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. 25, v. 12: "Es brisi sholom" - My covenant of peace - What exactly was this "covenant of peace"?

2) Ch. 25, v. 14: "V'sheim ish Yisroel hamu'keh" - When the Torah recounts the actual sin, Zimri's name is not mentioned, "V'hi'nei ish mibnei Yisroel boh" (25:6), and only here when he receives his due retribution is his name mentioned. Why?

3) Ch. 25, v. 14,15: "V'sheim ish Yisroel hamu'keh asher hukoh ES haMidyonis Zimri, V'sheim ho'ishoh hamukoh haMidyonis Kozbi" - Why does the verse point out that Zimri was killed while he was with the Midyonite woman, "es haMidyonis," and in the next verse when it recounts the killing of Kozbi, it does not mention that she was "with Zimri," as she indeed was, as recounted in Targum Yonoson ben Uziel?

4) Ch. 26, v. 11: "Uvnei Korach lo meisu" - And the sons of Korach did not die - Rashi (gemara Sanherin 110a) says that originally they were in agreement with their father but later had thoughts of repentance in their hearts. Therefore an elevated location was created in Gehinom upon which they sat. Why were they in limbo? If their repentance was accepted why were they in Gehinom altogether, and if it was not accepted, why didn't they descend to the abyss?

5) Ch. 28, v. 3: "Oloh somid" - An elevated offering daily - Isn't all this information redundant, as we find it in Shmos 29:38-42?



1) To become a Kohein (Rashi)

2) Against a revenge attack by Zimri's relatives (Rabbeinu Bachyei)

3) To live a long life, called "sholom," as peace of the components of body allow for long life, and normally the components compete and deteriorate, causing death (Sforno)

4) That he would have a continuum of generations to the end of days (Ralba"g)

5) That he would become the Kohein Godol and that many more Kohanim G'dolim would be his offspring

6) That he would not become cruel by virtue of his having killed Zimri and Kozbi (N'tzi"v)

7) That he would live forever, just as he stood in for Hashem to take revenge "b'kano es kinoSI," so too he is rewarded with permanence, as the name "Sholo'm" is one of the names of Hashem (Dorash Moshe)


HRH"G Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt"l answers that had the Torah mentioned his name when recounting his grave sin it would weaken the resolve of others as they become aware of a tribal leader falling prey to his base impulses. However, when the Torah mentions his being killed for sinning, it is all-important to mention him by name. This teaches us that there is no "protektzia" for even the greatest of people who sin, as they are even put to death if this is what is deserved for a sin of such severity.


The Nachal K'dumim and the Ragotchover Gaon both answer this question with the words of the Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh in parshas Bolok (25:8). He asks that although it was proper for Pinchos to kill Zimri, as per the rule of "habo'eil Aramis kano'im pogim bo" (gemara Sanhedrin 82a), - one who sins with a gentile woman is liable to be killed by a zealot, but by what right did Pinchos kill Kozbi? He surely didn't know if she was a married woman, and when in doubt he surely would not have killed her. He answers that she was killed as per the verse "v'es hab'heimoh taharogu" (Vayikra 20:15), by the case of committing bestiality.

(Actually, the Rambam in gilyon hilchos issu'rei bi'oh 12:6 says this, bringing a proof from Bmidbar 31:16, "hein heinoh hoyu livnei Yisroel ......").

The question is now answered. The gemara Sanhedrin 82a says that when Pinchos came upon Zimri, had Zimri separated himself from Kozbi, i.e. stopped doing the immoral act, Pinchos would not have been allowed to kill him. Therefore our verse stresses that he was WITH Kozbi when he was killed. However, Kozbi was killed for a different reason, and she was to be killed even when not being together with Zimri, hence no "es."


The Ksav Sofer answers that the gemara Yoma 87a states that whoever causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. This is because it would be unfair for him to be in Gan Eden and his students whom he influenced to sin to be in Gehinom.

Since originally the sons of Korach were united in his campaign, they influenced others to sin. They were prevented from doing a proper repentance, as stated in Rashi, that they only had thoughts of repentance "in their hearts." Proper repentance requires verbalizing one's sins. This is why they ended up in Gehinom. Since they did have thoughts of repentance they at least merited to not have to descend to the depths of Gehinom, but rather, were given an elevated place in Gehinom to reside.


1) Rashi says that although this information was conveyed in parshas T'tzaveh, from there we would only know that the tomid offering was brought twice daily during the eight days of the dedication of the Mishkon, but not for all generations.

2) The Ramban says that this is incorrect because in parshas T'zaveh the verse clearly states "l'doroseichem" (Shmos 29:42).

He posits that it is indeed repetitive, but many new details are taught, and we find this numerous times in the Torah, that a parsha is given two or even three times, but there are more details in each repetition.

3) Moshav Z'keinim answers Rashi by saying that although the earlier parsha tells us the mitzvoh of tomid, its actual bringing was suspended when the bnei Yisroel sinned with the golden calf. As a sign of Hashem's discontent with the bnei Yisroel He commanded that it not be brought. Upon the completion of the death of the generation of "yotzei Mitzrayim" the Torah tells us here that the tomid should be brought from this point on. I have a bit of difficulty with this, since it would have sufficed to say in a few words that the tomid sacrifice is to be reinstated.

4) Chizkuni answers that from earlier we only know to do this for 2 generations, "l'doroseichem." Here, with the preface TZAV, we know that it is immediate and for ALL generations (as per the gemara Kidushin 29a).

5) Divrei Dovid answers that from earlier we might be mistaken and believe that only the afternoon tomid is for all generations, since the verse says "olAs tomid, and not "olOSE tomid."



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