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@AOL.COM


1) Ch. 25, v. 12: "LOCHEIN hin'ni nosein lo es brisi sholom" - The M.R. 21:1 remarks on these words, "B'din hu she'yitol s'choro," - He is deserving of receiving his reward. In general there is no reward for mitzvos in this world as per the gemara Kidushin 39b. If so, why is this different?

2) Ch. 25, v. 12: "Lochein emore hin'ni nosein lo es brisi sholom" - Why did Hashem ask Moshe to convey to Pinchos that he and his children would enter into the covenant of priesthood for all future generations, and not tell this to Pinchos directly?

3) Ch. 25, v. 12: "Brisi sholo-m" - The gemara Kiddushin 66b says that the "vov" of "sholo-m" is "k'tiah," commonly translated as "cut." What is the Vov supposed to look like?

4) Ch. 27, v. 3: "V'hu lo hoyoh" - And he was not part of Korach's congregation. Why is this relevant?

5) Ch. 27, v. 5: "Va'yakreiv Moshe es mishpotoN lifnei Hashem" - When Moshe was asked if there was an opportunity for the defiled people to bring a Korban Pesach, he responded, "Imdu v'eshm'oh" (Bmidbar 9:8). Why didn't he say the same to the daughters of Tz'lofchod?

Answer to questions on parshios Chukas-Bolok:


1) Ch. 19, v. 1: "Zose chukas haTorah asher tzivoh Hashem LEIMORE da'beir el bnei Yisroel" - What does the word LEIMORE teach us, as we also have "da'beir" right after it?

1) We derive from "zose toras ho'oloh" (Vayikra 6:2) that even when the Beis Hamikdosh no longer stands and the offering of sacrifices ceases, the study of the laws of sacrifices is considered as if those sacrifices have been offered, and atonement is thus attained. Nowadays with just about everyone being defiled by "tumas meis" why don't we also say that from the words "Zose chukas haTorah ...... v'yikchu ei'lecho foroh adumoh" we may derive that one who is defiled and studies the laws of "poroh adumoh," the red heifer, it is as if it were processed and he has become cleansed of his impurity? The answer is that since the law of "poroh adumoh" is unfathomable, so also is this concept of why the learning of the laws of "poroh adumoh" does not afford one cleansing from impurity unfathomable. This is the meaning of LEIMORE, "to say." The verse tells us that the "chukoh" includes LEIMORE, that learning is not as if it were actually done. (Rabbi Akiva Kornitzer of Cracow)

2) There is a minority opinion in the Rishonim that the reading of "parshas poroh" is a mitzvoh of the Torah. Commentators are very hard pressed to find a source for this. The seemingly superfluous word LEIMORE of our verse can be interpreted to tell us to say it in the manner of reading this parsha in public, as the next word "da'beir" suffices for Hashem's telling Moshe to give over the information to the bnei Yisroel. (Rabbi Yehoshua Tronk of Kutna - Y'shuose Malko)

(A most interesting source for the reading of this parsha being a Torah requirement is offered by the Torah Temimoh.)

3) Rashi mentions that the evil inclination and the nations of the world inflame the bnei Yisroel by scoffing and questioning the logic of this and other "chukim" mitzvos. Rashi says that we should respond by saying that they are statutes given to us by Hashem and we have no permission to delve into their reasoning, "ein l'cho r'shus l'har'heir acha'rehoh." However, this is only true in response to the evil inclination and the nations of the world. As far as we ourselves are concerned, we should strive to grasp any understanding that we can, even into "chukim." (We see that Rashi immediately afterwards offers insights of Rabbi Moshe haDarshon.) Thus we read the verse, "Zose chukas haTorah asher tzivoh Hashem LEIMORE," to say to the evil inclination and the nations of the world, that it is a statute. However, "da'beir el bnei Yisroel," to the bnei Yisroel tell the laws and they may delve into it to the fullest level of their understanding.

(Ponim Yofos)

2) Ch. 20, v. 8: "V'nosan meimov" - What was the miracle of the wellspring rock? Did it issue water miraculously from within itself, or was the miracle that wherever the rock was, a wellspring would emit water from the ground nearby?

The Ramban on 20:8 says that the water came from the rock itself. Tosfos Yom Tov on Pirkei Ovos 5:6 says that the water came from the ground. The Ramban's position is strongly indicated from the gemara Shabbos 35a which says that it was a "mayon hamitalteil" and from Rashi on the gemara P'sochim 54a.


3) Ch. 22, v. 2: "VA'YAR Bolok" - What is the translation of the word "VA'YAR"?

1) Chizkuni - He HEARD, as we find in Shmos 20:15, "V'chol ho'om RO'IM es hakolos."

2) Moshav Z'keinim - He SAW, as he was a minister of Sichon and actually saw the miraculous victory over Sichon.

3) Kli Yokor - He SAW written in the chronicles (divrei ha'yomim) of wars of the kings that the bnei Yisroel were miraculously victorious.

4) Rabbeinu Bachyei and Gur Aryeh - He PERCEIVED as we find in Dvorim 6:4, "SHMA Yisroel."

4) Ch. 22, v. 18: "M'lo veiso kesef v'zohov lo uchal laavore es pi Hashem" - Rashi says that from here we derive that Bilom had an unsatiable lust for money. How do we derive this from his words? Why not just say that he was strongly expressing his great dedication to follow the words of Hashem, even to the tune of foregoing tremendous financial rewards? We find a similar expression used by Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo in the mishnoh in Pirkei Ovos 6:10. He met a person during his travels who offered him a position as the spiritual leader of his community. Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo responded that he would not accept the position, even if he were given all the silver, gold, and precious stones that exist. We find no commentator disparagingly remarking that Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo lusted riches, so what is the difference between the two?

1) Rabbi Chaim haKohein Rappaport answers that we find in the gemara B.K. 38b that Ulloh was not willing to pay a shiva call, nichum a'veilim, to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudoh, saying that the bereaved was a Babylonian. They express themselves with blasphemous words upon the loss of a relative. They say, "What can be done". This indicates that if they were empowered to do so, they would have kept the deceased alive, contrary to the wishes of Hashem. This is mentioned in Y.D. #376:2 in the Ram"a.

Bilom, by saying "LO UCHAL," I CANNOT transgress the word of Hashem, indicated that if he were able to, he would go against Hashem's will for the reward of great riches. Not so with Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo. He simply stated that if he were offered all the riches the world had to offer for living in a place that is destitute of Torah, he would only live in a "mokom Torah." Hence there is no indication of his having a desire for riches.

2) Rabbi Yossi was offered the money and turned it down, but Bilom was not offered vast sums of money. He brought up the idea.

5) Ch. 23, v. 3: "Vayeilech shefi" - What is the translation of "shefi"?

1) Rashi says alone, quietly.
2) Rashba"m says a lame person.
3) Targum Yononon ben Uziel says as a snake, source of "shefi" being "shefifon".
4) Ibn Ezra says a high place.
5) Ibn Ezra in the name of Reb Yehudah Chosid, with magic (see Doniel 1:20, "ho'ashofim".
6) The Alshich HaKodosh and the Chasam Sofer say that "Shefi" is Shin, Pay, Yud, hinting at Bilom's conjuring in his mind the future plan of having the bnei Yisroel sin with the bnos Moav. Through Shin, Pay, Yud, Shamnon - their oil, Piton - their bread, Yayon - their wine, they were successful in causing B'nai Yisroel to sin. (See Shabbos 17)



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