Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Ki Seitzei ->


“Forty (stripes) he may give him, he shall not exceed.” (25:3)

Rashi explains that the number forty is not accurate, since he only receives thirty-nine lashes. Various explanations are offered by the commentators to explain why the Torah chose to write the number forty when — in reality — it should read only thirty-nine. The Divrei Yecheskel offers an explanation which carries within it a profound message. Man must realize that, regardless of one’s level of achievement, it is inconceivable to attain the degree of sublime purity necessary to stand before Hashem. Likewise, whatever our lot in life, it is still not sufficient compensation for that which we “owe” Hashem. Nonetheless,…

Continue Reading

“You should not see the ox of your brother or his lamb lost, and hide from them; surely you shall return them to your brother.” (22:1)

The Torah commands us to return a lost ox or lamb to its rightful owner, warning us not to avoid performing this deed. The Ibn Ezra notes that this imperative applies under all circumstances, including a contingency in which the finder is preoccupied with another endeavor. Indeed, he states, that even if one is overwhelmed by the tumult of war, the confusion of hastily bidding farewell to family members, or the fear of personal injury or death, he is still expected to notice a stray lamb and return it to its owner. Should not the Torah have excused someone experiencing…

Continue Reading

“And your camp shall be holy, that He shall not see in you any unseemly thing.” (23:15) – There shall be no woman who acts licentiously from among the daughters of Yisrael, neither shall there be a moral degenerate from the Bnei Yisrael.” (23:18)

The contrast in these pesukim is striking. On the one hand, we are positively enjoined to maintain a strict degree of holiness. On the other hand, we are admonished not to degrade ourselves by acting licentiously. Do not the mitzvos of the Torah focus on establishing us as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation? Therefore, it seems incongruous that a nation which willingly has accepted the entire Torah should need to be cautioned regarding debauchery. It is unlikely that these two antagonistic attitudes coexist within the same individual. Obviously, a nation, whose goal is to maintain a hallowed…

Continue Reading

“Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth from Egypt.” (25:17)

Included in the imperative to remember Amalek’s heinous deed is the obligation to reflect upon the place where this incursion transpired. This seems enigmatic! Why should it be necessary to remember the place? Should it not be sufficient to simply remember the act? In Hilchos Melachim (8:5) the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah to constantly remember Amalek’s evil deeds and the fact that he ambushed us as we left Egypt. This memory serves as a source to propagate yet greater animosity towards him. This image, however, does not yet explain the significance of the location of the tragic…

Continue Reading

“Remember what Amalek did unto you… you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heaven… do not forget.” (25:17-19)

The Talmud in Megillah 18a explains the apparent redundancy in regard to the mitzvah of blotting out Amalek’s name. The Talmud states that the “remembrance” should be by word of mouth, while the “do not forget” should be borne in our hearts. It is not sufficient to harbor the hatred toward Amalek in our hearts. This abhorrence towards Amalek must be articulated verbally. It seems incongruous that a people who have determined justice and love to be fundamental guiding principles, a people who extol the virtue of kindness, should maintain a mitzvah to harbor enmity towards another nation.   Our…

Continue Reading

“Remember what Amalek did unto you… you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heaven…” (25:17-19)

The closing words of this paragraph “from beneath the heaven” is enigmatic. Is it not obvious that Amalek’s name will be erased from “beneath the heaven”? Is there any other place which is not “beneath the heaven”? Perhaps we may suggest the following homiletic exposition. We live in a period during which the cultures which comprise civilization have reached previously unimagined heights of wisdom. Modern man has become enlightened in all areas of science, medicine, and the humanities. It would seem that such heinous evil as the Amalakim were capable of executing was forever gone. The dark ages of humanity…

Continue Reading

“This day you became a people (nation).”

Horav Elchonon Wasserman Z”l explains the distinction between the term “am” and the term “goy”, both of which are commonly translated as “nation”. “Goy” connotes an autonomous nation which is settled in its own land under its own governance. In contrast, “am” implies a people or large group of individuals who speak the same language and maintain a common culture. They comprise a “nation” despite their lack of their own land.   This differentiation clarifies Moshe’s declaration to Bnei Yisrael, “Today you have become an am”, for they had accepted the Torah, which was written in seventy languages on the…

Continue Reading

“And you will see among the captives a woman of goodly appearance and you will desire her and take her for a wife.” (21:11)

  Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin Zt”l notes that unfortunately when the criteria for marriage and the standard for a union is founded upon a “and you will desire her“, an obsessive physical attraction, often the result is “and it shall be if you do not delight in her and you shall send her away”. The Mishna in Avos (5:19) emphasizes the tragedy of a “love which is dependent on a specific charachteristic” as opposed to a love which is pure and not founded on a specific matter or reason. The love of Amnon, the son of Dovid, for his half-sister Tamar…

Continue Reading

“If a man has a son who is disobedient and rebellious, who will not listen to the voice of his father and to the voice of his mother… then they shall lay hold of him and bring him out to the elders of the city.” (21:18-19)

Here we study the law regarding the son who is a complete failure, for whom the Torah makes the parents seek for him an early death at the hands of the law as the only means to save him from complete ruin. This law, which pronounces the death-sentence for a youthful delinquent who is deemed “incurable”, and declares his early demise as being the only means of salvation from future complete degeneration, it fixes that sentence on clearly defined factors of age and behavior, as well as the relationships of the parents to each other and to their child. Rabbi…

Continue Reading

“You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds.” (22:9) – “Do not clothe yourself with shatnez, wool and linen together.” (22:11)

These two admonishments regarding various admixtures, whether it be via planting mixed seeds, or wearing clothes of two specific mixed fabrics are analogous with the Torah‘s admonition’s against the intermingling of various opposites. The Chida Zt”l homiletically explains the Torah’s prohibition of planting mixed seeds as being synonymous with one who mixes the performance of a mitzvah with that of a sin. One should not think that by performing the mitzvah of giving charity he now has license to embarrass his friend or slander him, or that spending time praying and studying in the Bais Hamedrash, will counter-balance going to…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!