Pinchas is lauded for endangering himself, demonstrating exemplary love for Hashem by working towards cleansing Klal Yisrael of those who had been defying Hashem. The Torah emphasizes that Pinchas remained “among them,” not isolating himself from the general community. Rather, he executed his act of purification as a member of the community. Pinchas’s devotion to Hashem provides us with the Torah‘s paradigm for kana’us, zealousness. Applying homiletic exegesis, Chazal develop the essential characteristics required for such singular acts of devotion. The kanai acts out of love for Hashem, His Torah and His Nation. At no time does he hate the…
Back to Home -> Pinchas ->
Regarding Moshe’s death, in Sefer Devarim 34:8 the Torah states, “And Bnei Yisrael wept for Moshe.” It does not assert that “all the house of Yisrael wept,” as it says in response to Aharon’s death. Rashi explains that Aharon’s passing generated a greater outpour of grief among the people. Aharon was rodef shalom; he pursued peace. He constantly sought ways to bring peace among men of strife, as well as between husband and wife. His passing was, therefore, felt more strongly by the common Jew. The Ohr Ha’Chayim responds to this perplexity in a number of ways. After citing Rashi’s…
Rashi cites the Talmud in Moed Katan 28a which explains the juxtaposition of Miriam’s death upon the laws of parah-adumah. This combined message informs us that, just as korbanos effect atonement, so too, the death of tzaddikim effects atonement. This statement is perplexing. In Parashas Beshalach, Rashi asserts that the laws of parah- adumah were conveyed at Marah, or, at the latest, during Bnei Yisrael’s second year in the desert. Miriam’s death, however, took place during the fortieth year! If the actual span between these two incidents was so long, why then does the Torah link them? Second, according to…
The Divine command to take a red cow which is unblemished, burn it, mix its ashes with water, and sprinkle it on one who is tameh meis (spiritually contaminated because of contact with a dead body) defies explanation. Indeed, this is why it has been classified as a “chok,” a mitzvah whose underlying rationale is inaccessible to human comprehension. Nonetheless, a variety of commentators provide us with insight into this mitzvah. Horav S.R. Hirsch z.l. opines that issues which deal with contamination and purification, ideas associated with the spiritual realm, are inherently difficult for the human intellect to grasp. In…
Rashi explains Moshe’s entreaty to Hashem. Moshe angrily said that he had never once benefitted materially from his position as leader of Klal Yisrael. Indeed, when he brought his wife and sons from Midyan to Egypt, he did not allow himself to utilize a donkey belonging to the people to transport them. Although he could have justified taking a “communal” means of transportation, he used only his own means of travel. This is vexing. What difference would it have made if he had used one of the people’s donkeys to carry out his mission? Is it not perfectly acceptable today…
Rashi asks, “Korach was a wise and prudent fellow. Why did he commit this folly? His eye deceived him, for he foresaw that great progeny was destined to descend from him, namely Shmuel Ha’Navi. Shmuel Ha’Navi weighs against Moshe and Aharon in terms of greatness. Korach said, ‘In his merit, I will be saved.’” We may question Rashi‘s use of the use of the singular nouns “his eye deceived him.” Didn’t Korach have two eyes? Horav Boruch Sorotzkin z.l. explains that when one “looks” at something, he should perceive it from all angles. He should examine it with both eyes,…
The Midrash questions Moshe’s choice of the word morning, instead of the more usual, tomorrow. They comment that Moshe told Korach, “Hashem sets boundaries in this world which you can not undo. As Hashem has separated day from night, so has He separated Bnei Yisrael from the gentile nations. Similarly, He has separated Aharon from His people. When you will be able to reverse the distinction set by Hashem between day and night, then you will also be able to reverse the separation between Aharon and the rest of Bnei Yisrael. In this vein, referring to the pasuk, and it…
Korach’s criticism of Moshe seemed to be a reaction to Aharon’s assuming the role of Kohen Gadol. Thus, the two main personalities involved in this machlokes, strife, were Korach and Moshe. Korach was the classic scoundrel, evil throughout. An irate man may inflict damage upon an individual person, but others may nonetheless benignly attempt to understand the source of his anger and correct him. What makes a scoundrel such as Korach contemptible is his blatant hypocrisy. He hides his evil behind a sham of piety. He unabashedly claims noble motives for his despicable act. Indeed, he impudently attempts to enlist…
Rashi cites the Talmud Bava Metzia 61b which suggests a reason that the Torah mentions the exodus from Egypt in conjunction with the mitzvah of tzitzis. During makas bechoros, smiting of the first born, Hashem distinguished between he who was actually a first born and he who was not. Similarly, in the future He will exact retribution from one who places a kala ilan, an indigo dyed wool in his garment and says that it is techeles, blue wool. This seems difficult to grasp. Who is the individual trying to deceive? Is he attempting to mislead the public? Do people…
Rashi explains that the Torah is relating Bnei Yisrael’s shame. They had observed the first Shabbos in the desert, and on the second Shabbos an individual profaned it. Why were Bnei Yisrael held responsible for this isolated act of chillul Shabbos? Indeed, they had done everything possible to ensure that the sanctity of Shabbos not be desecrated. The Sifri states that Moshe had even designated guards throughout the encampment to caution people regarding chillul Shabbos. When the people saw this man pick up the sticks, they admonished him not to continue his desecration of Shabbos. When he ignored their warning,…
