked by a snake or any other
animal, but on the contrary, " I am giving him briti shalom — M y
Covenant of Peace." When the Torah promises shalom, as in
Vayikra (26:6) "venatati shalom ba'aretz" — " I w i l l provide peace
in the land" — it clarifies that "vehishbati chayah ra'ah min
ha'aretz" — " I w i l l r i d the land of vicious animals."
(‫)פרח לבנון‬
‫״ ו ה י ת ה לו ו ל ז ר ע ו א ח ר י ו ב ר י ת כ ה נ ת ע ו ל ם ״‬
"And it s h a l l b e for him a n d h i s offspring a f t e r him a c o v e n a n t

of e t e r n a l p r i e s t h o o d . " ( 2 5 : 1 3 )
QUESTION: Some say that Pinchas became a Kohen only

after he killed Zimri, and others hold that at the time he was an
PINCHAS 195
ordinary Kohen and afterwards he was awarded Kehunah

Gedolah (See 25:13 Rashi, and Zevachim 111b).
According to halachah (Rambam, Tefilah 15:3) a Kohen who
kills someone, even unintentionally, is disqualified to give the
Priestly Blessing (and may not perform the service i n the
Sanctuary, see Tosafot Yom Tov, Bechorot 7:7). If so, according to
the opinion that he was already a Kohen, how was Pinchas
permitted to be Kohen Gadol?
ANSWER: According to the Zohar (217a), when Pinchas
killed Zimri, his soul departed and Hashem revived him by
placing the souls of Nadav and Avihu i n him. Thus, when he
became a Kohen Gadol he was a new person and the fact that i n
a previous lifetime he had been a Kohen and had killed
someone did not have any bearing on his current status.
‫״ובני ק ר ח ל א מ ת ו ״‬
" B u t t h e s o n s of K o r a c h did not d i e . " ( 2 6 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Rashi explains that "Korach's sons initially

were together w i t h him i n planning the insurrection; however,
in the midst of the confrontation they repented i n their hearts.
Therefore, a place was set for them up high i n Geihinom where
they sat [and recited songs to Hashem for their salvation]" (see
Sanhedrin 109a).
1) How does this correspond w i t h the Torah's statement
"The earth opened its mouth and swallowed...all the people
who were with Korach" (16:32)? 2) If they were miraculously
spared i n merit of their righteousness, they should have not
been sent to any place in Geihinom at all? 3) Why is this pasuk in
Parshat Pinchas and not in Parshat Korach?
ANSWER: When Korach was swallowed by the earth, his
sons were swallowed too. However, Korach's fate was
permanent and theirs was only temporary. While being
removed from the eyes of the world, they remained alive and
sang praises to Hashem. Afterwards, they emerged alive, and
the prophet Shmuel was one of their descendants.
While it was meritorious for them to do teshuvah and detach

themselves from their father's mischievous ways, they were
still deficient, because they repented only i n their hearts, not
publicly in word or deed. Therefore, they deserved punishment
and were swallowed in.
The reason for this unique form of punishment was that
Hashem's punishments are "measure for measure." It appeared
to the people who witnessed the uprising that they were
together w i t h their father i n his war against Moshe, and no one
knew that they repented i n their hearts. Therefore, the people
saw that they were swallowed up together w i t h Korach's
contingent, but while i n the ground they were rewarded for
their internal repentance.
Ultimately, when the members of the congregation who
lived during Korach's dispute passed away, the sons of Korach
emerged on the surface of the earth alive (see 20:22, Rashi).
Hence, the pasuk, "The sons of Korach d i d not die" is not i n
Parshat Korach but i n Parshat Pinchas, since at the time of
Korach's rebellion they were thought to have died, and only
subsequently returned to life.
1 J
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חל״ג‬
‫ ל י ש ו ב מ ש פ ח ת ה י ש ו ב ״‬... ‫״ ב נ י י ש ש כ ר ל מ ש פ ח ת ם‬
,
"The family of Y i s s a c h a r a c c o r d i n g to their f a m i l i e s ... of Y a s h u v

the Jashubite family" (26:23-24)
QUESTION: When the sons of Yissachar who came to

Egypt are enumerated, Yashuv is listed as "Yov" (Bereishit
46:13). Why was his name changed to "Yashuv"?
ANSWER: When the Jews arrived i n Egypt, Yov became
aware that the Egyptians had an idol called "Yov." He
complained about this to his father, and as an appeasement
Yissachar gave h i m a ‫ ״ש״‬from his name which changed his
name to "Yashuv."
QUESTION: Why was the appeasement necessarily with

the letter and not any other letters from his name?
PINCHAS 197
ANSWER: The Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 32) writes that the
reason for a on the head Tefillin is that a has the
numerical value of 300 and according to the alef-beit known as
(in which the is exchanged w i t h the and the
‫ ״ב״‬with the ‫ " ש ״‬etc.), the holy Name of Hashem ‫י־ה־ו־ה‬
numerically values 300. (The becomes a , the
becomes a , and the becomes a . Thus becomes
.)
The Gemara (Berachot 6a) explains the pasuk " A l l the peoples
of the earth w i l l see that the name of G-d is proclaimed upon you
and they w i l l fear you" as a reference to the Tefillin of the head.
Therefore we put a on the sides of the Tefillin of the head
because of its equivalence to the Tetragrammaton.
Since Yov complained to his father for giving him a name
which is name of an idol, he appeased him by giving him a
from his name because of its equivalence to Hashem's holy
name.
‫״‬...‫״בני יששכר‬
"The family of Y i s s a c h a r . . . " ( 2 6 : 2 3 )
QUESTION: Should "Yissachar" be pronounced w i t h a

single or a double?
ANSWER: There are varying customs whether to read the
name "Yissachar" with a double or one .
Some read it with a double until Yashuv's name is
mentioned i n this parshah, afterwards reading Yissachar with
one .
(‫ בראשית ל׳ י״ח‬,‫)תורה שלימה‬
Others have a custom to read it with a double only the

first time he is mentioned i n the Torah (Bereishit 30:18), reading
it from then on w i t h only one .
(‫ תורת משה פ׳ ויצא‬- ‫)חתם סופר‬
The custom of Chabad is to always read it with one ‫״ש״‬.

The reason is that Yisachar represents Torah (see Midrash
Rabbah 13:15,16), which consists of two parts — revealed and

hidden (esoteric). The two shins in his name correspond to the
two parts of Torah. Consequently, the ‫ ״ש״‬for the revealed part
of Torah is read aloud, but the for the hidden part of Torah
is kept silent.
(‫ ועי׳ דעת זקנים מבעלי התום׳ פ׳ ויצא‬,‫)תורת מנחם תשי״ב ש״פ ויצא בשם אביו זצ״ל‬
There is yet another custom, to always read it w i t h a double

‫״ש״‬. Followers of this custom find a remez (hint) for this in the
words "Yisacheir pi dovrei shaker" — "The mouth of those who
speak falsehood should be closed up" (Psalms 63:12) — which
they explain to mean that reading "yisachar" w i t h only one
is the "mouth of those who speak falsehood."
(‫ קומרנא‬- ‫)היכל ברכה‬
‫״ ו ש ם א ש ת ע מ ר ם י ו כ ב ד ב ת לוי א ש ר י ל ד ה א ת ה ללוי ב מ צ ר י ם ״‬
"The n a m e of A m r a m ' s wife w a s Y o c h e v e d , d a u g h t e r of L e v i ,

w h o w a s born (lit. "who g a v e h e r birth") to Levi in E g y p t . "
(26:59)
QUESTION: The word "otah" — "her" — seems

superfluous? Moreover, it should have said "noldah" — "was
born" — instead of "yaldah" which means "gave birth"?
ANSWER: According to Rashi this is an abbreviated pasuk
which is missing the word "ishto" — "his wife." The pasuk is
saying, "The name of Amram's wife was Yocheved daughter of
Levi, to whom [his wife, i.e. Levi's wife] gave birth, to Levi in
Egypt."
In the opinion of Da'at Zekeinim, the name of Levi's wife
was "Otah," and it was she who bore to Levi his daughter
Yocheved. According to this, the pasuk reads "...whom Otah
bore to Levi in Egypt."
Though some hold that the name of Levi's wife was Adinah
(Sefer Hayashar, Parshat Vayeishev), it is not a contradiction to the
above, because he may have had two wives. Adinah gave birth
to his sons, Gershon, Kehat, and Merrari, and Otah bore him
his daughter Yocheved, who married Amram. Thus, though
PINCHAS 199
Amram was the son of Kehat, Yocheved was his aunt only
paternally.
(‫ ועי׳ הכתב והקבלה וספר הישר פ׳ וישב ומס׳ סנהדרין נייח ע׳׳ב‬,‫)נחלי אמונה‬
‫ ב ע ד ת ק ר ח כי ב ח ס א ו מ ת ו ב נ י ם‬... ‫״ א ב י נ ו מ ת ב מ ד ב ר ו ה ו א ל א ה י ה‬
‫ל א היו לו״‬
"Our f a t h e r d i e d in t h e w i l d e r n e s s a n d w a s n o t . . . in t h e
a s s e m b l y of K o r a c h , but h e d i e d for h i s own s i n a n d h e h a d no
s o n s . " (27:3)
QUESTION: Their question was whether they inherit their

father's share in Eretz Yisrael. Why was it necessary to mention
the cause of his death?
ANSWER: According to halachah, when someone is
sentenced to death for moreid bemalchut — rebelling against the
jurisdiction of a king — his assets become government
property. If he is executed for simply violating a law, then his
assets remain w i t h his family (See Rambam, Aveilut 8:9).
The daughters of Tzelafchad were very wise (see Bava Batra
119b) and therefore they intentionally preceded their question
w i t h the fact that their father died for his own sin and was not
affiliated with Korach. Since Moshe was a king (Rambam, Beit
HaBechirah 6:11), should Tzelafchad have died for being a
member of Korach's group who rebelled against Moshe, he
would have then been considered a moreid bemalchut, and they
would have lost all claims to his inheritance.
‫ ב ע ד ת ק ר ח כי ב ח ס א ו מ ת ו ב נ י ם‬... ‫״ א ב י נ ו מ ת ב מ ד ב ר ו ה ו א ל א ה י ה‬
‫ ו י ק ר ב מ ש ה א ת מ ש פ ס ן ל פ נ י ה ׳ ״‬. . . ‫ל א היו ל ו‬
' " O u r f a t h e r d i e d in t h e w i l d e r n e s s a n d w a s n o t . . . in t h e
a s s e m b l y of K o r a c h , but h e d i e d for h i s own s i n a n d h e h a d no
s o n ' . . . a n d M o s h e brought their c l a i m b e f o r e G-d." ( 2 7 : 3 , 5 )
QUESTION: Why didn't Moshe answer them on his own?

ANSWER: A judge has to be careful not to accept a bribe in
any form. The Torah says that "bribery blinds the eyes of the
wise" (Devarim 16:19), i.e. judges can lose their neutrality.
Moshe was indeed able to answer them on his own.

However, as soon as they injected that their father was not
among Korach's contingent, Moshe suddenly felt the tint of a
bribe and therefore removed himself from the case and turned
to Hashem for His decision.
(‫)שלייה‬
‫ ו ל א ת ה י ה ע ד ת ה׳ כ צ א ן‬. . . ‫״ א ש ר י צ א ל פ נ י ה ם ו א ש ר י ב א ל פ נ י ה ם‬
‫א ש ר אין ל ה ם ר ע ה ״‬
"Who s h a l l g o out b e f o r e t h e m a n d c o m e in b e f o r e t h e m . . . a n d
let t h e a s s e m b l y of G-d not b e like s h e e p t h a t h a v e no
shepherd." (27:17)
QUESTION: Why is it necessary to give the analogy of

sheep without a shepherd? Suffice it to say, "The congregation
w i l l have a shepherd."
ANSWER: When a shepherd takes his sheep to pasture, the
sheep run ahead and he walks behind them w i t h a stick. He
does this to keep the herd together and so that if they are
attacked, it w i l l be easier for him to flee and save his own life.
Thus, a herd of sheep i n the pasture can appear to lack a
shepherd.
Moshe prayed to Hashem to appoint a leader for the Jewish
people, one who would not walk behind them and keep a low
profile, but one who would take the initiative and give
direction, a leader, i n short, who would always be a trailblazer
for the people to follow.
‫״ ו נ ת ת ה מ ה ו ד ך עליו ל מ ע ן י ש מ ע ו כ ל ע ד ת ב נ י י ש ר א ל ״‬
"You s h a l l p l a c e s o m e of your m a j e s t y upon h i m , s o t h a t t h e

e n t i r e a s s e m b l y of I s r a e l will pay h e e d . " ( 2 7 : 2 0 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Bava Batra 75a) says that the

elders of the generation said, "The countenance of Moshe was
like that of the sun, while Yehoshua's was like the moon. Woe
because of that shame, woe because of that embarrassment."
Why were the elders the ones who said this?
PINCHAS 201
ANSWER: Not only was there an age difference between

Moshe and Yehoshua, but Moshe attained much greater
spiritual heights than Yehoshua. Some people thought that
Yehoshua was intrinsically as great as Moshe and that his
apparently lesser stature was merely due to his relative youth.
Therefore, the elders of the generation, who remembered
Moshe as a young man, were able to compare him to Yehoshua
and said that indeed, even at Yehoshua's age, Moshe was on a
much higher level, and that the difference between them was
like the difference between the moon and the sun.
They proclaimed, "Woe because of that shame. Woe

because of that embarrassment," since it was a great
humiliation for them to witness the decline i n the spiritual
levels of the leaders of the generations.
* * *
A reason for the analogy to sun and moon is that it is

possible to look directly at the moon, but impossible to look at
the sun. Thus, they compared Moshe's countenance to the sun
because "The skin of his face had become radiant and they
feared to approach him" (Shemot 34:30).
‫״ כ ב ש י ם ב נ י ש נ ה ת מ י מ ם ש נ י ם ליום ע ל ה ת מ י ד ״‬
" M a l e l a m b s in their first y e a r , u n b l e m i s h e d , two a d a y , a s a n
olah tamid — continual e l e v a t i o n . " ( 2 8 : 3 )
QUESTION: Since it is talking of two lambs, instead of

"olah" i n singular, it should read i n plural "olot tamid"?
ANSWER: When Hashem completed the first day of
creation it is written, "Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom echad" — " I t
was evening and it was morning, one day." It says "yom echad"
— "one day" — and not "yom rishon" — "the first day" — to
dispel the erroneous conception that since night and day are
opposites, they were created by different gods. Therefore, the
Torah states "yom echad" to indicate that all phases of a 24-hour
day were created by the One and Only G-d.
On the pasuk which says of Jerusalem that "Tzedek yalin bah"

— "Righteousness lodged i n i t " (Isaiah 1:21) — the Midrash
Rabbah (Bamidbar 21:21) says that a person would not sleep over
in Jerusalem without being r i d of his sins: The morning
continual-offering forgave the sins of the night, and the
afternoon continual-offering forgave the sins of the day.
In order that some may not conclude that the forgiveness of

the morning and afternoon continual-offerings are, G-d forbid,
by different gods and divine powers, it is written in singular
"olah tamid" that they are both a continual-offering to the One
and Only G-d.
* * *
The sun rises i n the east and sets i n the west; therefore, the
morning continual-offering was slaughtered on the northwest
side of the altar (see Tamid 30b) since it atoned for the sins
committed when the sun was down (night), and the afternoon
one was slaughtered on the northeast because it atoned for the
sins committed during the time the sun was risen (day).
!‫״ א ת ה כ ב ש א ח ד ת ע ש ה ב ב ק ר ו א ת ה כ ב ש ה ש נ י ת ע ש ה בי‬
‫הערבים״‬
"The o n e l a m b s h a l l y o u m a k e in t h e m o r n i n g a n d t h e s e c o n d
l a m b s h a l l y o u m a k e in t h e a f t e r n o o n . " ( 2 8 : 4 )
QUESTION: The karban tamid — daily continual-offering —

is first mentioned i n Parshat Tetzaveh (Shemot 29:39). Why does
it say there "et hakeves haechad" — "the lamb, the one" — while
here it merely says "et hakeves echad," without the designative
?
ANSWER: I n Parshat Tetzaveh the commandment to offer a
daily continual-offering was given as a part of the inauguration
of the altar, and in our parshah, it is repeated as a
commandment for its daily performance (see Rashi).
While the offering consisted of two lambs daily, one i n the
morning and one i n the afternoon, they were not dependent on
PINCHAS 203
one another, i.e. omitting the morning one had no effect on the
afternoon one. A n exception to this is the continual-offering for
the inauguration of the altar. The altar could be inaugurated
only w i t h the morning sacrifice, and if it was not offered in
time, it was necessary to wait till the next day and first bring
the morning lamb offering (See Rambam, Temidim Umusafim
1:12).
Consequently in Parshat Tetzaveh, it is written "ha'echad," —
w i t h the designative , because for the inauguration of the
altar the morning one must be brought first, and there is no
provision to bring the second (afternoon) one, without
previously bringing the first. However, since i n the normal
daily service the afternoon offering, the second one, can be
brought even if the morning one, the first one, was not offered,
it does not state "ha'echad," which would mean "the first,"
because the morning one is not a prerequisite in order for the
afternoon sacrifice, and even if it was not brought, the second
(afternoon) can still be offered. Thus, it is merely "echad," —
"one" (for the morning offering).
(‫)פרדס יוסף החדש בשם הגרי״ז דיל מבריסק‬
* * *
In both the morning and afternoon offerings nine kohanim

were involved (see Tamid 31b), for a total of eighteen. This is
alluded to w i t h the extra ‫ ״ ה ״‬i n the word "ha'echad" (‫)האחד‬
which causes the word to have the numerical value of eighteen.
With the above it is understood w h y the allusion to
eighteen kohanim — ha'echad — is written i n Parshat Tetzaveh,
while here it only says "echad." I n the permanent daily offering
it is possible that on a given day only the afternoon one w i l l be
brought and thus, only a total of nine kohanim w i l l be involved.
However, when the altar is inaugurated, the morning one must
be haechad — the one offered first, and thus there w i l l be a total
of eighteen kohanim.
(‫)עי׳ טעמי מסורות המקרא לר״י החסיד דיל‬
‫״ ע ל ת ת מ י ד ה ע ש י ה ב ה ר סיני לריח ניחת א ש ה לה׳״‬
"It i s t h e c o n t i n u a l elevation-offering t h a t w a s d o n e a t Mount

S i n a i , for a s a t i s f y i n g a r o m a , a fire-offering to H a s h e m . " ( 2 8 : 6 )
QUESTION: What is the connection between the daily

offering of a lamb and Mount Sinai?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Pesachim 57a) relates that once a
king and queen of the Hasmonean family were discussing
which meat is tastier, lamb or goat. They decided to ask the
Kohen Gadol, who would most probably know since he was
offering sacrifices continuously. They consulted the High Priest
Yissachar of the village of Barkai, who gestured
contemptuously w i t h his hand as if to say, " I f goat is better,
why isn't it used for the daily sacrifice?"
Why, actually, was the lamb chosen over the goat as a daily
sacrifice?
The explanation may be the following: According to
halachah, an animal is considered fully born once the entire
head emerges. If only part of the head emerges, it is still
considered unborn, and if it is a firstborn it is permissible to
blemish it to avoid having to give it to the Kohen. In the Gemara
(Bechorot 35a) Rava says that a goat has very long ears and as
his head emerges the ears are seen first and it is permissible to
blemish it before the entire head emerges. When a lamb is born,
its lips are seen first and therefore it is also permissible to
blemish them. However, the ears are small and are not seen
until the entire head emerges.
When Hashem offered the Jewish people the Torah they
immediately responded "Na'aseh ve'nishmah" — "We w i l l do
and we w i l l listen." The Gemara (Shabbat 88a) relates that a
heretic once said to Rava, "You are an impulsive people. You
put your mouth before your ears."
Rava replied, "We are a trustworthy people of whom it
says, 'The integrity of the upright shall guide them' and of
corrupt people it says, 'The perverseness of the transgressors
shall destroy them' " (Proverbs 11:3).
PINCHAS 205
The pasuk connects the continual-offering of a lamb w i t h

Mount Sinai to indicate that since the lamb's lips emerge before
its ears; therefore, it has been selected as the daily continual-
offering to emphasize the praise of the Jewish people, who at
Mount Sinai put their mouth before their ears.
(‫)מנחת יצחק‬
‫״ ו ש ע י ר עזים א ח ד ל ח ס א ת לה׳״‬
"[On Rosh Chodesh bring] o n e he-goat for a sin-offering to

G-d.28:15) ‫״‬ )
QUESTION: Rashi writes that Hashem requested, "Bring an

atonement for Me because I have made the moon small."
Why do we have to bring an atonement because Hashem
made the moon smaller?
ANSWER: When the sun and moon were originally created,
they were of equal size and strength. The sun was appointed to
rule over the day and the moon over the night. The moon came
before Hashem and argued that it is improper for two kings to
have an identical crown. In response, Hashem diminished the
moon (Bereishit 1:16, Rashi).
Why d i d Hashem diminish the moon? In reality, Hashem
had another alternative: to leave the moon as it was and to
enlarge the sun. He d i d not do it this way, because after
Hashem created the world He decided that the wicked were
not worthy of enjoying the original intense illumination of the
sun and He stored it away for tzaddikim to enjoy i n the future
(Chagigah 12a). Therefore, He had no alternative but to diminish
the moon.
Thus, human misdeeds necessitated Hashem's decision to
diminish the moon, and humans must bring an atonement "for
Hashem."
(‫)לחמי תודה‬
‫ פ ר י ם ב נ י ב ק ר ש ל ש ה ע ש ר‬. . . ‫״ ו ב ח מ ש ה ע ש ר יום ל ח ד ש ה ש ב י ע י‬
‫ ו ש ע י ר ע ז י ם א ח ד‬... ‫א י ל ם ש נ י ם כ ב ש י ם ב נ י ש נ ה א ר ב ע ה ע ש ר‬
‫״‬.‫ח ס א ת מ ל ב ד עלת התמיד‬
" O n t h e f i f t e e n t h day of t h e s e v e n t h m o n t h . . . t h i r t e e n y o u n g
bulls, two r a m s , f o u r t e e n m a l e l a m b s in t h e i r first y e a r . . . o n e
m a l e g o a t for a sin-offering, a s i d e from t h e continual-offering."
(29:12,13,16)
QUESTION: Why besides the daily continual-offerings and

the one he-goat as sin-offering which were offered on every
holiday, were there an additional one hundred and eighty-two
offerings in honor of Sukkot? (Seventy bulls, fourteen rams, and
ninety-eight lambs.)
ANSWER: In the Tur, Orach Chaim (417), the Beit Yosef
writes in the name of his brother Rabbi Yehudah, that the three
festivals Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot correspond to the
patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.
When the angels visited Avraham, he told Sarah, "Hurry!
Three se'ahs of meal, fine flour! Knead it and make cakes!"
(Bereishit 18:6). The visit took place on Pesach (see Rashi, ibid.
18:10), and the cakes she baked were actually matzot. Since it
was Pesach, he wanted her to prepare the dough herself to
guard against leavening (Alshich). Shavuot commemorates the
giving of the Torah and corresponds to Yitzchak because it was
heralded by the blast of the shofar, which came from the ram
which was offered in his stead (Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer, 31). Sukkot
is for Yaakov, as the pasuk says, "Yaakov journeyed to Sukkot
and built himself a house and for his livestock he made
shelters, he therefore called the name of the place 'Sukkot' "
(ibid. 33:12).
The name "Yaakov" has the numerical value of one
hundred and eighty-two. Since Sukkot is in his honor, one
hundred and eighty-two sacrifices were offered.
PINCHAS 207
‫ ו ש ע י ר ע ז י ם א ח ד ח ס א ת ״‬. . . ‫״ ו ב ח מ ש ה ע ש ר יום ל ח ד ש ה ש ב י ע י‬
" O n t h e fifteenth d a y of t h e s e v e n t h month... a n d o n e he-goat
for a sin-offering." ( 2 9 : 1 2 , 1 6 )
QUESTION: Why for the first, second, and fourth days of

Sukkot does it state: "Use'ir izim echad chatat" while for the other
days it merely says: "Use'ir chatat echad"?
ANSWER: During the seven days of the festival of Sukkot a
total of 70 bullocks were offered as sacrifices, corresponding to
the 70 nations of the world (Sukkah 55b). Yishmael and Eisav
were the major powers of the world, and according to the
Zohar, the 70 nations are their affiliates.
In Kabbalistic teachings Yishmael is referred to as a "se'ir
izim" while Eisav is referred to as "se'ir" (see Bereishit 27:11 and
Joshua 24:4). Therefore, on the first, second and fourth days,
when a total of 35 bullocks were offered, the Torah uses the
expression "se'ir izim" to represent Yishmael. The total number
of bullocks offered on the other four days was also 35. Since
they corresponded to Eisav, the term "se'ir" and not "se'ir izim"
is used.
‫״ ו מ נ ח ת ם ונםכיהם״‬
"And their meal-offerings a n d their l i b a t i o n s . " ( 2 9 : 1 8 )
QUESTION: According to the Gemara (Ta'anit 2b) there

were water libations on the altar during the Sukkot festival
which are alluded to i n the portion discussing the Sukkot
offering through three extra letters which spell —
"water."
1) On the second day, it is written "veniskeihem" —
"their libations," i n plural. The is superfluous since for
plural it could have said "unesachehah" .
2) On all the other days it is written "veniskah" — "its
libation" — i n singular . Only on the sixth day does it say
"unesachehah" — "its libations" — i n plural with an added
.
3) Each day it says "kamishpat" (‫" — )כמשפט‬as required" —

except that on the seventh day it says "kemishpatam"
— "in their requirements" — containing a superfluous
Why were there water libations during the festival of
Sukkot?
ANSWER: According to some opinions, the Akeidah took
place on Yom Kippur. (See Rakanti and Vayikra Rabbah 29:9.)
From Avraham's home to the land of Moriah was a three-day
journey (Bereishit 22:4); thus, Avraham returned from the
Akeidah on the 13th day of Tishrei. On that day he was informed
of Sarah's passing and Rivkah's birth.
Three years later, Avraham directed his faithful servant
Eliezer to seek a suitable wife for Yitzchak. Eliezer arrived i n
the city of Aram Naharayim and planned to test the girls of the
city. The one whom he would ask for a drink of water and who
would also offer water for his camels would definitely be good-
natured and suitable to marry Yitzchak.
The day Eliezer arrived, he engaged Rivkah to be the wife
of Yitzchak, and at that time she was three years and three days
old (Mesechta Sofrim 21:9). Thus, this episode took place on the
fifteenth of Tishrei, the first day of Sukkot.
To commemorate the marriage of Yitzchak, which resulted
through an act of kindness performed with water, there are
water libations on the altar during the festival of Sukkot.
(‫)הקדמת בן המחבר ״ידי משה״ על מדרש רבה‬
* * *
When Eliezer met w i t h Rivkah's family he told them " I
came today to the spring" (Bereishit 24:42). The Gemara
(Sanhedrin 95a) says that he was telling them that although the
trip should have taken seventeen days, the earth contracted
enabling him to come from Be'er Sheva to Aram Naharayim in
less than one day.
Why was it necessary for him to tell them this?
According to halachah there are limits to how much one
may walk on Shabbat and Yom Tov from the outskirts of a city.
PINCHAS 209
Exempted from this restriction is a case i n which the earth

contracts (see Eiruvin 43a).
Since Eliezer arrived on Sukkot, i n order to avoid suspicion
for violating halachah he told them that the earth contracted,
facilitating his journey.
(‫ מי‬,‫ ויקרא כ״ג‬,‫)פרדס יוסף‬
‫״ביום ה ש מ י נ י ע צ ר ת ת ה י ה לכם״‬
" T h e e i g h t h d a y s h a l l b e a r e s t r i c t i o n for y o u . " ( 2 9 : 3 5 )
QUESTION: After celebrating Sukkot for eight days,

Hashem added Shemini Atzeret because "kasheh alai peridatchem"
— "your going away (lit. 'separation') is difficult for me"
(Rashi).
It should have said "kasheh alai peridateinu" — "Our parting
is difficult for me"?
ANSWER: On a holiday people are relaxed, i n good spirits
and i n harmony one w i t h another. When Jews are united and
live i n peace, Hashem takes delight in His people. During the
week, however, when people are involved i n the hustle of their
day-to-day life, they often come into conflict.
After observing the Jewish people celebrating eight days of
harmonious living, Hashem added another day saying: "Kasheh
alai peridatchem — It is difficult for me to see the separation and
disunity among you when you are busy w i t h your weekday
business. Therefore, let us have one more day of Yom Tov."
* * *
The Gemara (Shabbat 31a) relates that a gentile came to the

great sage Hillel asking to be converted on the condition that he
teach him the entire Torah while he stood "al regal achat" — "on
one foot." Hillel responded, "That which you do not want done
unto you, do not do unto others — this is the entire Torah."
Why did the gentile make such a strange condition?
In Torah, the holidays are called "regalim" (Shemot 23:14)
because of the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem by
foot. (See Rabbeinu Bachya and Chagigah 3a.) The Gemara

(Sukkah 47a) says about Shemini Atzeret that it is "Regel bifnei
atzmo" — "a separate holiday" — independent of Sukkot.
The gentile, before deciding to convert, studied Torah and
was quite familiar with our holidays, traditions, etc. After
comprehending the beauty of Torah, he made his decision to
convert. One thing however bothered him: what is the
significance of the "regel" — "holiday" — of Shemini Atzeret? He
knew the reason for celebrating Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah,
Yom Kippur, and Sukkot, but saw no rationale for Shemini
Atzeret.
Consequently, he said to Hillel metaphorically, " I am
prepared to convert, but first you must clear up an enigma
bothering me. Teach me all there is to know about 'regel achat'
— 'the holiday of Shemini Atzeret' — which I am trying to
'stand on,' i.e. understand, but for which the Torah does not
give any reason."
Hillel replied that Shemini Atzeret was given to the Jews
because Hashem said, "Kasheh alai peridatchem." Simply
explained, this means that Hashem is distressed by the leave-
taking between H i m and the Jewish people after Sukkot.
However, precisely explained, the phrase means, "Your
separation [among yourself] is difficult unto me." This can be
understood as a reference to dissension between Jews
themselves. Hashem is saying, " I cannot bear to witness strife
and animosity between you. Therefore, celebrate this one more
day in unity, and may it evoke a spirit of unity within you for
the entire year." Thus the essence of this regel — holiday — is to
foster unity and Ahavat Yisrael among the Jewish people.
(‫)ר׳ ישראל זצ״ל מרוזין‬
MATOT 211
MATOT • ‫מ ט ו ת‬
‫ כ כ ל ה י צ א‬. . . ‫ א י ש כי י ד ר נ ד ר ל ה ׳‬. . . ‫ ו ת‬0 ‫״ ו י ד ב ר מ ש ה א ל ר א ש י ה מ‬

‫מפיו יעשה״‬
" M o s h e s p o k e to t h e h e a d s of t h e t r i b e s . . . ' I f a m a n t a k e s a vow

to G-d...According to w h a t e v e r c o m e s from h i s m o u t h s h a l l h e
d o . " (30:2,3)
QUESTION: Moshe taught all the commandments first to

the heads of the tribes and afterwards to the entire community
(see Rashi). Why is this emphasized in connection with the laws
of vows?
ANSWER: Often a candidate for office makes lavish
promises. Moreover, when actually in office, he endeavors to
impress his constituents that he w i l l perform their every wish,
yet when not actually facing them he erases their concerns from
his mind. Therefore, Moshe specifically warned the heads of
the tribes that their promises and pledges were to be treated
seriously. A man shall not desecrate his word, but "Whatever
comes from his mouth shall he do."
‫ ל א י ח ל ד ב ר ו כ כ ל ה י צ א מ פ י ו י ע ש ה ״‬. . . ‫״ א י ש כי י ד ר נ ד ר ל ה‬
"If a m a n t a k e s a vow to G-d...he s h a l l not d e s e c r a t e h i s w o r d ;

a c c o r d i n g t o w h a t e v e r c o m e s from h i s m o u t h s h a l l h e d o . "
(30:3)
QUESTION: The law not to desecrate one's word and to do

"according to whatever comes from his mouth" applies both to
men and women. Why the phrasing "ish" — "man"?
ANSWER: The Midrash Rabbah (Lamentations 2:14) relates:
Rabbi Elazar said: Let not the chapter on vows be lightly
esteemed in your eyes, because on account of that chapter were

the members of the Great Sanhedrin of Tzidkiyahu slain. When
Yechanyah was exiled, King Nevuchadnetzar appointed
Tzidkiyahu over five kings; and he used to enter and leave [the
King's presence] without permission. One day he entered his
presence and found h i m tearing the flesh of a hare and eating it
while it was yet alive. The King said to him, "Swear to me that
you w i l l not disclose this about me," and he swore.
Subsequently, the five kings were sitting and sneering at
Nevuchadnetzar i n the presence of Tzidkiyahu, and they said
to him, "The kingship does not become Nevuchadnetzar, but it
becomes you since you are of the seed of David."
He too sneered at Nevuchadnetzar and said, " I once saw
him tear the flesh of a [live] hare and eat it."
They immediately sent and told the King, "That Jew who
enters and leaves your presence without permission has
informed us, ' I saw Nevuchadnetzar tear the flesh of a [live]
hare and eat it.' "
The latter forthwith came and took up his residence in
Daphne of Antioch. The members of the Great Sanhedrin went
out to meet him. When he saw that they were all men of
imposing appearance, he ordered seats of honor for them. He
said to them, "Expound the Torah to me." They immediately
began to read it chapter by chapter and translate it. When they
reached the chapter, "When a man takes a vow" he said to
them, " I f a person desires to retract a vow, can he do so or
not?"
They replied, "He must go to a sage who absolves him of
his vow."
He said to them, " I t seems to me that you must have
absolved Tzidkiyahu of the oath which he swore to me." He
immediately ordered them [to be removed from their seats of
honor] and placed them on the ground" (see also Nedarim 65a).
According to halachah, one who takes a vow or swears an
oath can consult a Torah authority and annul it. The Torah is,
however, teaching that though halachically this is possible, an
MATOT 213
"ish" — "a prominent person" — once he has taken the vow or

made the promise, should heed the lesson of Tzidkiyahu and
not seek ways out of it, but do "whatever comes from his
mouth."
(‫ בשם ספר בן אברהם‬,(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
‫ ל א ״חל ד ב ר ו כ כ ל ה ״ צ א‬. . . ‫״ א י ש כ״ ״דר נ ד ר ל ה ׳ או ה ש ב ע ש ב ע ה‬

‫מפיו יעשה׳‬
"If a m a n t a k e s a vow to G-d or s w e a r s a n o a t h . . . h e s h a l l not

d e s e c r a t e h i s w o r d ; a c c o r d i n g t o w h a t e v e r c o m e s from h i s
mouth s h a l l h e d o . " ( 3 0 : 3 )
QUESTION: Since it already says, "lo yacheil devaro" — "he

shall not desecrate his w o r d " — isn't the conclusion of the pasuk
"kechal hayotzei mipiv ya'aseh" — "according to whatever comes
from his mouth shall he do" a redundancy?
ANSWER: The pasuk is talking about both vows and oaths.
When a person makes a vow, though he may not desecrate it, he
can consult a Torah scholar and have it annulled. According to
halachah the same applies also to one who swears an oath;
however, the Tur Shulchan Aruch, Yorah Dei'ah 230 records an
opinion in the name of Rav Hai that an oath cannot be annulled.
The Torah may be alluding to this opinion. Hence,
regarding a vow the pasuk says, "lo yacheil devaro" — "he shall
not desecrate his w o r d " — although others can annul it for him.
However, an oath, cannot be annulled by anyone and
"according to whatever comes out of his mouth he shall do."
* * *
The Gemara (Ketuvot 77b) relates that when Rabbi Yehoshua

ben Levi was about to die, the Angel of Death lifted him up and
showed him his place i n Gan Eden. Rabbi Yehoshua jumped
over the wall and exclaimed, " I swear I w i l l not go back."
Hashem ruled that " i f he ever had an oath annulled he must
return, but if not, he need not return."
What difference did it make if he had never sought to be
released from a oath?
Though the halachah is not according to Rav Hai, if someone

does assume such a stringency and makes a oath, he may not
seek relief from a scholar. Therefore, Hashem said, " I f Rabbi
Yehoshua has always conducted himself according to this
opinion, then 'whatever comes from his mouth he shall do,'
and thus his oath cannot be annulled and he can remain in Gan
Eden."
(‫ הרב אברהם דיל ענטבי‬- ‫)יושב אוהלים‬
‫״ואם ה פ ר י פ ר א ת ם א י ש ה ביום ש מ ע ו כל מ ו צ א ש פ ת י ה ו ל א ם ר‬
‫נ פ ש ה ל א י ק ו ם א י ש ה ה פ ר ם וה׳ י ס ל ח ל ה ״‬
"But if h e r h u s b a n d s h a l l r e v o k e t h e m o n t h e d a y of h i s
h e a r i n g , a n y t h i n g t h a t c o m e s o u t of h e r m o u t h r e g a r d i n g h e r
o a t h s or t h e prohibitions upon h e r s e l f s h a l l not s t a n d ; h a d
h u s b a n d h a d r e v o k e d t h e m a n d G-d will forgive h e r " ( 3 0 : 1 3 )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Kiddushin 81b) says that this refers

to a woman who does not know that her husband revoked her
vow, and violates it thinking it is still in effect. Technically she
has not sinned, but she requires atonement because she had
intended to violate what she thought was a valid prohibition.
When Rabbi Akiva would study this pasuk he would cry and
exclaim, "This can be likened to someone thinking he is eating
pork, although the meat is actually kosher — if i n such an
instance the person needs atonement, how much more does
one need atonement if he actually carries out his intention?"
Why was Rabbi Akiva the one who would cry?
ANSWER: During the days of the Roman government, ten
sages were put to death. The Roman King had seen in the
Torah that the punishment for kidnapping and selling a person
is death (Shemot 21:16). He asked the sages, " I f a man is found
to have kidnapped and sold one of his brothers of the Children
of Israel, what is the law?" They replied, "That kidnapper shall
die." The Roman King then declared that the sages' lives were
forfeit, and they were put to death on behalf of their
forefathers, Yosef's brothers.
MATOT 215
At the time when Yosef was sold only nine brothers were
present (Reuven had returned home and Binyamin did not
participate). Why were ten sages killed?
According to the Midrash (see Rashi, Bereishit 37:33) the
brothers had agreed not to reveal to Yaakov the whereabouts of
Yosef and had made Hashem a party to the agreement. The
Roman King thus calculated that ten (counting Hashem as one)
had cooperated i n the kidnapping, and therefore he killed ten
sages.
Commentaries ask: Rabbi Akiva was the son of a convert
and thus his ancestors had no part i n the kidnapping. Why was
he among the ten sages killed?
The answer given is that Rabbi Akiva was punished on
behalf of Hashem, who participated i n the kidnapping by not
revealing to Yaakov the whereabouts of Yosef.
Rabbi Akiva in his great holiness envisioned his fate.
However, he hoped that Hashem would pardon the brothers
and thus he, too, would not be punished since, despite
wronging Yosef, they were actually fulfilling Hashem's wish.
As Yosef himself told his brothers, "Although you intended
harm, Hashem intended it for good i n order to keep alive a
great people" (Bereishit 50:20). Moreover, the Gemara (Shabbat
89b) says, "Were it not for the sale of Yosef which ultimately
caused Yaakov and his children to come to Egypt, the tribes
would have been brought down to Egypt in iron chains."
Consequently, they were comparable to one who intends to eat
"pork," and who deserves no punishment when it turns out to
be kosher meat.
However, when Rabbi Akiva reached the pasuk which states

that, "Her husband had revoked them [her vows] and Hashem
w i l l forgive her," from which it can be deduced that one who
ate kosher for pork is considered a sinner needing atonement,
he realized that ultimately the sale of Yosef would be punished
and therefore he cried since he would be among those bearing
responsibility.
(!‫ מסולת‬- ‫)בית יעקב‬
‫״ נ ק ם נ ק מ ת בני י ש ר א ל מ א ת ה מ ד י נ י • א ח ר ת א ם ף ע ל ע מ י ך ״‬
" T a k e v e n g e a n c e for t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a g a i n s t t h e
M i d i a n i t e s ; a f t e r w a r d s [lit. " a f t e r " ] y o u will b e g a t h e r e d t o your
people." (31:2)
QUESTION: Following the literal reading how could

Moshe take vengeance after his death?
ANSWER: Bilaam advised Balak to entice the Jews to
commit immorality. The Midianites invited the people to "a
feast of their gods and the people ate and bowed to their gods."
(25:2) The Jewish people began to worship the idol Ba'al Pe'or,
and Zimri the son of Salu, the Prince of the tribe of Shimon,
committed adultery w i t h a Midianite woman, Cozbi the
daughter of Tzur. Hashem became enraged and instructed
Moshe to take revenge against the Midianites. Moshe sunk the
idol into the ground up to its nose.
According to the Gemara (Sotah 14a) Moshe was buried

opposite Beit Pe'or i n order to gain forgiveness for the sin of
Pe'or. Tosafot, i n the name of the Midrash, writes that on the
anniversary of the day when the Jews sinned w i t h the
daughters of Moav, the idol rises up to prosecute the Jewish
people for their sin. As soon as he sees the grave of Moshe, he
sinks back down to the depths where Moshe put him.
Consequently, Hashem was telling Moshe, "Not only

during your lifetime w i l l you take revenge against the
Midianites, but achar tei'aseif el amecha — even after you are
gathered to your people — you w i l l still continue to thwart
their every attack against the Jewish people."
(‫)ילקוט סופר‬
* * *
Alternatively, this pasuk is referring to two acts of revenge

against the Midianites. The first was during Moshe's lifetime
and the second afterward. Regarding the first revenge, Hashem
told Moshe to take the vengeance for the Children of Israel
against the Midianites. In this war Moshe d i d not participate
personally, appointing Pinchas to head the battle. According to
the Midrash Rabbah (22:4) this was because he grew up in
MATOT 217
Midian and it would have been improper for him to directly

harm a country from which he benefited.
"However," Hashem said, "achar tei'aseif el amecha — after
you physically leave this world — there again w i l l be an
occasion to take revenge of the Midianites i n the days of the
Judges (see Judges ch. 7). A t that time you w i l l be reincarnated
as Gideon and through him you w i l l lead the war against
Midian."
Interestingly, the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 25b) equates
Gideon to Moshe — "Jeruba'al [Gideon] i n his generation is like
M o s h e i n h i s g e n e r a t i o n .
(‫ ור׳ שמשון זצ״ל מאסטראפאלי‬,‫)אמרי שפר‬
‫״ נ ק ם נ ק מ ת בני י ש ר א ל מ א ת ה מ ד י נ י • א ח ר ת א ם ף ע ל ע מ י ך ״‬
" T a k e v e n g e a n c e for t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a g a i n s t t h e
M i d i a n i t e s ; a f t e r w a r d s y o u will be g a t h e r e d unto your p e o p l e . "
(31:2)
QUESTION: What is the connection between the war w i t h

Midian and the passing of Moshe?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Sanhedrin 39a) relates that a heretic
once asked Rabbi Avuah, "Your G-d is a Kohen, and when He
buried Moshe He became defiled. In what did He immerse to
regain His purity?" Rabbi Avuah replied, "He immersed i n fire,
as it is written, 'For behold, G-d w i l l come w i t h fire' " (Isaiah
66:15). "Does immersion i n fire help?" he asked. Rabbi Avuah
replied, "Immersion i n fire is the primary method of
purification; immersion i n water is the secondary one, as it
says, ' A n d everything that was not used over the fire you shall
pass through the water' " (31:23).
Hence, from the laws of koshering utensils, which were

conveyed i n conjunction with the war against Midian, it is
derived that when Hashem buried Moshe, He immersed in fire.
Thus, Hashem said to Moshe, "Take vengeance against the
Midianites. In the course of the war the Jewish people w i l l
capture their utensils and need to know how to make them
kosher, and they w i l l then be told the advantage of fire over
water for purification. Afterwards you w i l l be gathered unto
your people; I w i l l personally bury you, and the heretics w i l l

not be able to ask how I w i l l regain M y purity."
(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות בשם תנופה חיים‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
‫״אלף למסה א ל ף למסה לכל מסות ישראל תשלחו לצבא״‬
"A t h o u s a n d from a tribe, a t h o u s a n d from a tribe for all t h e

t r i b e s of I s r a e l s h a l l y o u s e n d to t h e a r m y . " ( 3 1 : 4 )
QUESTION: Included in this army were a thousand men

from the tribe of Levi (see Rashi).
The Rambam (Shemittah Veyoveil 13:12) rules that the tribe
of Levi is separated for the service of Hashem and does not go
out to war. If so, why did they go to war against Midian?
ANSWER: In this parshah we learn about two major battles
fought by the Jewish people. The first was against Midian, and
the other was the war yet to come; to conquer the land of
Canaan — Eretz Yisrael.
The Midianites caused the Jews to commit immorality and
idolatry, resulting in a deadly plague. Their objective was to
dispel belief in the Omnipotence and Omnipresence of Hashem
and cause a rift between Hashem and the Jews. Therefore
Hashem told Moshe, "Take vengeance for the Children of Israel
against the Midianites" (31:2). The purpose of this war was, as
Moshe said, "To inflict Hashem's vengeance against Midian"
(31:3) and to destroy all those who attempted to defy Hashem.
Ultimately, His supremacy would be affirmed and a great
kiddush Hashem — sanctification of His name — would take
place.
The war for Eretz Yisrael was strictly a material issue. It was
fought to conquer the enemy, take control of the land, and
ultimately divide it up among the Jewish people to cultivate
and develop.
The tribe of Levi was "set aside to worship Hashem and
serve H i m . " Thus, a war for the sake of sanctifying Hashem's
name was within their domain, and they were required to
participate in it. However, a war for the purpose of obtaining
MATOT 219
land i n Eretz Yisrael was not relevant to the Levites, and

therefore they were not permitted to participate.
* * *
According to the above-mentioned that the Levites sent one
thousand soldiers to the war, the overall total was still only
twelve thousand (31:5), because Ephraim and Menashe
combined sent only one thousand soldiers. Only i n matters
pertaining to the land of Israel d i d they act as individual tribes,
because of their respective portions of the land.
(‫)שפתי חכמים בשם מזרחי‬
‫״וימסרו מ א ל פ י י ש ר א ל א ל ף ל מ ס ה ״‬
" S o t h e r e w e r e d e l i v e r e d from t h e t h o u s a n d s of t h e C h i l d r e n of
I s r a e l , a t h o u s a n d from e a c h t r i b e . " ( 3 1 : 5 )
QUESTION: The term "vayimaseru" — "there were

delivered" — seems to indicate that it was not voluntary. Why
was it necessary to use force?
ANSWER: The word "vayimaseru" (‫ )וימסרו‬comes from the
root word "masar" , which means "inform." To inform on
a person and reveal his secrets is forbidden, and informers are
dealt w i t h very severely (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat
388). A n exception to this rule was i n this instance for the
following reason.
In preparation for this war Moshe told the people,
"Heichaltzu mei'itechem anashim latzava" — " A r m men from
among yourselves." Rashi explains that the term "anashim"
means "tzaddikim" — "righteous men." A difficulty i n selecting
soldiers for the war was that everyone sincerely considered
himself not qualified and humbly thought he did not meet the
standard of "tzaddik" — "righteous." So when righteous men
had to be selected, people had to inform Moshe of the
righteousness of their neighbors and their worthiness for
Moshe's purpose.
Though informing against another Jew is forbidden, it is
permissible when the other possesses qualities unknown to the
community from which it can benefit. Also, if there is a need for

tzedakah, one may reveal an individual who has the means and
i s p r e s e n t l y u n k n o w n .
, ( ‫ל ק א פ ל א ן‬ ‫ה כ ה ן ך‬ ‫מ ז ק ] י ה ך ב צ ב י‬ ‫) ] ] [ מ ע ת י‬
‫״וישלח א ת ם מ ש ה א ל ף ל מ ס ה ל צ ב א א ת ם ואת פנחס״‬
" M o s h e s e n t t h e m , a t h o u s a n d from e a c h tribe for t h e legion,

them and Pinchas." (31:6)
QUESTION: Why is the cantillation on the word Pinchas

kadma v'azla?
ANSWER: Rashi explains that Moshe sent Pinchas to lead
the war against Midian and not Elazar because he is credited
w i t h killing the Midianite woman Kazbi bat Tzur who blatantly
committed adultery w i t h the prince of the tribe of Shimon.
Since he began the mitzvah, he was chosen to conclude it — to
take vengeance against the people of Midian.
The word "kadma" means "ahead" and the word "azla"
means "going." The kadma v'azla cantillation on the word
Pinchas indicates that "kadma" — because he went ahead and
was the first to take action — therefore, "azla" — he was chosen
to be the one to go and lead the battle.
(‫ סי׳ י״ג ס״ק הי‬,‫ כרך א׳ חוברת בי‬,‫)קובץ המאסף שנה ט׳׳ו‬
‫״ ו א ת מלכי מדין הרגו ע ל חלליהם״‬
" T h e y killed t h e k i n g s of Midian o n their s l a i n o n e s . " ( 3 1 : 8 )
QUESTION: The words "al challeleihem" — "on their slain

ones" — are superfluous? Moreover, "al challeleihem" means "on
their slain ones"; it should have said "im challeleihem" — "with
their slain ones"?
ANSWER: Seeing the strength of the Jewish people, the
kings of Midian realized that their chances of survival were
very slim. In order to save themselves, they deviously crept i n
among the slain, hoping that the Jews would think that they
were also dead and not touch them. Fortunately, their plan
failed and the Jews, seeing through their deception, killed them
while they were laying "al challeleihem" — "on their slain ones."
MATOT 221
‫ונקרב א ת‬...‫ולא נ פ ק ד מ מ נ ו איש‬...‫״ויקצף מ ש ה ע ל פקודי החיל‬

‫לכפר ע ל נ פ ש ו ת י נ ו לפני ה׳״‬...‫ק ר ב ן ה׳‬
" M o s h e w a s angry with t h e c o m m a n d e r s of t h e army...'And not

a m a n of u s i s m i s s i n g . . . S o w e h a v e brought a n offering to
G-d...To a t o n e for our s o u l s b e f o r e G - d . ' 5 0,49,31:14)‫״‬ )
QUESTION: The Gemara (Shabbat 64a) says that Moshe was

angry with the commanders of the war for leaving the women
alive and suspected that they had committed a sin similar to the
earlier one with the women of Midian. Therefore, they
responded, "Not a man of us is missing," meaning "None of us
has been lead astray by the Midianite women."
"If so," Moshe asked, "why are you making this offering to
Hashem?"
They responded, "Though the fighters have not actually
sinned, they wish to atone for any evil thoughts that may have
entered their minds."
What encouraged them to bring an offering for evil
thoughts?
ANSWER: Following Moshe's rebuke of the Jewish people
for permitting the women to live and instructions to the
commanders of the army, Elazar taught the people the statute
of koshering utensils. A l l the utensils which were taken from
the Midianites could be made usable either by passing through
fire or immersion i n boiling water.
To the Jews this was incomprehensible. Why wasn't it
sufficient to simply clean the utensils to thoroughly remove any
non-kosher substance adhering to them? Elazar explained that
not only is a utensil not usable when something non-kosher is
on the surface, but even when there is an absorption of non-
kosher taste in its walls.
From this the soldiers derived a new lesson in the relation¬
ship between man and Hashem: If a utensil is unfit to be used
by Jews and requires purging if it has absorbed a non-kosher
taste, how much more must a person perfect himself i n his rela¬
tionship with Hashem and repent for "non-kosher thoughts."
(‫)חדושי הרי״ם‬
‫״כל ד ב ר א ש ר י ב א ב א ש תעבירו ב א ש ו ס ה ר א ך ב מ י נדה י ת ח ס א וכל‬

‫א ש ר לא יבא ב א ש תעבירו במים״‬
" E v e r y t h i n g t h a t c o m e s into t h e fire, y o u s h a l l p a s s through t h e

fire a n d it s h a l l b e c l e a n ; n e v e r t h e l e s s it m u s t b e purified with
t h e w a t e r of t h e s p r i n k l i n g ; a n d e v e r y t h i n g t h a t d o e s not c o m e
into fire, y o u s h a l l p a s s through t h e w a t e r . " ( 3 1 : 2 3 )
QUESTION: Prior to the war w i t h Midian, the Jews had a

major war w i t h Sichon king of Amorites (21:24). Why were the
instructions of kashering utensils not given immediately after
the war with Sichon?
ANSWER: The Gemara (Chulin 17a) says i n regard to the
pasuk " I t shall be when G-d brings you to the land that He
swore to your forefathers...great and good cities that you did
not build, houses filled w i t h every good thing that you did not
f i l l " (Devarim 6:10-11), that this includes permission to use
"katlei dechaziri" — "dried chines of pork" — taken among the
spoils or found i n the abandoned houses.
Consequently, in the battle with Sichon and Og, kings of the

Amorites (see Devarim 3:8), since the land of the Amorites is a
part of the inheritance of the Jewish people, everything they took
from them including non-kosher utensils or foods, was
permissible to be used as is. However, the war with Midian was
strictly a punitive measure for their infiltrating the Jewish
community with immorality and idolatry. Their land was taken
as a vengeance, and is not part of the land which is the
inheritance of the Jewish people. Hence, in order to be permitted
to use the non-kosher utensils, it was necessary for the Jews to
put them through the process prescribed by Elazar the Kohen.
* * *
According to the Ramban, everything, including non-kosher

food, captured while conquering land which is of Jewish
inheritance is permissible (see Ramban, Devarim 6:10). However,
according to the Rambam, (Melachim 8:1) it is permitted for the
soldiers to eat non-kosher food taken among the spoils only when
they are hungry and do not have other food, and thus, the
abovementioned explanation does not apply.
* * *
MATOT 223
Alternatively, unlike the war with Sichon, of which the

Torah writes, "He [Sichon] went out against Israel to the
wilderness" (21:23), the Jews went to Midian to battle with the
Midianites. Since the war w i t h Sichon took place i n the
wilderness, and it is uncommon to have cooking utensils on the
battle field, none were captured and it was thus not necessary
to give instructions on how to make them permissible.
However, the war w i t h Midian took place i n the cities and the
Jews took various kinds of spoils, including cooking utensils.
Hence, it was necessary for Elazar to provide instructions for
making the non-kosher utensils fit for use by the Jewish people.
* * *
Of the war with Sichon the Torah says, "Only the animals
did we loot for ourselves and the booty of the cities that we oc¬
cupied" (Devarim 2:35). However, i n regards to Midian the
Torah says, " A l l their wealth they took as spoils" (31:9). The
distinct respective phraseology indicates that i n the war with
Sichon the "booty of the cities" was their gold, silver, valuables,
and expensive garments, but not their kitchen utensils. But in
Midian where they took "kol cheilam" — "all their wealth" —
they took everything, including their kitchen utensils.
(‫)תבואות שמש‬
...‫וחצית א ת המלקוח‬...‫״ ש א א ת ר א ש מלקוח ה ש ב י באדם ובבהמה‬

...‫ א ח ד נ פ ש מ ח מ ש ה מאות‬. . . ‫ו ה ר מ ת מ כ ם לה׳ מ א ת א נ ש י ה מ ל ח מ ה‬
‫ ו נ ת ת ה א ת ם‬. . . ‫ו מ מ ח צ ת בני י ש ר א ל ת ק ח א ח ד א ח ז מ ן ה ח מ ש י ם‬
‫ ויהי‬. ‫ ו י ע ש מ ש ה ו א ל ע ז ר ה כ ה ן כ א ש ר צ ו ה ה ׳ א ת מ ש ה‬.‫ללוים‬
‫״‬....‫ויהי ה מ כ ס לה׳‬...‫ ו ת ה י המחצה‬. . . ‫ה מ ל ק ו ח‬
" C a l c u l a t e t h e total of c a p t u r e d s p o i l s of p e o p l e a n d
a n i m a l s . . . D i v i d e t h e s p o i l s in h a l f . . . T a k e off from t h e s o l d i e r s , a
t a x for G-d, o n e of e a c h five h u n d r e d . . . T a k e from t h e h a l f of t h e
C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l o n e of e a c h fifty...And y o u s h a l l give t h e m to
t h e L e v i t e s . M o s h e a n d E l a z a r t h e K o h e n did a s G-d
c o m m a n d e d M o s h e . . . T h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e s p o i l s w a s . . . T h e
half...The t a x for G-d w a s . . . . " ( 3 1 : 2 6 - 3 7 )
QUESTION: Since it already states that Moshe and Elazar

did as Hashem commanded, w h y is it necessary for the Torah
to elaborate and give 1) the overall total count, 2) how much

one-half of that was, and 3) how much the one-of-five-hundred
tax came to?
ANSWER: The total number of cattle taken was 808,000. It
was divided between the soldiers and the rest of the
community, each segment receiving 404,000. In addition, there
were 32,000 human beings. It undoubtedly took much time to
count such a large number of animals and people and then
divide it and take off the taxes. By giving us all the fine details
of the tallies, the Torah is describing a great miracle: namely,
from the time they were taken into captivity till the time they
were divided and the taxes were given, not one single animal
or person died.
* * *
Alternatively, it was also miraculous that the total of all

species was an even number and not odd, so that the spoils
could be easily divided, and that from the number each side
received it was easy to separate one of fifty or one of five
hundred without even one single extra animal or person. Thus,
though it states clearly that the Jewish people d i d exactly as
Moshe was commanded, the Torah gives detailed numbers,
because otherwise we would have remained puzzled as to what
happened w i t h the remainders after division.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חי״ג‬
‫ ו ת ה ״ מ ח צ ת‬. . . ‫ ו י ה ״ ה מ כ ס ל ה ׳‬. . . ‫״ותה״ ה מ ח צ ה ח ל ק ה״צא״ם ב צ ב א‬

‫״‬...‫העדה‬
"The half w h i c h w a s t h e s h a r e of t h e s o l d i e r s . . . T h e t a x for

G-d...The half of t h e a s s e m b l y w a s . . . . " ( 3 1 : 3 6 - 3 8 , 4 3 )
QUESTION: Why does it give the tally of the soldier's

portion and also how much the Kohanim's one-five hundredth
amounted to, while in regard to the community's share it only
mentions how much they received but not how much of it went
to the Levites?
ANSWER: There is a dispute among halachic authorities
over whether the law of dividing the spoils between the
MATOT 225
soldiers and the rest of the community and giving the taxes
applies also to future battles. The Bahag (Ba'al Halachot Gedolot)
holds that it does and the Rambam disagrees (see Megilat Esther
on Sefer Hamitzvot, Shoresh 3:9).
Commentaries explain that the Bahag and Rambam actually
agree that i n future battles the soldiers kept the entire spoils
and there is no need to give a share to the rest of the
community. However, they dispute whether the soldiers are
required to give one-five hundredth of the spoil to the Kohanim.
Consequently, since according to the Bahag giving to
Kohanim is a mitzvah for all generations, the Torah discusses in
detail what the Kohanim received from this war. However, the
Levites only received a portion from that battle and therefore,
since it is not a permanent mitzvah, the Torah does not elaborate
on it.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חי״ג ועי׳ נודע ביהודה מהדו״ת יו״! סוסי׳ ר׳׳א‬
‫״ ו מ ק נ ה ר ב היה לבני ראובן ולבני גד״‬
" T h e c h i l d r e n of R e u b e n a n d t h e c h i l d r e n of G a d h a d a b u n d a n t
livestock." (32:1)
QUESTION: The Ba'al Haturim writes that i n the

discussions between Moshe and the tribes of Gad and Reuvein,
who wanted to receive the land on the eastern side of the
Jordan (the Gilead area) as their inheritance, B'nei Gad and B'nei
Reuvein are mentioned eight times, alluding to the fact that they
went into exile eight years before all other tribes. In addition,
King Shlomo describes their inheritance as, "Nachlah mevochelet
barishonah ve'achritah lo tevorach" — " A n inheritance seized
hastily i n the beginning, its end w i l l not be blessed" (proverbs
20:21). The word "mevochelet" is written w i t h a because of
the eight times they are mentioned in the Torah. (chet has the
numerical value of eight), but read as "mevohelet" (with a )
— "hasty." Their inheritance was not blessed, since they went
into exile eight years earlier.
Moshe made an agreement w i t h the B'nei Gad and B'nei

Reuvein that they should join with their brethren i n the
conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Not only d i d they comply w i t h this
condition, they even remained an additional seven years till the
land was divided up. For the fulfillment of their agreement and
their other good deeds, they received Yehoshua's praise (see
Joshua 22:2-3). Why, then, did they go into exile eight years
before everyone else?
ANSWER: When the B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuvein told
Moshe that they would arm themselves swiftly i n the vanguard
of the Children of Israel, they also said that in the interim their
children and families would remain on the eastern side of the
Jordan and dwell i n the fortified cities. They honored their
pledge and sent the male soldiers along w i t h the people of
Israel, and the children remained behind.
When the Jews crossed the Jordan enroute to Eretz Yisrael,
they witnessed the miracles which Hashem performed in the
Jordan River on their behalf. Also, i n Eretz Yisrael proper,
during the seven years of war, they again witnessed Hashem's
miracles on their behalf i n the miraculous conquering of the
thirty-one kings. Personally seeing Hashem's miracles leaves an
everlasting impression on the viewer and is a more profound
form of education than hearing or learning of them. Thus, while
the adults deserve commendation for fulfilling even more than
what they pledged, they failed to give their children the
education of personally seeing Hashem's greatness. For this
iniquity they were exiled eight years earlier than the entire
community of Israel.
* * *
perhaps the reason for specifically eight years was that they
failed to provide a proper chinuch — education — for their
children, and the which has the numerical value of eight, is
the first letter of the word chinuch .
(‫)שמעתי מאחי הרב שמואל פסח שי׳ באגאמילסקי בשם דודי הרב ברוך הכהן דיל כהן מוז״ס קול תודה‬
‫״‬...‫״ ע ס ו ־ ו ת ודיבון ויעזו־‬
"Atarot, a n d Dibon, a n d Y a z e r . . . " ( 3 2 : 3 )
QUESTION: Why here does Onkelos give the Aramaic

versions of the names, (Machelta, Malbeshta, and Kumrin)
MATOT 227
while later on (32:34) he just writes the names as they are

written in the text?
ANSWER: The cities Atarot, Dibon, and Yazer were on the
east bank of the Jordan and part of the land of Sichon and Og.
At the time when the people of Reuven and Gad requested to
remain on the east bank of the Jordan, these cities were called
by other names: Machelta, Malbeshta, and Kumrin. The cities
were i n a state of destruction and were rebuilt when the Jews
settled on the east bank of the Jordan. Since originally some of
the cities were named after idols, they gave them other names
(see 32:34, 38).
When the Torah records that the people of Reuven and Gad
asked for Atarot, Dibon, and Yazer, they d i d not really ask for
them by these names, but rather by their old names. The Torah
records it with these names because i n later years these were
the Hebrew names given to these cities by the Jewish people.
Therefore, Onkelos writes the names of the cities by which they
were known at the time the request was made to indicate that
the people of Reuven and Gad did not actually refer to them by
their later names. Afterwards, however, those names no longer
existed, and Onkelos therefore writes the current Hebrew
names.
* * *
The Gemara (Berachot 8b) says, " A person should review the
Biblical portion every week, twice i n the text and once in the
Targum, including 'Atarot, Dibon, and Yazer....' " This pasuk is
singled out because Targum Onkelos simply repeats the text.
Tosafot asks, if that is the reason, w h y didn't the Gemara
mention pesukim where only names of people are mentioned,
e.g. "Reuven, Shimon..." (Shemot 1:2), and Onkelos just repeats
the names?
In view of the above, it may be explained that the Gemara

specifically mentioned this pasuk since these names were
connected with idols and the Torah avoided mentioning them
and called them by their future names. Thus, one may conclude
that this passage i n the Targum which mentions the names of
idols should be omitted from a person's weekly review since

they are not i n the text.
(‫ ספר קנה חכמה‬- ‫)ילקוט האורים‬
‫״ ו י א מ ר מ ש ה ל ב נ י ג ד ו ל ב נ י ר א ו ב ן ה א ח ״ כ ם ״באו ל מ ל ח מ ה ו א ת ם‬
‫פה״‬ ‫תשבו‬
" M o s h e s a i d to t h e c h i l d r e n of G a d a n d t h e c h i l d r e n of R e u v e n ,
' S h a l l your b r o t h e r s go out to battle while y o u s e t t l e h e r e ? ' "
(32:6)
QUESTION: If they were settling i n a different land, what

was the problem with not participating i n the war for Eretz
Yisrael?
ANSWER: Though the Jewish people are dispersed to many
parts of the world, they are strongly united and psychologically
interdependent. Thus, when a Jew i n any part of the world
experiences misfortune, Jews throughout the world feel
compassion and express concern.
Moshe was not questioning the legitimacy of their action,
but rather saying to them, "Considering the emotions of the
Jewish people it would be impossible for you to sit calmly and
enjoy your land i n Jordan when at the same time your brethren
are engaged i n war."
* * *
Tosafot i n Gemara (Menachot 37a) quotes a Midrash that a

man with two heads married a woman with one head and they
bore both a one-headed and two-headed child. When the father
died, the children came before King Shlomo and the one w i t h
two heads demanded a double portion of the estate
(inheritance).
The wisest of all men covered one of the heads of the two-
headed son and poured boiling water over the other head.
When the covered head bellowed i n pain, it was evident that
the two heads were part of one person.
This story suggests a metaphor for the Jewish people. Being
scattered throughout the world, it seems, superficially, that the
MATOT 229
Jewish people have a number of "heads." Each one has adopted

a distinct dialect and way of thinking, and his respective
distinctness detaches h i m from other Jews.
While on the surface this may appear true, once "boiling
water" is poured over a Jewish community, instinctively, as one
unit, all Jews the world over feel the pain and sorrow of their
fellow Jews.
(‫)הגיונות אל עמי‬
‫״ ו י א מ ר ב נ י ג ד ובני ר א ו ב ן א ל מ ש ה ל א מ ר ע ב ד י ך ״עשו כ א ש ר א ד נ י‬
‫ ו ע ב ד ך יעברו כל ח ל ו ץ צ ב א לפני ה׳ ל מ ל ח מ ה כ א ש ר אדני‬.‫מצוה‬
‫דבר״‬
" T h e children of G a d a n d t h e children of R e u v e n s a i d to M o s h e ,

s a y i n g , T o u r s e r v a n t s s h a l l d o a s my lord c o m m a n d s . And your
s e r v a n t s s h a l l c r o s s over — every a r m e d p e r s o n of t h e legion
— b e f o r e G-d, to d o battle, a s my lord s p e a k s . ' " ( 3 2 : 2 5 , 2 7 )
QUESTION: Why i n the first pasuk did they say that they
w i l l do, "ka'asher adoni metzaveh" — "as my lord commands" —
and i n the second pasuk they said they w i l l do, "ka'asher adoni
doveir" — "as my lord speaks"?
ANSWER: Originally, the people of Gad and Reuven asked
for permission to settle on the east bank of the Jordan. Moshe
turned down their request, explaining that it would be
improper to expect other members of the Jewish people to go to
war for their land, while they sat safely east of the Jordan.
Realizing that Moshe was right, they approached h i m and said,
"We w i l l arm ourselves swiftly in the vanguard of the Children
of Israel until we have brought them to their place. We w i l l not
return to our homes until each of the Children of Israel inherits
his share."
Moshe listened carefully and accepted their proposal w i t h a

modification: I n their statement they failed to mention
Hashem, and it appeared as though they presumptuously
expected to conquer the land of Canaan through their own
strength. Moshe reproved them and explained how a Jew
should speak, " I f you do this thing; if you arm yourself before
Hashem for battle and every man among you shall cross the
Jordan before Hashem until He drives out His enemies before

Him and the land shall be conquered before Hashem, and then
you shall return."
Realizing their two-fold error, namely, not mentioning
Hashem in their proposals and originally expecting the others
to go to war while they stayed home, they replied to Moshe,
"Your servants shall do as my lord commands" meaning that
they would indeed participate and help their brethren conquer
Eretz Yisrael. In addition, from then on they would speak, "As
my lord speaks" — i.e. always giving proper recognition to
Hashem.
(‫)פרחי אהרן‬
‫״ואם ל א יעברו חלוצים א ת כ ם ונאחזו ב ת כ כ ם ב א ר ץ כנען״‬
" B u t if t h e y do not c r o s s over, a r m e d , with y o u , t h e n t h e y will

t a k e [their] h e r i t a g e a m o n g y o u in t h e land of C a n a a n . " ( 3 2 : 3 0 )
QUESTION: Why, if they did not go to war together w i t h

the Jewish people, would they receive a share in the land of
Canaan together w i t h the other tribes?
ANSWER: Originally the land of Canaan was to be divided
among all the tribes, but the tribes of Gad and Reuven asked
permission to receive the land East of the Jordan in lieu of their
share. Moshe agreed but warned, "They can have the land on
the east side of the Jordan only if they join all the other tribes in
conquering the land of Canaan. However, if they do not, not
only w i l l they be denied the land they seek, but they w i l l no
longer receive a portion of the land of Canaan. They w i l l be a
portionless tribe in Israel and have to live scattered betochechem
— among the other tribes."
‫״ויתן ל ה ם מ ש ה ל ב נ י ג ד ו ל ב נ י ר א ו ב ן ו ל ח צ י ש ב • מ נ ש ה בן י ו ס ף א ת‬
‫ ה א ר ץ לעריה ב ג ב ל ת ערי ה א ר ץ • ב י ב ״‬. . . ‫מ מ ל כ ת • י ח ן מ ל ך ה א מ ר י‬
" S o M o s h e g a v e t o t h e m to t h e c h i l d r e n of G a d , a n d t h e
c h i l d r e n of R e u v e n , a n d half t h e tribe of M e n a s h e h s o n of
Y o s e f , t h e kingdom of S i c h o n king of t h e A m o r i t e s . . . T h e land
MATOT 231
with its c i t i e s in t h e b o u n d a r i e s , a n d t h e c i t i e s of t h e
surrounding land." (32:33)
QUESTION: The tribes of Gad and Reuven requested land

on the east bank of the Jordan River (Gilead area). Why did
Moshe also give a portion to half of the tribe of Menasheh?
ANSWER: After Moshe consented to the request of Gad
and Reuven, he realized that the territory was too large for
them alone and offered a portion to whoever wished to join
w i t h them. Some people of the tribe of Menasheh took him up
on the offer, and thus he divided the tribe and some settled i n
the Gilead area.
* * *
A difficulty with this explanation is the following:
1) Moshe was originally very upset with Gad and Reuven,
and went as far as comparing them to the meraglim — spies —
who discouraged the Jews from going to Eretz Yisrael. Even
afterwards their actions were not regarded favorably and it was
called "a hasty inheritance" (see Proverbs 20:21, Rashi), so w h y
would he seek others to join them?
2) The simple interpretation of the pasuk (peshuto shel
mikrah) — "Moshe gave to them" — suggests that it was
entirely on his own initiative, and there is no indication that he
offered it to everyone and Menasheh agreed to accept it?
Moshe was and always w i l l be the "rayah mehemna" —
"dedicated shepherd" — of the Jewish people. A l l Divine
revelations and benefits are given through him. It was Moshe
who received the Torah from Sinai and conveyed it to all
generations, and also included i n this is any interpretation
scholars w i l l offer as well as the new esoteric teachings to be
revealed by Mashiach (Jerusalem Talmud, Pei'ah 2:4).
The Midrash (Shemot 2:6) also says that Moshe was the first
redeemer, who took us out of Egypt, and w i l l also be the final
redeemer, who w i l l take us out of the present exile. This means
that the redemption from Egypt through Moshe paved the way
and made possible the ultimate redemption. (See Sefer

Hama'amarim 5748, p. 164).
Likewise, our inheritance of Eretz Yisrael was channeled
through him, and though he d i d not come there physically, it
was necessary for h i m to be shown it (Devarim 34:1-4). Through
his viewing it, a certain holiness entered the land, thus creating
the obligation for giving tithes (see Bava Batra 56a).
The Torah (Bereishit 15:19 and Devarim 12:20, 19:8) states
that in the days of Mashiach, Eretz Yisrael w i l l be expanded to
include the lands of the Kennites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites,
who were among the ten nations whose territories were
originally promised to Avraham (Bereishit 15:19). These are the
lands of Edom, Moab and Ammon and an extension of the
territory east of the Jordan where Gad, Reuven and half of
Menasheh settled.
Therefore, just as it was necessary for Moshe to "see" Eretz

Yisrael before the Jews inherited it, it was also necessary that the
future inheritance of the expanded Eretz Yisrael have an
attachment i n some way to Moshe. Hence, though Gad and
Reuven themselves asked for the Gilead territory, which at that
time was only an addition to the land of Canaan (34:2), Moshe
gave a share of it, to half of the tribe of Menasheh i n preparation
for the Messianic era, when the entire Eretz Yisrael w i l l be
expanded.
The reason he selected the tribe of Menasheh for this
purpose was their exceptional love for Eretz Yisrael, as can be
seen i n the daughters of Tzelafchad's demanding to receive
their father's portion of the land. The pasuk also emphasizes
that he gave it to Menasheh ben Yosef, because Yosef is also
noted for his great love for Eretz Yisrael (see 27:1, Rashi).
MASEI 233
MASEI • ‫מ ס ע י‬
‫משה‬ ‫״אלה מ ס ע י בני י ש ר א ל א ש ר יצאו מ א ר ץ מ צ ר י ם ל צ ב א ת ם ב י ד‬

‫ואהרן״‬
" T h e s e a r e t h e j o u r n e y s of t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l , who w e n t
forth from t h e land of Egypt a c c o r d i n g to their l e g i o n s , under
the l e a d e r s h i p of M o s h e a n d A h a r o n . " ( 3 3 : 1 )
QUESTION: The word "eileh" — "these are" — seems

superfluous. The pasuk could have just said, "masei b'nei Yisrael"
— "the journeys of the Children of Israel"?
ANSWER: In addition to the Egyptian exile, the Jewish
people suffered additional exiles under four Monarchies:
Edom-Rome, Media-Persia, Babylon and Greece-Syria ,‫ מדי‬,‫אדום‬
‫ יון‬,‫בבל‬. The first letters of the words "Eilah masei b'nai Yisrael"
— "These are the journeys of the Children of Israel"
are a hint to the four exiles which w i l l come after the
redemption from Egypt.
In addition, the opening words of the parshah not only
alludes to the exiles, but also to the redeemers and the ultimate
redemption through Mashiach. The first letters of the words,
"Eileh masei" are an and a and suggest our
redeemers. The redemption from Egypt was through Aharon
and Moshe and . The saving of the Jewish people
from annihilation i n the days of Achashveirosh was through
Esther and Mordechai and , and the ultimate
redemption, after which there w i l l no longer be any exile, w i l l
come through Eliyahu and Mashiach and
(‫)נחל קדומים ועי׳ פרדס יוסף החדש‬
‫״אלה מ ס ע י בני י ש ר א ל א ש ר יצאו מ א ר ץ מ צ ר י ם ל צ ב א ת ם ״‬

" T h e s e a r e t h e j o u r n e y s of t h e Children of I s r a e l , who w e n t
forth from t h e land of Egypt a c c o r d i n g to their l e g i o n s . " ( 3 3 : 1 )
QUESTION: Why does the pasuk say "masei" — "journeys"

— in the plural? Immediately after the first journey, weren't the
Jews already out of Egypt?
ANSWER: The encampments began after the Exodus from
Egypt and culminated with the arrival at Yardein Yeriecho — the
Jordan by Jericho. The word "Mitzrayim" (‫ )מצרים‬can also be
read as "meitzarim" (‫ — )מיצרם‬restraints — that is, boundaries
and limitations. "Yereicho" etymologically stems from the
word "rei'ach" (‫ — )ריח‬smell and aroma — and it alludes to
Mashiach, of whom it is written "Vaharicho beyirat Hashem" —
"He w i l l be imbued w i t h a spirit of fear for Hashem" (Isaiah
11:3). Also, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 93b) says of Mashiach that
"Morach veda'in" — "He w i l l judge right and wrong through his
sense of smell."
The Torah is eternal. Not only does it record the actual

departure from Mitzrayim — Egypt — but also conveys a
message for posterity. It is incumbent upon every Jewish
neshamah which descends to this earthly world to make "masei"
— "journeys" — to progress in stages i n order to detach itself
from its own "meitzarim" — limitations and restraints — and go
from strength to strength. As a person rises from one level to
the other, he must deal with new and subtler restraints. Upon
successfully accomplishing his mission, he is ultimately ready
for Yereicho — the revelation of Mashiach — and to come to "the
good and bountiful land."
(‫ לקוטי שיחות חייב‬- ‫)לקוטי תורה‬
‫״אלה מ ס ע י בני י ש ר א ל א ש ר יצאו מ א ר ץ מ צ ר י ם ל צ ב א ת ם ״‬

" T h e s e a r e t h e j o u r n e y s of t h e Children of I s r a e l , who w e n t
forth from t h e land of Egypt a c c o r d i n g to their l e g i o n s . " ( 3 3 : 1 )
QUESTION: From the first encampment till the final one at

Yardein Yereicho — Jordan by Jericho — there were forty-two
encampments. What is the significance of forty-two?
MASEI 235
ANSWER: Hashem has different names, each serving a

distinct purpose. There is a forty-two lettered name of
Hashem which according to the Kabbalists, is the holiest of all
His names. It is comprised of the first letters of the forty-two
words of the "Ana becho'ach" prayer composed by the Tanaitic
sage Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakanah. The Siddur, at the end of
each of the seven verses of "Ana becho'ach," prints an acrostic of
the first letters of the six words of the verse. These letters,
according to the Kabbalists, are the forty-two letters which spell
this exalted name.
In the Gemara (Kiddushin 71a) Rabbi Yehudah states i n Rav's
name: "The forty-two lettered name of Hashem is entrusted
only to him who is pious, meek, middle-aged, free from bad
temper, sober and not insistent on his rights. A n d he who
knows this name is heedful thereof (not to use it lightly), and
observes it in purity, is beloved above and popular below,
feared by man, and he inherits two worlds, this world and the
future world."
Furthermore, Hashem created the world w i t h this forty-two

lettered name (Zohar I I , 234b), and it facilitates a Jew's
endeavors to ascend spiritually from level to level. For this
reason, every morning as we prepare to ascend spiritually,
through prayer, we recite "Ana becho'ach" before "Eizehu
mekoman." Likewise for the ascent through the minchah prayers,
before "Ashrei" we say karbanot (portions dealing with
sacrifices) and conclude w i t h "Ana becho'ach." Before going to
sleep we recite "Ana becho'ach" i n Kriat Shema al Hamitah, since
the neshamah prepares itself to be rejuvenated and to rise to a
higher spiritual sphere. A n d on Friday night, after reciting six
psalms corresponding to the six days of the week (see Siddur
Otzar Hatefilot), as we prepare to enter the holiness of Shabbat,
"Ana becho'ach" is also recited.
The forty-two encampments correspond to the forty-two
letters of Hashem's name. Leaving Egypt to reach Eretz Yisrael
was a process of elevation (aliyah) and the forty-two lettered
name helped the Jews i n this endeavor.
(‫)לקוטי תורה‬
* * *
The words — "These are the journeys

of the Children of Israel" — are an acronym for the four galiot
— exiles — i n which the Jews were persecuted and subjugated
under four monarchies: Edom/Rome (‫ ;)אדום‬Media/Persia
(‫ ;)מדי‬Babylon (‫ ;)בבל‬and Greece (‫)יון‬. The forty-two lettered
name accompanies the Jewish people throughout all their
travels during the exile and assists them i n reaching the
ultimate redemption.
(‫ ילקוט ראובני‬- ‫)נחל קדומים‬
‫״ויכתב מ ש ה א ת מ ו צ א י ה ם ל מ ם ע י ה ם ע ל פ י ה׳ ואלה מ ם ע י ה ם‬
‫למוצאיהם׳‬
" M o s h e w r o t e t h e i r g o i n g s forth a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r j o u r n e y s a t
t h e bidding of G-d, a n d t h e s e w e r e t h e i r j o u r n e y s a c c o r d i n g t o
their g o i n g s f o r t h . " ( 3 3 : 2 )
QUESTION: 1) Why does the pasuk start with "motza'eihem

lemase'eihem" — "their goings forth according to their journeys"
— and concludes i n the reverse, "mase'eihem lemotza'eihem" —
"their journeys according to their goings forth?" 2) Why does it
say "al pi Hashem" — "at the bidding of G-d" — only with
"motza'eihem lemase'eihem"?
ANSWER: During the forty-year sojourn i n the wilderness,
the itinerary of the Jewish people from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael
consisted of forty-two encampments. While most of them were
on the physical journey forward, strangely enough, some were
in the opposite direction, back toward Egypt. When the Jewish
people submitted to Hashem's W i l l , they moved forward,
coming closer to their destination. A t other times, however,
they rebelled and wanted to return to Egypt (see Rashi 21:4).
The word "motza'eihem" refers to their point of origin, and
the word "mase'eihem" refers to their destination. Moshe
recorded all the forty-two encampments, most of which were i n
the direction of "motza'eihem" — from the origination point
(Egypt) — "lemase'eihem" — enroute to their destination (Eretz
Yisrael), and all these were "al pi Hashem" — "at the bidding of
G-d." Among the forty-two encampments, there were also
some which were, however, "mase'eihem" — from their
MASEI 237
destination (Eretz Yisrael) — "lemotza'eihem" — back to their

origination point (Egypt) and these were not "al pi Hashem" —
"at the bidding of G-d."
‫ ע ו ב נ י י ש ר א ל‬0 ‫ ו י‬. . . ‫ ח‬0 ‫ מ מ ח ר ת ה פ‬. . . ! ‫״ויםעו מ ר ע מ ם • ב ח ד ש ה ר א ש ו‬

‫מ ר ע מ ם • ויחנו ב ם כ ת ״‬
" T h e y j o u r n e y e d from R a m s e i s in t h e first month...on t h e day

a f t e r t h e P e s a c h - o f f e r i n g . . . t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l j o u r n e y e d
from R a m s e i s a n d e n c a m p e d in S u k k o t . " ( 3 3 : 3 , 5 )
QUESTION: Why does it repeat that they journeyed from

Ramseis, only mentioning the encampment in Sukkot the
second time?
ANSWER: Describing Hashem's loving care of the Jewish
people, the Torah says, "You have seen what I did to Egypt and
that I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to Me"
(Shemot 19:4). What did Hashem mean when He said, "And
brought you to me"?
According to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel (ibid.), on the night
of Pesach when the Jews were to eat their Pesach-offering,
Hashem took them on clouds from Ramseis and brought them
to Mount Moriah, where the Beit Hamikdash was to be built, and
there they ate their Pesach-offering. Immediately afterwards, He
returned them to Egypt and the following morning they left
Ramseis.
Consequently, the Jews journeyed twice from Ramseis. The

first was a short trip, after which they immediately returned to
Egypt, and after the second departure from Ramseis, they
encamped in Sukkot.
(‫ מצליח יחיאל עובדיה דיל‬- ‫)חזון עובדיה‬
‫ ויםעו מ מ ק ה ל ת ויחנו ב ת ח ת ״‬. ‫״ויםעו מ ח ר ד ה ויחנו ב מ ק ה ל ת‬
" T h e y j o u r n e y e d from C h a r e i d a h a n d e n c a m p e d in M a k h e i l o t .
They j o u r n e y e d from M a k h e i l o t a n d e n c a m p e d in T a c h a t . "
(33:25-26)
QUESTION: Of what significance to us are the names of

their places of encampment?
ANSWER: Hashem told the prophet Hoshea, "Ephraim is

united in idol-worship, [lit. joined to idols] let him alone"
(Hosea 4:17). From this our sages (Bereishit Rabbah 38:6) derive
that the power of peace and unity is so great that even when
the Jewish people sin, if unity prevails, G-d does not rebuke or
punish them.
The word "chareidah" in Hebrew means "fear" (see Bereishit
26:33). The word "makheilot" can be associated w i t h the word
"hakheil," which means "gather together" and the word "tachat"
can mean "lowering down." Thus, the Torah is teaching us that
"vayise'u meichareidah" — the Jewish people can journey away
and not have to fear retribution for their iniquities if "vayachanu
bemakheilot" — they are encamped in unity. However, if
"vayise'u mimakheilot" — they journey away from their unity —
and disharmony and animosity prevails, then "vayachanu
betachat" — they w i l l be encamped at a lower level — and, G-d
forbid, they w i l l be punished for any iniquities which were
previously not taken into consideration.
‫ ב ח ד ש ה ח מ י ש י‬. . . ‫״ויעל א ה ר ן הכהן א ל ה ר ה ה ר ע ל פ י ה׳ ו י מ ת ש ם‬

‫״‬.‫באחד לחדש‬
" A a r o n t h e Kohen w e n t up to Mount Hor a t t h e word of G-d a n d

d i e d t h e r e . . . in t h e fifth m o n t h on t h e first of t h e m o n t h . "
(33:38)
QUESTION: The passing of Aharon is first recorded in

Parshat Chukat (20:22 - 29) but there is no mention there of the
date. Why is it mentioned here?
ANSWER: Aharon passed away on Rosh Chodesh Menachem
Av, which is in the middle of the three-week period known as
"bein hameitzarim" — "between the straits." His passing was a
very sad event and the entire Jewish community mourned
(20:29). Parshat Masei is always read in the middle of the three
weeks and very close to, or on, Rosh Chodesh Menachem Av.
Therefore, it is appropriate to indicate the date of his passing in
this parshah.
* * *
MASEI 239
It is particularly appropriate, as we recall the passing of

Aharon, to reflect upon his love for his fellow Jews and to
endeavor to emulate him. We should love peace and pursue
peace, love our fellow creatures and bring them near to the
Torah (Pirkei Avot 1:12).
One of the primary causes of the destruction of the Beit
HaMikdash was sinat chinam — baseless hatred and animosity
(Yoma 9b). Through true Ahavat Yisrael we w i l l speedily merit
its rebuilding.
(‫)לקוטי שיחות חלק כ׳׳ג‬
‫״ ד ב ר א ל ב נ י י ש ר א ל ו א מ ר ת א ל ה ם כי א ת ם ע ב ר י ם א ת ה י ר ד ן א ל‬
‫ואבדתם א ת כל מ ש ב י ת ם ״‬...‫א ר ץ כנען‬
" S p e a k to t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l a n d s a y to t h e m : ' W h e n you

c r o s s t h e J o r d a n to t h e l a n d of C a n a a n . . . A n d y o u s h a l l d e s t r o y
all their prostration s t o n e s . ' " ( 3 3 : 5 1 - 5 2 )
QUESTION: Why, when Moshe told them about their

coming into Eretz Yisrael, did he command only the destruction
of the places of idol worship, and not any other mitzvot
connected with Eretz Yisrael?
ANSWER: One of the main reasons for the destruction of
the first Beit Hamikdash was idol worship (Yoma 9b). According
to the Gemara (Arachin 32b), had Moshe come to Eretz Yisrael, he
would have nullified the evil inclination to worship idol, and
consequently, the Jewish people would not have been exiled
and would have remained in Eretz Yisrael forever. (See Likkutei
Sichot, vol. 19, p. 346.)
In his last address to the nation, Moshe told the people,
"You are crossing the Jordan to enter Eretz Yisrael. You and not
I ! Therefore, you w i l l be confronted w i t h the inclination to
worship idols, which, G-d forbid, may cause the destruction of
the Beit Hamikdash and exile from the land. Hence, I am
commanding you to destroy all their places of worship; thus,
the possibility of idol worship w i l l be eliminated and you w i l l
remain in Eretz Yisrael forever."
(‫ ועי׳ פרשת דרכים דרך הקודש דרוש שמיני‬,(‫ מסלתון ראב״ד ביירות‬- ‫)בית יעקב ר׳ יעקב הכהן דיל טראב‬
• ‫״ ו א ת ה ע ר י ם א ש ר ת ת נ ו ללוים א ת ש ש ע ר י ה מ ק ל • א ש ר ת ת נ ו ל נ‬
‫ש מ ה הרצח ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ו ש ת י ם עיר״‬
" T h e c i t i e s t h a t y o u s h a l l give to t h e L e v i t e s : T h e s i x c i t i e s of
r e f u g e t h a t you s h a l l provide for a m u r d e r e r to f l e e t h e r e , a n d
in addition t o t h e m you s h a l l give forty-two c i t i e s . " ( 3 5 : 6 )
QUESTION: In contemporary times, where are the cities of

refuge?
ANSWER: In the verse "Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu,
Hashem echad" there are six words, and in the paragraph of
"Ve'ahavta" — "You shall love [G-d your G-d]" — till
"uvisharecha" — "and upon your gates" — there are a total of
forty-two words. The verse of "Shema Yisrael" accentuates
"kabbalat ol malchut shamayim" — accepting the yoke of heaven
— and the paragraph of "Ve'ahavta" deals w i t h absolute love of
Hashem.
When a Jew, G-d forbid, commits a sin, he is killing part of

his nefesh — spiritual existence (see Igeret Hateshuvah, 4). The
spiritual cities of refuge of Jew are the forty-eight words of
"Shema Yisrael." Through prayer and absolute submission to the
yoke of Heaven and love of Hashem, a Jew achieves His
forgiveness for his iniquities.
(‫)אוהב ישראל‬
‫״ ו ה ק ר י ת ם ל כ ם ע ר י ם ע ר י מ ק ל • ת ה י י נ ה ל כ ם ונם ש מ ה ר צ ח מ כ ה‬
‫נ פ ש בשגגה״‬
"Vou s h a l l d e s i g n a t e c i t i e s for y o u r s e l v e s ; c i t i e s of r e f u g e s h a l l
t h e y b e for y o u , a n d a m u r d e r e r s h a l l f l e e t h e r e , o n e w h o t a k e s
a life unintentionally." ( 3 5 : 1 1 )
QUESTION: Undoubtedly, there were more people making

the pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, than slayers
running to cities of refuge. Why were there signs on the
crossroads showing the way to the cities of refuge (see Makkot
10b) and no signs showing the way to Jerusalem?
ANSWER: One of the reasons why crime has become
rampant in our times is that the media continuously reports it.
The constant publicizing of crimes plants in some people's
MASEI 241
minds the idea that crime is glamorous and exciting. If a "gag

order" were imposed on reporting crimes and violence, and if
the media would only report good deeds, our society might be
safer.
Similarly, it is inappropriate for an unintentional murderer
to continuously ask for directions while fleeing to a city of
refuge, since people might begin to talk about having met a
murderer. Talking about crime can encourage some feeble
minded people to perpetrate crime. Therefore, signs are put up
to eliminate the need for the murderer to talk to people and the
possible consequences which such conversation might
produce.
Making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, by
contrast, is a very important mitzvah. Our rabbis intentionally
did not instruct the mounting of signs so as to make it
necessary for people to stop and ask for directions and, thus,
get into conversations about the mitzvah of aliyah leregel —
pilgrimage. I n turn, the people they had spoken to would relay
to their family and friends their pleasant conversations with
travelers going up to Jerusalem i n order to be close to Hashem.
Such reports would arouse i n the hearers the desire to also
perform mitzvot and come closer to Hashem.
(‫)ושעתם ח׳׳א‬
‫״כי ב ע י ר מ ק ל ס ו י ש ב ע ד מ ו ת ה כ ה ן ה ג ד ל ו א ח ר י מ ת ה כ ה ן ה ג ד ל‬
‫ישוב הרצח אל א ר ץ אחזתו״‬
" F o r h e m u s t dwell in h i s city of r e f u g e until t h e d e a t h of t h e

Kohen Gadol, a n d a f t e r t h e d e a t h of t h e Kohen Gadol t h e
m u r d e r e r s h a l l return to t h e l a n d of h i s p o s s e s s i o n . " ( 3 5 : 2 8 )
QUESTION: According to the Mishnah (Makkot 2:6), "The

mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would supply the residents of
the cities of refuge with food and clothing so that they would
not pray that their sons should die."
Why d i d the mothers donate supplies and not the Kohanim
Gedolim themselves?
ANSWER: Life in a city of refuge was comfortable. The

unintentional murderer was given safety and sustenance. If the
Kohen Gadol himself would have been the provider of the food
and clothing, it would have encouraged a poor person to flee to
the city of refuge claiming to be an unintentional murderer so
he could remain there w i t h guaranteed room and board until
the Kohen Gadol died.
Therefore, it was not the Kohen Gadol himself who provided
for the residents, but his mother. Consequently, it was possible
that the Kohen Gadol's mother would die shortly after his arrival
and the Kohen Gadol would survive her by many years, thus
leaving the refugee without a guaranteed source of income as
long as the Kohen Gadol was alive. Hence, it would not be
beneficial for him to pretend to be an unintentional murder
because he could end up living many years in a city of refuge
without financial aid.
‫״ א ל ה ה מ צ ו ת ו ה מ ש פ ס י ם א ש ר צ ו ה ה׳ ב י ד מ ש ה א ל ב נ י י ש ר א ל‬
‫ב ע ר ב ת מ ו א ב ע ל ירדן ירחו״‬
" T h e s e a r e t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d o r d i n a n c e s t h a t G-d
c o m m a n d e d through M o s h e to t h e C h i l d r e n of I s r a e l in t h e
P l a i n s of M o a b , a t t h e J o r d a n , by J e r i c h o . " ( 3 6 : 1 3 )
QUESTION: Torah is eternal. The end is joined to the

beginning, and the beginning to the end (see Sefer Yetzirah 1:7,
Likkutei Sichot Vol. 14, p. 25). How does this concept apply to
the end and beginning of Bamidbar?
ANSWER: Prior to giving the Torah to the Jewish people,
Hashem requested a guarantee that it would be studied and
observed. Only after the Jews proclaimed, "Baneinu orvim
otanu" — "Our children w i l l be our guarantee" — did Hashem
agree to give them the Torah.
According to derush — homiletic interpretation — our pasuk
can be expounded to allude to the abovementioned dialogue
that took place prior to kabbalat haTorah, and as follows: "These
are the commandments and ordinances Hashem gave through
Moshe to the Children of Israel, be'arvot — due to the surety —
MASEI 243
Moab — [given] by the fathers. The word "Yardein" is a

composite of two words, "yad" and "neir" (candle), and the
pasuk is saying that "al yad" — through [the offering of] "neir"
— the children, who are the candles of the fathers — the Jews
merited to receive the Torah which, i n turn w i l l bring them
"Yereicho." The word "Yereicho" is etymologically derived from
"rei'ach" — "aroma." The implication is that the Torah was
received thanks to our parents offering their candles — children
— as surety and it w i l l provide "Yereicho" — a great spiritual
aroma — which w i l l bring spiritual contentment (see Sefer Siftei
Kohen).
The opening pasuk of Bamidbar states that Hashem spoke to
Moshe i n the Tent of Meeting, which was i n the Wilderness of
Sinai. The Wilderness of Sinai is specifically mentioned here
because this parshah is always read the Shabbat before Shavuot,
which commemorates the giving of the Torah i n the Wilderness
of Sinai. It is emphasized to remind us that Hashem consented
to give the Torah only for the guaranties offered, our children.
Thus, the closing and opening pasuk speak of the same
thing — Hashem's giving the Torah thanks to our assurance
that our children w i l l receive a Torah true education.
Appendix
Many of the divrei Torah i n this sefer are suitable for

development into speeches on various topics as well as on
holidays and special occasions as indicated below:
Index to Derush Material
Ahavat Yisrael 7, 49, 68, 131, Pesach Sheini 68-70

133, 142, 150, 152, 178, Pidyon Haben 139-140
191, 229, 239
prayer-Tefillah 58, 87, 135,
Appeal 44, 52, 137, 141-142 177, 179, 183, 188, 235, 240
Bar Mitzvah 1, 5, 11, 12, 25, Shabbat 56, 59
63, 67, 73, 95, 114, 175
Shavuot 1-6, 22-42
Bircat Kohanim 49-55, 195
Shemini Atzeret 209
Brit 109
Sukkot 206, 208
Chinuch 25, 46, 50, 71, 108,
150, 226, 241, 242 Tefillin 178, 197
Eliyahu 186, 188, 191, 193, Teshuvah 44, 69, 123, 144, 157,
233 179, 195, 202, 221, 240
Eretz Yisrael 6, 68, 88, 104, Torah and mitzvot 1-6, 30, 34,
163, 218, 231, 239 65, 69, 73, 114-115, 137,
143, 145, 146, 198, 243
Eulogy viii
Tzedakah 44, 141-142, 189, 219
Honesty 128, 169
Unity—Achdut 3, 48, 49, 55,
Humility 59, 83-84, 93-94, 71, 190, 210, 228, 238
172 Wedding 1, 5, 11, 12, 45, 73,
Kashrut 172, 222 114, 137, 175
Lashon Hara 157 Women 119
Mashiach 40, 193, 232, 233¬ Zealousness 185, 190-191
234
Pesach 237
‫לזכות‬
‫כ ׳ ׳ ק א ד ‪ 1‬ע ‪ 1‬כ‪12‬ת‪11‬רגצ‪1‬‬
‫אור עולם‬
‫נזר י ש ר א ל ו ת פ א ר ת ו‬
‫־צדקת ד׳ ע ש ה‬
‫ו פ ש פ ס י ו זגם ישת־זל‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ה ש כ פע‪1‬ן‬ ‫ורכים‬
‫‪ !KAH‬ה א ל ק י פ ת א ו ר כ נ א‬
‫פעצדל‬ ‫פצזזם‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ע ז ז ק נ״ע‬ ‫כ ן ה ר ב זזגאזן ה ת ס י ד ה פ ק ו כ ל ר פ א‬
‫ה ש פ י פ ה פו־צש״ק ש ל י ש י ל ת ו ד ש ת פ ו ז‬ ‫זגלה‬
‫ש נ ת ח׳ ת ה א ש נ ת נפלאות ד^לות‬
‫לעירה‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת זקני הרה״ג החו״כ איש יר״א ס ׳ ר׳ ‪2‬כי הכהן ע ״ ה קפלן‬
‫ע ס ק כחינוך ז״ך •עונה כישיכת תורה ו ד ע ת‬
‫ולפני ז ה כישיכת סיר שכסיר והעסיד תלסידים ה ר כ ה‬
‫נפטר ‪1‬׳ סנחם א כ תשכ׳׳ט‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת זקנתי הרכנית ה ח ש ו כ ה והעדינה יהודימ ע ״ ה קפלן‬

‫נפטרה יום א׳ ד ח ג ה פ ס ח ת ש כ ״ ה‬
‫ז כ ת ה לדור ישרים יכורך‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת אכי הרה״ג חו״כ סוע״ה וכוי‬

‫ר׳ ששאל פסה כ״ר פשה ע ״ ה כא*;אפילסקי‬
‫סחשוכי תלסידי הגאונים ר׳ שסעון דצ״ל ש ק א פ כגראדנא‬
‫‪1‬ר׳ כ ח ך כ ע ד זזי״ל לייכאוויץ כקאסיניץ ולכסוף כישיכת סיר שכסיר‬
‫כיהן כרכנות כארה״כ‬
‫נפטר ס ת ש ״ ק פ׳ •שלח כ״ד סיון תרצ״ט‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת אסי הרכנית ה ח ש ו כ ה והעדינה‬

‫הסיא הדסה כ ת הרה״ג ר׳ ?נכי הכהן ע ״ ה‬
‫ע ש ת ה ^ ד ק ה וחסד כססירה ונתינה ל ט ו כ ת הכלל והפרט‬
‫נפטרה כ ש ם טוכ יום השלישי‪ ,‬פ ר ש ת כ א ערכ ר״ח ש כ ט ת ש נ ״ א‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת אכי חורגי הרה״ג והרה״ח התסים וכוי‬

‫ר׳ אליהו פשה כ״ר אהרן אליעזר ע ״ ה א ס‬
‫נתסנה ע״י כ״ק אדסו״ר סהריי״יצ נ״ע לסשגיח וסשפיע כישיכת תו״ת כווארשא‬
‫והסשיך כ ע כ ו ד ה זו כישיכת תו״ת לאדז‪ ,‬ווילנא‪ ,‬וכחקלין נוא יארק ס נ ה ל ה ת ״ ת‬
‫כ ש א נ ג ה א י ‪ -‬נפטר ט״ז ט כ ת ת ש ס ״ ח‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת חסי הרה״ח אי״א נו״נ וכוי ר׳ פנהס כ״ר נהפן ע ״ ה ס‪1‬דאק‬
‫נפטר כ ש ם טוכ וכשיכה ט ו כ ה ע ש ר ה כ ט כ ת תשנ״ז‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת חסותי ה א ש ה ה ח ש ו כ ה‬
‫סרת הי׳ כמי׳ כ ת ר׳ יוסף אליעזר ע ״ ה ס‪1‬דאק‬
‫ז כ ת ה לכנים וכני כנים עוסקים כתורה‬
‫נפטרה כ ש ״ ק כ״ג סיון ת ש ט ״ ז‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת דודי הרה״ג חו״כ וכוי ר׳ כרוך כן הרה״ג ר׳ י?גהק הכהן ע ״ ה כהן‬
‫סחשוכי תלסידי ישיכת ק א מ ק וסיר סח״ס קול ת ו ד ה ע ל סוגיות הש׳׳ס‬
‫נפטר ש ״ ק פ׳ י ת ח ח״י ש כ ט ת ש כ ״ א‬
‫לעילוי נ ש ס ת דודתי הרכנית םרי‪ 0‬םיניא כ ת הרה״ג ‪2‬כי הכהן ע ״ ה קפלן‬

‫נפטרה י״כ תסוז ת ש כ ״ ה‬
‫מ‪ .‬ג ?ג‪ .‬כ‪ .‬ה‪.‬‬

Vedibarta Bam Bamidbar

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Vedibarta Bam Bamidbar

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A m & Vott ShsA)

explanations of Toral) passages

New Expanded Edition

Published and Copyrighted © by

A l l rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

First Impression — Nissan 5757-March 1997

Note on Transliteration and Format x

Appendix — Index to Derush material 244

Jesse Aronson - V1 ‫נפ ג״ר טוגימ‬2 ‫ד ישעימו‬

THEY SHALL A L L B E BLESSED

Randi & Arthur Luxenberg

I express profuse thanks and praise to Hashem for granting

I was fortunate to find one in which he kept a record of the

In 5708 (1948) my father-in-law, Reb Pinchas z"l Sudak,

alive"), the words of the wisest of all men can be explained as

Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky

Note on Transliteration and Format

Transliteration generally employs the Sephardi accent, w i t h

‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני״‬

QUESTION: Why did Hashem give the Torah i n a

Alternatively, a person whose spiritual landscape is a

The word "bamidbar" (‫ )במדבר‬can be read as two words

‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני״‬

QUESTiON: Sinai was a part of the wilderness i n which the

The Gemara (Zevachim 116b) relates that, when Hashem

The prophet, speaking of the miraculous events of the days

‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני‬

QUESTION: Why does the Torah emphasize that the Tent

ANSWER: Parshat Bamidbar is usually read on the Shabbat

2) Water fulfills a physical need, but unlike other physical

3) A wilderness is an abandoned property where everyone

him as a gift, and once it is given to him as a gift, "nachali'el" — it

Another lesson to be derived from the giving of the Torah

‫״וידבר ה׳ אל מ ש ה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני‬

QUESTION: Why d i d Hashem give the Torah while the

ANSWER: The Gemara (Tamid 32a) relates that Alexander

‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל״‬

QUESTION: Bamidbar is known as "Sefer Hapekudim" —

the kosher food becomes permitted again. Sometimes it is

‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל״‬

QUESTION: Rashi comments that Hashem always counts

‫ ויתילדו על מ ש פ ח ת ם ״‬... ‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל‬

QUESTION: Sefer Vayikra ends w i t h the statement "These

What was Hashem's intent in requesting the sefer yuchsin of

Hashem's reply to the nations of the world was " I have

yuchsin depicts the devotion of their forefathers and establishes

‫כל זכר לגלגלתם״‬...‫״שאו א ת ראש כל עדת בני ישראל‬

QUESTION: Why is the word "legulgelotam" — "according

‫״ואתכם יהיו איש איש ל מ ס ה איש ראש לבית אבתיו הוא״‬

QUESTION: Why is the word "ish" repeated at the

‫״איש איש ל מ ס ה איש ראש לבית אבתיו הוא״‬

QUESTION: Doesn't the word "hu" — "he shall be" —

‫״אלה קריאי העדה נשיאי מ ס ו ת אבותם ראשי אלפי ישראל הם״‬

QUESTION: Why is the word "keri'ei" in the phrase "keri'ei

‫״ויתילדו על מ ש פ ח ת ם לבית אבתם״‬

QUESTION: Rashi comments: "They brought the

His mother replied, "Berele, I am not crying because of our

‫״פקדיהם ל מ ס ה יששכר ארבעה וחמש•• אלף וארבע‬

QUESTION: Why did Yissachar have, in round thousands,

‫ויהיו כל פקוד״ בני‬...‫״אלה הפקדים אשר פ ק ד מ ש ה ואהרן‬

QUESTION: Why does each pasuk mention the "count¬

‫״ואתה ה פ ק ד א ת הלוים על משכן העדת ועל כל כליו ועל כל אשר‬

QUESTION: The popular Hebrew term for "they" is "heim,"

of fifty, he is no longer qualified to transport the vessels of the