Why was Miriam punished specifically with tzaraas, leprosy? Is there a definite relationship between her punishment and her sin? Horav Boruch Sorotzkin z.l. offers a profound response, based upon a novel interpretation of the meaning of sin and its effect. Sin can be viewed from two distinct perspectives. Fist, sin is a transgression of the Divine imperative. When the king issues an edict, one is obligated to adhere to it to the fullest extent. No excuses compensate for such an infraction. Second, sin may be compared to a disease. Just as there are physical ailments and disease, so, too, are…
Back to Home -> Beha'alosecha ->
The narrative regarding the asafsuf is vexing. As mentioned previously, Bnei Yisrael lacked no food. Chazal teach that the manna, which descended daily, had an amazing quality. Its taste varied in accordance to each person’s desire. Indeed, each individual’s craving was satisfied. Nonetheless, Bnei Yisrael cried out for meat. Their ingratitude was magnified when they expressed their desire to return to the “wonderful” Egypt. Moshe’s response also seems atypical. When Bnei Yisrael sinned with the Golden Calf, Moshe entreated Hashem on their behalf. He exhausted every effort to save them from complete destruction. In this situation, Moshe “gave up” in…
In one interpretation of this pasuk, Rashi explains that Moshe’s request of Yisro refers to the future. His request was that the people be able to approach Yisro for enlightenment concerning any concept which they could not understand. This seems perplexing! Considering all of the wise men and elders in Klal Yisrael, was there no one to whom the people could go for advice and instruction? Why was Yisro’s counsel determined to be the most prudent? Horav Moshe Shternbuch, Shlita, suggests that Yisro’s background as a baal–teshuva rendered his advice most propitious. One who has been nurtured from birth to…
Discussing Klal Yisrael‘s entry into battle, in Parashas Ki Tzeitzei (Devarim 21:10), the Torah does not seem to outline any specific means of aggressive attack. The Torah simply states, “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and Hashem your G-d will deliver them into your hands.” Why is there such a disparity between the two parshios dealing with waging war on the enemy? The Kotzker Rebbe z.l. distinguishes between two contrasting types of war. He suggests that the term “war” is actually an allusion to man’s constant battle with the yetzer hora, evil inclination. The differential is determined…
Rashi explains that these trumpets were to be used only by Moshe. Moshe had been elevated to the unparalleled position of king over Am Yisrael. The trumpets were symbols of honor and prestige for him. Before he passed on, the trumpets were put away never to be used again. In contrast, all of the other vessels created for specific use in the Mishkan, i.e. the Aron, Luchos, Shulchan, and Menorah were to be passed down from generation to generation. The Satmar Rebbe z.l. offers a profound explanation for this distinction. Everything can be bequeathed from generation to generation. The chatzotzros,…
Chazal call attention to the first word of this pasuk hvhu, “and it came to pass.” They say that whenever this word occurs in Tanach, it always refers to a tzarah, a period of sorrow and grief. They question the element of grief associated with the Mishkan. The creation of the Mishkan as a place for the Shechinah to repose should surely be cause for simcha, happiness, and rejoicing. What role do despair and anxiety have during a moment of such exaltation? Chazal present an analogy to a king who had a quarrelsome wife, who would not stop her bickering….
Hashem commands that His blessing be conferred only by the kohanim. Horav Moshe Shternbuch, Shlita, suggests a practical reason for this. Regrettably, many people posit that the kohen and his present day counterpart, the Torah scholar are supported by the community without any reciprocation. Many individuals believe that if an individual is not “working” in the way that they are, he is not contributing to the community. This notion is, of course, categorically wrong. The sustaining power of Klal Yisrael is manifest only through Torah and Torah scholars who devote their lives to its study and dissemination. This also applies…
The Torah forbids the nazir to drink any intoxicating liquor or any beverage derived from grapes, even if it contains no alcohol. He may not even eat fresh or dried grapes. The prohibition includes water in which grapes had been briefly soaked, even if only a mere hint of the grapes had been present in the water. Chazal infer from this concept that the taste of a food is regarded as representative of the food itself, or the taste is like the substance. In the Talmud Nazir 37b, Chazal also derive from this pasuk that when a half-measure of permitted…
Horav Zalmen Sorotzkin z.l. offers a homiletic exposition of this pasuk. Many observant Jews ignore their co-religionists whom they notice acting in an offensive manner. When they see members of their community transgressing the Torah by desecrating Shabbos, eating non-kosher food, and acting reprehensibly, they delegate to the Rabbi the responsibility to chastise the offenders. These individuals refuse to get involved, claiming various lame excuses to justify their apathy to the public travesty against Hashem. They feel that by sharing the details of their friends’ miscreancy with the Rabbi, they have fulfilled their requirements as Jews. Thus, they consider themselves…
At the end of the parsha, the Torah records in minute detail the various functions delegated to Bnei Levi. Each member of the tribe was given specific tasks to execute. Most notable is the multi-faceted charge allocated to Elazar. He was assigned the position of Nasi, prince, of the leviim. He also undertook to carry the vessels mentioned in the above pasuk. Chazal question Elazar’s ability to carry everything himself. Indeed, it seems logistically impossible to perform all of these duties at once. The Midrash explains that he carried the oil in his right hand, the incense in his left,…