Chamishoh Mi Yo'dei'a

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

Please send your answers and comments to: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM


1) Ch. 1, v. 1: "Eileh" - These - There are six parshios in the Torah that begin with the letter Alef. They are, "Eileh toldos Noach, Eileh pikudei, Im b'chukosai, Eileh massei," and "Attem nitzovim." What message or allusion can we derive from this group of six?

2) Ch. 1, v. 1: "El KOL Yisroel" - To ALL of Yisroel -Why here does it say that he spoke to ALL, and in verse three it says that he spoke to "bnei Yisroel," not saying KOL, and even later, when it says that "Ho'il Moshe bei'eir" (verse 5), it doesn't even say to whom he clarified?

3) Ch. 1, v. 11: "Vivo'reich es'chem kaasher di'beir lochem" - And He will bless you as He has spoken about you - Since our verse is discussing a blessing why is it expressed as "di'beir," an expression of harshness, rather than "omar," a soft expression (see Medrash Tanchuma 936:13) of having said that He would bless you?

4) Ch. 1, v. 16: "Shomo'a bein acheichem ushfat'tem tzedek" - It is heard among your brothers and you shall judge properly - Rather than translating "ushfat'tem" as "and you SHALL judge," an imperative, which is the common translation we might explain these words to mean "and you WILL judge." How would this fit into the context of this verse?

5) Ch. 1, v. 37: "Gam bee hisanaf Hashem biglalchem leimore gam atoh lo sovo shom" - Also in me has Hashem angered by virtue of you saying also you will not come there - Moshe is telling the bnei Yisroel that Hashem became angry with him because of their sin by the incident of the spies. This is very puzzling, as we do not find this being the case. The gemara M'nochos 41a says that Hashem does not punish for the lack of fulfillment of a positive precept (with the exception of not partaking of the Korban Pesach and not having oneself circumcised). However, if one did not fulfill a positive mitzvoh at a time that Hashem is angered with the masses, then even the flaw of not doing a positive mitzvoh can be punished. Technically, Hashem's command to Moshe by the drawing forth water from/by the rock was a positive command, "Speak to the stone." Moshe did not comply, and hit it instead. He only was guilty of not doing a positive command, as hitting or not hitting it wasn't mentioned by Hashem. If so, why should he receive a punishment?



This total alludes to the six sections of the mishnoh, which Moshe taught the bnei Yisroel. The letter Alef itself, among its meanings, also means "teaching." Four of the Talmud's tractates also begin with the word "Eileh," to allude to the four of the six sections that have gemara clarifying the mishnoh. "Eileh," whose numerical value is 36, also alludes to the 36 tractates of gemara. Five tractates that do not begin with the word "eileh" do begin with an Alef, Pei'oh, P'sochim, R.H., B.K., and Keilim, to allude to the strong connection of the written 5 volumes of the Torah to the oral Torah. (Paa'nei'ach Rozo)


Rabbi Yehudoh Chosid says that his father asked him these questions. Rabbi Yehudoh Chosid answers that the admonitions and basic understanding of all the mitzvos transmitted through the Torah were taught to all, hence "el KOL." The teachings expounded through "kal vochomer, g'zeiroh shovoh, 32 midos," were only taught to those with sharp minds. The clarification of verse 5 refers to the rulings extracted through juxtaposition, the esoteric hidden meanings, and the extraction of Holy Names of Hashem from select letters were taught only to a select few, hence not even the mention of "bnei Yisroel."


King Dovid beseeched Hashem, "Samcheinu kimos inisonu shnos ro'inu ro'oh" (T'hilim 90:15). May Hashem bring us joy to the extent that He has brought pain upon us, even years that we have seen what seemed to us as bad. Similarly here, the verse is saying that Hashem will bless us "kaasher DI'BEIR," at least to an equivalent of where He spoke harshly. (Darchei S'shuvoh)


For judges to come to proper conclusions when dealing with disputes they need a tremendous amount of Talmudic and halachic knowledge. It is insufficient to just "burn the midnight oil." There is a great need for total clarity, when learning to arrive at the correct conclusions. This requires the discerning and honing of ideas tossed about when studying going under the microscope of analysis by others, in particular, learning partners. The gemara says that when people properly study Torah together they first behave as if they are each other's enemies, i.e. totally at odds in understanding, and in a sense at war while disagreeing, until they chew things through and come to proper conclusions, at which time they become beloved colleagues. This might be the intention of these words of our verse. If there is "shomo'a bein acheichem," much argumentive noise is heard between brothers while in Talmudic combat, then they will end up with clarity and then there will be qualified judges who WILL "ushfat'tem tzedek." (n.l.)


From the time of the incident with the spies until now Hashem was angry with the bnei Yisroel, as explained by Rashi on Dvorim 2:17. Our verse is now well understood. Hashem was angry with me even for not doing a positive command because of your creating an "eis rugza," a time of anger by sinning by the incident of the spies. (Tal'lei Oros)



See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to
Jerusalem, Israel