Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Balak ->


“None has beheld iniquity in Yaakov, and neither has one seen perseverance in Yisrael.” (23:21)

Rashi explains that Hashem does not scrutinize the sins of Bnei Yisrael. He attempts to look away from their iniquities as much as possible. Horav D. Kronglas, z.l., questions Rashi’s statement based upon various instances in the Talmud in which it is clearly stated that Hashem does, in fact, scrutinize our sins. He cites specific cases in which it is clear that oversight is not one of Hashem’s attributes; on the contrary, He is very exacting in His judgement. Horav Kronglas explains this contradiction in the following manner. People tend to have two distinct standards for judgement: one for their…

Continue Reading

“I have set up the seven altars.” (23:4)

Bilaam emphasizes to Hashem that he had instructed Balak to erect seven altars. Rashi explains that Bilaam emphasized the number of altars for a specific reason. By virtue of erecting seven altars, Bilaam sought to negate the combined efforts of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, who had built seven altars through their combined efforts. Bilaam foolishly thought that he could equate his altars to the altars erected by the Avos, Patriarchs, by merely constructing the same number of alters. Horav D. Feinstein, Shlita, suggests that perhaps Bilaam attributed a special significance to the number seven. Since Bnei Yisrael had seven altars…

Continue Reading

“And Bilaam said unto the angel of Hashem, ‘I have sinned for I did not know that you stood against me in the way.'” (22:34)

Bilaam’s statement seems enigmatic. How could it be considered sinful if, in fact, he was not aware of the angel’s presence? The commentators explain that this ignorance is in itself a sin. There are situations in which one must be acutely cognizant of who he is and before whom he stands. For example, a child can never justify striking a parent. Similarly, the king’s closest aide can not claim that he is not aware of the king’s identity. Likewise, a prophet must always be cognizant of the presence of the Eternal. For Bilaam to assert that he was unaware of…

Continue Reading

“And the donkey saw the angel of Hashem… and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field.” (22:23) – “And the angel of Hashem stood in a hollow way between the vineyards, a fence (being) on this (side) and a fence (being) on this (side).” (22:24) – “And the angel of Hashem again passed, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left.” (22:26)

Horav Chaim Ehrentrau, z.l., points out that the three places at which the angel stood opposite Bilaam, barring his path, symbolize man’s three points of digression from freedom towards his ultimate loss of bechirah, free-will. In the beginning, the road towards sin appears to be a wide opening, from which it is easy to turn away to the right or left — or even turn back. This was Bilaam’s original situation. He could have returned to his home and redeemed himself. The sinner who remains adamant, continuing along his path of evil, encounters a narrower path. Although return from this…

Continue Reading

“And Yisrael sent messengers to Sichon . . . let me pass through your land we will not turn aside into field or into vineyard, we will not drink of the water of the wells, by the kings highway we will go until we have passed your border.” (21:21,22) – “And Sichon would not permit Yisrael to pass through his border, and Sichon gathered together all his people and went against Yisrael into the wilderness.” (21:23)

In this narrative, the Torah relates how Moshe requested Sichon’s permission for Am Yisrael to pass through his land. He promised Sichon that nothing would be touched and no one would be harmed. Sichon’s response was swift and emphatic. He not only prohibited their entry, but he subsequently waged war against them. This reaction is puzzling! What fear gripped Sichon that caused such terrifying concern, catalyzing his immediate attack on the Jews? They were not his enemies. It was not their desire to ravage his country. They were basically peace loving people who wanted access to their promised land. Horav…

Continue Reading

“And Moshe undressed Aharon of his garments, and put them upon Elazar, his son.” (20:28)

Chazal describe the uniqueness of this undressing of Aharon. Normally, Aharon would first have to remove all of his garments, so that Elazar could don his undergarments first. As Aharon removed his outer garment, however, Elazar immediately put it on. This became Elazar’s undergarment. As Aharon continued by removing this undergarment, it, in turn, became Elazar’s outergarments. There is a profound homiletic lesson to be derived herein. Aharon’s inner “garments” or essence, the way he acted in the privacy of his own home, was reflected externally by his children. Children invariably reveal the actual values and outlook presented in their…

Continue Reading

“And they journeyed from Kadesh, and the Bnei Yisrael came, the whole congregation, to the Har Ha’Har.” (20:22)

Rashi cites a Midrash which is particularly relevant in contemporary times. The pillar of cloud which travelled before Bnei Yisrael leveled out the mountains and flattened the hills which stood in Bnei Yisrael’s path. There remained, however, three mountains which resisted the shattering clouds: Har Sinai was spared, since the Torah would be given on it; Har Nevo was to be Moshe’s burial place; and Har Ha’Har was singled out as Aharon’s burial place. Horav M. Swift, z.l., poignantly expounds on this Midrash. He draws an analogy between the significance represented by the stated purpose of these mountains and important…

Continue Reading

“And Moshe and Aharon gathered together the assembly before the rock and said to them, ‘Listen you rebels; are we to bring forth to you water out of this rock?'” (20:10)

The Ramban cites the Rambam who states in Moreh Nevuchim that Moshe Rabbeinu’s sin consisted of expressing himself in anger towards Bnei Yisrael. His statement, “Listen you rebels,” signified a weakness on his part. For an individual of Moshe’s exalted stature to express himself in such a manner was considered a chillul Hashem, desecration of Hashem’s name. People considered Moshe to be a role model. They emulated his actions and words in the hope of achieving such success. How could Moshe then appear to be angry, demonstrating such an evil trait? Horav E. Shach, Shlita, suggests that a fundamental and…

Continue Reading

“An eternal covenant of salt.” (18:19)

How is Hashem’s gift of the priestly blessings to Aharon and his sons to be compared to a covenant of salt? Rashi presents an analogy. Just as salt does not rot– and even acts as a preserving agent for many things — so, too, this covenant maintains its virility in order to preserve Aharon’s dynasty forever. Horav D. Feinstein, Shlita, derives a powerful implication from this pasuk. Even if some Kohanim deviate from the prescribed path of service to Hashem, some will always stalwartly uphold the covenant. Thus, just as salt never rots, maintaining its ability to preserve foods, so,…

Continue Reading

“And Korach took.” (16:1) – “For all the congregation is holy.” (16:3)

Referring to the controversy stimulated by Korach and his henchman, the Mishnah in Avos (5:20) remarks, “Any controversy that is L’shem Shomayim” (for the sake of heaven) will have a constructive outcome. Which controversy is considered L’shem Shomayim? This is the controversy between Hillel and Shamai. And which is considered not L’shem Shomayim? This is the controversy of Korach and his entire company.” The Malbim questions the use of “Korach and his company” as a paradigm of a “machlokes she’lo l’shem shomayim.” Surely there were other infamous conflicts more appropriate to be mentioned. The disputes surrounding the lack of water…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!