Parsha Matot – Masei

Jul 10, 2026 | Torat Devorah

The end of this week’s parasha – and thus, the end of the Book of Numbers (Bamidbar) presents a lengthy discussion of the laws regarding the establishment of the cities of refuge (arei miklat) and the inadvertent murderer. What is the relevance of these laws to the conclusion of Sefer Bamidbar? One would have expected this section to appear in the legal portions in Chumash, such as Parashat Mishpatim. (In fact, a brief reference to the cities of refuge does actually appear in Parashat Mishpatim – Shemot 21:13.)

Why does the Torah introduce the cities of refuge in our parasha? Given the context of this section, Rav Yonatan Grossman explains: “I would suggest that the presentation of the laws of the inadvertent murderer in our parasha focuses not on the murderer himself, but rather on the ramifications thereof to the LAND. The preceding section deals with the precise borders of the Land of Israel and the method of its distribution among the twelve tribes as well as the Tribe of Levi.

In this context, the Torah reminds us that several cities are to be designated for the benefit of accidental killers. It is therefore not surprising that the section concludes: “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I Myself abide, for I God abide among the Israelite people” (35:34). This verse forms an appropriate conclusion for the regulations involving the conquest, occupation and distribution of the Land. Nevertheless, the dominating characteristic of this section is clearly its strictly legal quality. In this sense, it differs substantially from the other two discussions of the arei miklat in Chumash.

First, let us briefly review the various references to arei miklat in the Torah. The concept of the city of refuge for inadvertent murderers appears in the Torah for the first time (as noted earlier) very briefly in Parashat Mishpatim: “He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but God lead him to it, then I will assign you a place to which he can flee” (Shemot 21:12-3). We encounter these laws once again in our parasha, in the context of the division of the Land, and lastly in Parashat Shoftim, where the Torah goes through this topic at length (Devarim 19).” Rav Grossman teaches that the function of the arei miklat of Sefer Devarim is clear and straightforward – to provide REFUGE for the murderer from the avenger. That parasha therefore stresses the issues relevant to the murderer’s successful escape and the security afforded to him by the city. Accordingly, the avenger emerges here as a frenzied and erratic vigilant, from whom refuge must be provided. For the same reason, nowhere in Sefer Devarim is there a reference to any legal process associated with the cities of refuge. Residence in the city is simply an option open to the inadvertent murderer for his safety.

Our parasha presents a more novel, less intuitive aspect of the cities of refuge, one of EXILE. It emerges as an integral part of the legal process to be undergone by the murderer, and he therefore does not have the option of leaving. He not only escapes to the ir miklat, but, after he has been acquitted from premeditated murder, the court forcefully returns him to the city, since he did, after all, kill, albeit accidentally. He must remain there until the death of the high priest and may not be released on bail. In this parasha, the avenger fills an official role, that of the court executioner, if warranted. It now becomes clear why in Sefer Bemidbar, as opposed to Sefer Devarim, the laws involving the intentional murderer are intertwined with the procedures involving the accidental killer. A moral complaint is brought against both. Although their punishments understandably differ from one another, both cases appear here as two instances of a similar scenario, and both require penalty and atonement.

~Devorah Abenhaim

Parsha Chukat Balak

Jun 26, 2026 | Torat Devorah

​​​​​​​The Torah states the following: “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived in the desert of Tzin in the first month and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.” (Numbers, 20:1). There are many questions that need to be answered from this seemingly simple verse such as: Why does the Torah tell us what month the Israelites arrived – not usually found when the Torah reports arrivals; Why did the Torah emphasize that the whole congregation arrived?; Why did Miriam’s burial have to be mentioned and later, the absence of water as affecting the entire congregation?

Torat Moshe explains that our sages say that Moses and Aaron were busy with the funeral arrangements for Miriam when they saw a multitude approaching. Moses was somewhat nonplussed, but Aaron felt that the people had surely come to pay their last respects to Miriam. Moses did not think so, for if Aaron had been correct, the people would have approached in an orderly procession. The confused mob approaching suggested to Moses that these people had something to complain about. When the people overheard this, they quarreled with Moses, and left Aaron out of it.  In fact, they should have paid their respects to Miriam for a variety of reasons, not the least of it the fact that they had enjoyed a water supply for 40 years due to her merit. It was due to their indifference that God let it come to a critical situation. Should one argue that the people had been unaware that their water supply had been due to Miriam’s merit, God had stopped the supply IMMEDIATELY when Miriam had died, to bring home this lesson to the people who had either not known or had pretended not to know. Mention of their arrival in the desert, and the date, is to tell us that lack of water was not due to the natural habitat, nor to the time of year. At winter’s end, there is plenty of moisture remaining from the rainy season. Neither was the absence of water due to unfriendly terrain, since the people had settled there – in Kadesh – obviously a place fit for habitation. Water disappeared ONLY with the death of Miriam. This proved that the death of the righteous woman had caused the absence of water. The congregation was denied water now, because they had neglected to give respect to Miriam after her death.

In parshat Balak, we read about Balaam, who was a prophet of the gentile nations. This parshah  focuses on Bilam’s ability to curse and his attempts, commissioned by King Balak of Moab, to curse the advancing nation of Israel. Nechama Leibowitz discusses the similarities/differences between Bilam and the other prophets of Israel. She teaches that the prophets of Israel do not themselves run after prophecy. On the contrary, a glance at Exodus 3-4 or Jeremiah 1 reminds us that they objected, as a rule, to this sudden imposition of responsibility from On High. Far from seeking it, it was thrust on them. Bilam, on the other hand, hankers after prophecy, and strives – through magical means – to obtain such power, to force it down from Heaven, as it were, through the medium of seven altars, seven bullocks, enchantments and solitude. As the Ramban observed in respect of sacrifices, the person bringing them wishes, through their medium, to achieve closer communion with God, elevating human nature to a Divine level. Balaam, on the other hand, desired to mould, as it were, the Divine will to his own nefarious ends, bringing the Divine down to the mortal level.  But what did Bilam achieve through his sorcery? What are the implications of the phrase: “And the Lord put a word (davar) in Bilam’s mouth” (23:5). In Sanhedrin 105b it explains that rabbi Eliezer saw this word as an angel, and rabbi Yochanan saw it as a hook. According to Rabbi Eliezer, Bilam was merely guided from above to bless and not to curse. He had been intellectually enlightened to face the true facts. According to Rabbi Yochanan, however, he uttered the blessings in spite of himself, forced against his will, struggling and in distress like one that is hooked, to do the biding of his master.

~Devorah Abenhaim

Parsha Shelach

Jun 12, 2026 | Torat Devorah

The Torah records in Parshat Beha’alotcha, that when Israel left Mt. Sinai, they traveled for three consecutive days, and describes how Israel began to grumble at the inconvenience. The urgency in moving them quickly was based on God’s desire to lead Israel into the land of Israel as quickly as possible, and his motives were dictated by the boundless love that he bore His chosen people, whom He wanted to see settled in the chosen land without delay. Yet that is not what they perceived. They grumbled because of the difficulties of the journey. Doubtlessly, they ascribed to Hashem an indifference to their well being and comfort, as indeed we find on other occasions, when they accused Him of taking them out of Egypt without caring as to what happened to them (and worse). And the same is probably true of the complaint that follows their immediately, when they grumbled that they were sick of the manna.

In this week’s Parshah too, the spies discovered that wherever they went, a plague struck down the Cana’anim and they were dying in large numbers. They concluded that the air of the land of Israel was unhealthy and prone to breeding plagues. They failed to see (or perhaps they did not want to see), that the Divine Hand was at work, protecting them, preventing their discovery by keeping the Cana’anim too busy to notice them, or at least, to be concerned with their presence. In this way, Hashem reckoned, they would be able to go about spying the land without hindrance. Yet they misconstrued Hashem’s chesed, mistaking His loving care for hatred.

The verse in Devarim (1:20) describes how Israel grumbled that night in their tents, how they declared that it was due to God’s hatred of Israel that He took them out of Egypt, to deliver them into the hands of the Ammorites to destroy them.  In fact, Rashi comments, He loved them, and it was they who hated Him! And he goes on to quote a famous folk-saying ‘What a person thinks about his friend, he believes that his friend thinks about him’. Presumably, this saying is based on the verse in “ke’Mayim ha’ponim le’ponim” (Mishlei 27:19).

The Zohar attributes the spies’ prejudice to the fear that, once they entered Israel, the old constitution would end, and a new era would begin, incorporating new leaders, who would replace them. Presumably, that is also what prompted them to renounce Hashem as a hater. In order to misconstrue Hashem’s motives in His interrelationship with us, it is not necessary to be guided by personal prejudices (though it does help). All that is needed is a lack of appreciation a. of Hashem’s extreme goodness; b. of the fact that He loves all his people, and c. the extent of that love.
​​​​​​​
And you shall not go astray after your hearts and after your eyes … and you will be holy to your God” (ibid.). In spite of the fact that the Torah is addressing people who are prone to serve idols and to commit adultery, the verse nevertheless concludes with an injunction to be holy. It appears, remarked the Chofetz Chayim that no matter how low a Jew sinks, the Torah not only considers him capable of pulling himself out of the mire and of becoming a holy person, but that it actually expects him to do just that. But one could also explain the verse, not so much to stress the potential of a Jew, but to stress the power of mitzvot in general, and the mitzvah of Tzitzis in particular. Man’s body comprises the same components as an animal – to whose level he can sink without much effort. His soul has the make-up of an angel – to whose level he can rise, but only through hard work. To achieve this, G-d gave us the medium of mitzvot. What the Torah is teaching us here is that the mitzvot in general, and above all, the mitzvah of Tzitzis, will not only prevent us from sinking to the level of an animal (which instinctively follows its heart and eyes), but even have the power to raise us to the greatest heights, to make us holy like the angels.​​​​​​​

~Devorah Abenhaim

Parsha Beha’alotcha

Jun 5, 2026 | Torat Devorah

We often choose to remember what suits us, conveniently forgetting those facts which upset our view of the world. No better example can be found than that of the generation of the Jews who left Egypt. While having their needs taken care of as they wandered in the desert, they found fault at every conceivable opportunity. It took just three days from their leaving Har Sinai to start the bickering. What are we doing here in the desert when life in Egypt was so much better was a constant refrain. “We fondly remember the fish that we could eat in Egypt at no cost”, they exclaimed, “along with the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic”, they continued. “But now our spirits are dried up, with nothing but the manna before our eyes” (Bamidbar 11:5-6). Is this the true picture of life in Egypt? What happened to the slavery, the backbreaking work, and the babies tossed in the Nile? What about the excessive taxes, the breakdown of family life? The Torah (Shemot 5:18) tells us that the Egyptians did not even supply the necessary materials for the Jewish worker. Did these same Egyptians really supply free fish?

Rabbi Jay Kelman explains: Many commentaries assume the Jewish people were not lying. Fish, fresh fruit and vegetables really were available for free in Egypt. However it was free for one reason only; to enable the Jews to have enough strength to do their hard work. A hungry slave can not be a productive worker. So the Egyptians ensured that we were not to be hungry. How tragic that the Jews remembered the good food but not the real price they had to pay for it. This phenomenon is not unique to slaves. Many firms pay enormously high wages to attract the best of lawyers, investment bankers and the like. However the benefits often come at a high cost in time, stress and spiritual growth. There really are no free lunches.

Rashi (11:5), echoing the view of the Rabbis, declares that it was not fish and fruit that was the true source of their grumbling. Rather the “freedom” in Egypt to which they allude is freedom from responsibility. Chinam min hamitzvot (free from religious obligations) is how the Rabbis expressed the true feelings of the Jewish people. In Egypt there were no moral restraints or restrictions placed upon them. They could eat what they wanted, marry whomever they pleased, work seven days a week if they so desired and did not have to share whatever abundance they may have had with others. All of a sudden they were now bound by laws governing every facet of their lives.

For those to whom Torah is irrelevant no amount of suffering is tolerable. Just give us our freedom to do as we please, they plead. Those for whom Torah is a way of life realize that implementing Torah may at times entail discomfort and hardship. No worthwhile goal comes easily. And there is no goal more worthwhile than striving to apply the beauty of Torah to our daily lives. ​​​​​​​

~Devorah Abenhaim

Shavuot and the Book of Ruth

May 21, 2026 | Torat Devorah

In many synagogues, the book of Ruth is read on the second day of Shavuot. There are several reasons for this custom:A) Shavuot is the birthday and yahrtzeit (day of passing) of King David and the book of Ruth records his ancestry. Ruth and her husband Boaz were King David’s great-grandparents.B) The scenes of harvesting, described in the book of Ruth are appropriate to the Festival of Harvest., and C) Ruth was a sincere convert who embraced Judaism with all her heart. On Shavuot all Jews were converts having accepted the Torah and all of its precepts.

To further understand the importance of Ruth in Jewish History, Rabbi Y. Marcus gives a very succinct history: Ruth was a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism and became the great-grandmother to King David. She was a princess, the daughter (or grand-daughter) of King Eglon of Moab. The story takes place in the era of the Judges, culminating with the marriage of Ruth and Boaz in the year 968 BCE. As the story is told in the Book of Ruth and the Midrash, she becomes acquainted with the Jewish religion when she befriends a distinguished and wealthy Jewish family, Elimelech and Naomi and their two sons Machlon and Kilyon, who had moved from Moab to the Land of Israel because of a famine. She grows enamored with Jewish belief and custom and she and her sister Orpah marry Machlon and Kilyon. When Elimelech and the two sons tragically pass away — punishment for abandoning their Israeli brethren in their time of need, and a now impoverished Naomi is heading back to the Land of Israel (where the famine has ended),the two sisters wish to go with her. Naomi begs them to remain in Moab with their regal family and not to follow her to poverty and anonymity. She explains to them that they would have to convert to Judaism and the difficulties that would entail. Orpah indeed turns back, while Ruth persists. In the famous words that have come to epitomize the sentiment of the righteous convert she says to Naomi: “Wherever you go I will go; wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your nation is my nation; and your G-d is my G-d.” In the land of Israel she finds favor in the eyes of Boaz, a great Torah scholar and Jewish leader, who is impressed with her modesty and righteousness. He marries her even though there is opposition to the marriage. The opposition stems from the fact that the Torah says that one should not marry a Moabite (even one who converts). Boaz, however, explains that the Torah speaks only of a Moabite male; it was however permitted to marry a Moabite woman (who had converted). Boaz and Ruth give birth to Oved, who gives birth to Jesse, who gives birth to David, who is the ancestor of Moshiach.

Rav Shlomo Alkabez, in his commentary on Ruth, writes: “This megillah was written to authenticate King David and to publicize the concept that a Moabite woman may marry a Jew. Shmuel wrote this book to preempt any murmuring that might threaten the monarchy of the anointed king (David).”

Rabbi Yissocher Frand explains: “There was indeed controversy as to whether Boaz was permitted to marry Rus. Rus was from Moab. The simple reading of “Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite shall enter the Congregation of the L-rd” [Devorim 23:4] would seem to preclude her ability to marry Boaz or any other native born Jew for that matter. There was a dispute that raged for generations whether the prohibition included female Moabites or just the males. Boaz made a bold move to demonstrate the permissibility of such a union, even though the closer relative (a man named Tov) refused to enter into such a marriage out of fear that it was prohibited. Shmuel, the prophet who anointed David as King, decided to set the record straight and recorded Boaz’s public decision to marry this woman — in Tanach. This explains, perhaps, why Rus is read on Shavuot. The story of Boaz’s bold decision to marry Rus dramatizes his faith in the veracity of the Oral Tradition. Boaz had faith in the “Halacha of Moshe tracing back to Sinai” that the interpretation of the above cited pasuk in Devorim is “An Ammonite male is forbidden, but not an Ammonite female; a Moabite male is forbidden, but not a Moabite female. ” When a Jew sits down on Shavuot, the holiday marking receipt of the Torah, he is confronted with the question of why Boaz did marry Rus. Why was he so confident that he was allowed to marry her? The answer is that he knew it was permissible because of the Oral Law. Shavuot is not merely the holiday celebrating receipt of the Written Torah. As indicated by the story of Ruth, Shavuot is also the holiday when we celebrate the receipt of and the veracity of the Oral Torah. The issue of the veracity of the Oral Torah was an issue in Talmudic times and it is an issue in modern times as well. When we tell people “the Torah says such and such,” they question us because they cannot find it in the Written Torah. So much of the divisions that we have with our non-observant brethren boil down to this point: Is there an Oral Law or not? On Shavuos, we come to this clear understanding that Torah means the Written Torah PLUS the Oral Torah. There is no better narrative than the Megillah of Ruth to drive home this lesson.”

~Devorah Abenhaim