Jul 18, 2025 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parshah, we read the following: “And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying: Pinchas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for My sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy” (Numbers 25:10-11). We must remember that at the end of last week’s parshah, the Israelites debased themselves and committed harlotry with the daughters of Moab. Pinchas took it upon himself to stab and kill Zimri – an Israelite man, and Kosbi, a Midianite woman who were together engaged in this sinful behavior. The following question is asked on the above verse: Why did the Torah have to give Pinchas’ full genealogy here when it had been recorded only 4 verses previously? The Or Hachayim comments that perhaps the Torah wanted to give his ancestors an honorable mention in this way. Moreover, he explains, it is likely that God wanted to heal the residual bad feeling that might have existed against Aaron who at the time when he made the golden calf had inadvertently become the cause of many Israelites dying prematurely. Now, a grandson of Aaron had come and saved many more Israelites’ lives that Aaron had ever even indirectly caused to be lost. This is why God goes on record saying: “I have not consumed the children of Israel in MY jealousy.” In order to make all this clear, Aaron had to be mentioned by name. We have been told in Tanna de bey Eliyahu chapter 13 that Aaron rehabilitated himself through teaching the Israelites Torah and performing good deeds. From this you see that in the eyes of the Israelites Aaron had been considered as responsible for the death of those Jews at the time of the episode of the golden calf. Therefore, the Torah tells us here that Aaron’s grandson completed this task of Aaron’s rehabilitation posthumously.
The Alshekh gives his point of view on this subject. He teaches that if one goes back to parshat Balak where the deed of Pinchas is recorded (25:7), we read Pinchas saw… arose from amidst the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. Pinchas had reason to fear that just as his cousin Chur, son of Miriam, had died when trying to restrain the people serving the golden calf, so his zealousness too would prove ineffective. Even though his own merit would not be diminished if he died thus on Kiddush Hashem, while engaged in sanctifying the name of God, he was aware that he had the merits of his ancestry going for him. This is why the Torah notes that he saw that he was the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest. The numerical value of the word romach, or spear, equals 248, the same number value as the name Avraham. Pinchas felt that he was armed with the merit of Abraham, and was therefore likely to succeed in his undertaking. After all, Abraham, according to the Midrash, had survived the furnace that Nimrod had thrown him into. It is interesting to note that when Pinchas was born, his own father had not yet become a priest. Priesthood, therefore, could not be bestowed upon him automatically. He therefore decided to risk his life, and armed with the mitzvah of killing Zimri, hoped to wipe out what appeared to be a stain on his character; namely not being a priest though his father was a priest. He was rewarded in that though normally only the actual limb performing a mitzvah is elevated to a higher level, in this case, his entire body was elevated to the level of priesthood. This is why God, at the beginning of the parshah, tells Moses to tell Pinchas that he had indeed achieved such elevation, i.e. that he had conferred merit on his father and grandfather by his courageous, zealous deed. This means that through his deed he had become a new person – as if he had been born to Eleazar ONLY AFTER Eleazar had achieved priesthood himself and Pinchas therefore became a priest due to his father having been a priest.
Devorah Abenhaim
Jul 11, 2025 | Torat Devorah
The Midrash states: “What is the difference between the prophets of the Jewish people and the prophets of the nations of the world? The prophets of Israel forewarned the nations not to transgress. However the prophets of the nations created breaches to destroy mankind so that it should have no connection with the world to come. The prophets of the Jewish people expressed the Attribute of Mercy, while their prophets expressed cruelty. Bilaam, the prophet of the nations, wanted to uproot and destroy an entire nation. This is the reason the Torah tells us the story of Bilaam. It is so that one should understand why there is no longer Divinely inspired people (prophets) among the nations of the world. If the power of prophecy would be given to an individual from the nations, it would be used for destruction, as Bilaam had done. Bilaam, being given prophecy, is the reason the nations of the world cannot claim at the end of time that G’d did not grant them the same opportunity as He had the Jewish people.”
The Torah states when Bilaam was on the way to curse the Jewish people, “G’d’s wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of Hashem stood on the road to impede him. Bilaam was riding on his donkey… The donkey saw the angel of Hashem standing on the road with his sword drawn in his hand….” The Midrash asks, “Why did the angel have a drawn sword in his hand? The angel could have blown upon Bilaam and caused him to die. As we see regarding the destruction of the army of Sancherev. When Sancherev had come upon the Jewish people with millions of troops to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple, the verse states, ‘The angel of Hashem went forth and had smitten the camp of Ashure. He had blown upon them and they dried-up.’ Why did the angel come upon Bilaam with a drawn sword, when he could have simply blown upon him? The angel said to Bilaam, ‘The power of the mouth was given to Yaakov. As the verse states, ‘The voice is the voice of Yaakov and the hands are the hands of Esav.’ It also states regarding the nations of the world, ‘By the sword you shall live…’ But you, Bilaam, took hold of the craft of the Jewish people and came upon them with your mouth (to curse them). Therefore, when I come upon you I shall do so with your craft (the sword).’ This is the reason the angel came upon Bilaam with a drawn sword.”
Rashi cites Chazal who explain that before Balak commissioned Bilaam to curse the Jewish people he had consulted with the Midianites in order to ascertain the secret power of the leader of the Jewish people. They had told him that the power of their leader lies in his mouth, his verbal expression. They therefore summoned Bilaam to counter Moshe, with his power of expression to curse the Jewish people. However, Balak and the Midianites had no understanding of the essence of Moshe’s power. The effectiveness of Moshe’s ability emanated from his unique dimension of spirituality. Moshe had no relevance to evil, as Bilaam had. He was imbued with holiness only to carry out the Will of G’d. The only commonality between Moshe and Bilaam was that both of their expressions emanated from their mouth. Although Bilaam’s curse was lethal, as it had proven to be, it had no relevance to his spirituality; but rather, it was rooted in his evilness/physicality. Chazal tell us that when Moshe had killed the Egyptian in Egypt when he was beating a Jew, he had done so through the enunciation of one of the Names of G’d. His killing of the Egyptian, through verbal expression rather than a physical act, was an indication of the spirituality of Moshe. Bilaam was known for his “evil eye.” Chazal tell us that when Bilaam initially wanted to bless the Jewish people, G’d had said to him, “Do not bless them. They do not need your blessing.” It is as one says to a bee, “We do not need your honey and we do not need your sting.” This is because a blessing that emanates from an evil source is the equivalent of a curse.
Devorah Abenhaim
Jul 4, 2025 | Torat Devorah
“The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock and provide drink for the congregation and their beasts.’ ” – Numbers 20:7-8.
The Torah portion Chukat is long and varied, containing many interesting and dramatic narratives, including strife in the wilderness, the decree that Moshe will not enter the Land, and the deaths of Miriam and Aharon. The beginning of chapter 20 relates the famous story of “striking the rock,” with the resultant terrible decree on Moshe, who was apparently supposed to speak to the rock when the people cry out for water, as in the verse above. Instead, he struck it with his staff, and is told that he will never enter the Land.
There is a fascinating midrash related to what Moshe was ostensibly supposed to do when the people cried out for water, and there were only rocks around them. The late medieval commentator known as the Or HaChaim (from his famous book of that title) quotes an earlier text to which interprets “order the rock” [literally, “speak to the rock before their eyes”] as “study Torah by the rock,” or maybe even to teach Torah to the rock itself! The text says that Moshe should have spoken just “a single paragraph” to the stone. Given that rocks, unlike people, don’t have ears to hear or minds to understand, what could this possibly mean?
Rabbi Neal Joseph Loevinger explains: “The verse itself is clear that Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock, not just whack it with a stick, but the image of studying Torah by- or with- the rock suggests that the better way to get water from a rock is a more meditative approach, rather than frantic action. This is not about a miracle of hydrology, it’s about what it takes to draw out from others something deep and nourishing: first, go to your innermost core, reminding yourself of your deepest ideals and sense of connection. Then, speak words of Torah- that is, words which are grounded in our best selves, our most authentic ethical and spiritual traditions and paradigms. That’s how you draw out something sustaining when the community is “dry” of ideas, hopes, and vision. “Speaking Torah to the rock” can mean: Moshe, if you’re swinging sticks around when the people are scared, go back to your own source of innermost meaning- study some Torah so that you act from a place of spiritual intentionality, not negativity, resentment or anger towards the people. Dealing with human beings- stubborn, stiff-necked and complaining, as all of us are, at least some of the time- often requires a reorientation of our attitude before we can be effective agents of hope and care. Even Moshe had to remember who he was- a teacher, a leader, a lover of Israel, grounded in sacred ideals- before he could give others what they needed. It’s no great failing to want to strike the rock; we fail only ourselves when in haste we forget to slow down and take in Torah and its vision of compassionate humanity.”
The red heifer plays a central role in the process of purifying someone who becomes “tamei”, i.e., spiritually tainted. A Jew becomes tamei when he or she comes into contact with a corpse, and as long as you are tamei you may not enter the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (Bamidbar 19:13,21). However, this condition is treatable. A red heifer is slaughtered and burned, and its ashes are used to create a mystical potion with purifying powers. A kohen sprinkles the contaminated Jew with the red heifer ash mixture and the Jew then returns to a normal state of tahara, i.e. spiritual purity (19:1-12). (Obviously, these laws have been out of use ever since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.) This procedure is hard enough to understand, but here’s the clincher: The kohen who administers the sprinkling becomes tamei! The very same process that purifies the contaminated Jew contaminates the kohen (19:21). Several great medieval rabbis independently compiled listings of the 613 biblical mitzvot. But the most innovative of these works is undoubtedly the Chinuch (anonymous, 13th century). Besides the basic listing, the Chinuch also speculates about the meaning and purpose of every mitzvah. This makes for a fascinating blend of law, ethics, and philosophy.When it comes to the red heifer, however, the Chinuch throws in the towel. “Although my heart emboldened me to write hints of the reasons for the other mitzvot… when it comes to this mitzvah my hand goes weak and I am frightened to open my mouth about it at all. For I have seen how our sages of blessed memory wrote at length of its deep mysteries and the vastness of its theme…” (Chinuch, mitzvah 397). Rabbi Yaakov Kamanetzky (1891-1986) questions the Chinuch’s nervous reaction to the red heifer. The Chinuch knew that all mitzvot are ultimately beyond our understanding. Mortals can’t expect to fathom the myriad of divine reasons for mitzvot. Although we certainly do appreciate the beauty and relevance of every mitzvah, we need to remember that we are only dipping beneath the surface of great depths of meaning. As the Chinuch himself admits, his explanations of the mitzvot are no more than surface level interpretations. He never claimed that his suggestions were all there is to it. So why won’t the Chinuch provide us with some insights into the red heifer? If he managed to supply a reason or a message for each of 612 other mitzvot in the Torah, why not finish the job? Rabbi Kamanetzky explains that the Chinuch did not at all give up when it came to the red heifer. He indeed does reveal its message. The red heifer’s message is the very fact that it is completely unknowable. This is a fundamental principle for all of Torah. There comes a point with every mitzvah where we must recognize that our human minds are limited. There is more to this world than we can ever know. There is a spiritual reality.
Devorah Abenhaim
Jun 27, 2025 | Torat Devorah
In Ethics of the Fathers 5:17 it states: ‘Every controversy that is pursued in a heavenly cause, is destined to be perpetuated; and that which is not pursued in a heavenly cause is not destined to be perpetuated. Which can be considered a controversy pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And that not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation.’
Since this week’s parshah focuses on Korach and his assembly rallying against Moses and Aaron in the belief that they are worthy of more distinctive roles as Israelites. In discussing controversies, the Malbim draws an interesting and penetrating distinction between two different kinds of controversies. He explains: ‘Our Sages wished to point out that in a holy or heavenly cause both sides are, in fact, united by one purpose, to further unselfish, Divine ends. However, in a controversy pursued for unholy ends and for personal advancements and the like, then even those who have come together on one side are not really united. Each are governed by their own calculations of what they stand to gain and are ready to cut each other’s throats, if it so serves their interests. This was the case as far as the controversy of Korach and his congregation. Korach was interested in High Priesthood, since he contended that Amram had received the firstborn share as the eldest son of Kehat, in the fact that his son, Moses, had been appointed leader and king over the people. It was therefore only right, so Korach claimed, that the High Priesthood be given to himself as the son of Yitzhar, the next in line of succession. Dathan and Aviram and On ben Peleth, on the other hand, were animated by their considerations in their opposition to Moses. Their grievance lay in the fact that they belonged to the tribe of Reuben who, as the firstborn son of Jacob, was entitled to all the highest offices – that of spiritual and political leadership. Instead, they complained that the priesthood and Divine service had been given to the tribe of Levi and leadership of the tribes to Judah and Joseph. Similarly, the 250 men contended that, as they were “princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown”, they should be accorded the priesthood. They were against conferring a hereditary title on a tribe but asserted that individual prestige and distinction should be considered. Ibn Ezra suggests that these 250 rebels were in actuality firstborn who considered that the priesthood was their natural privilege.
Moses, in response, said the following statement to all those who had rallied against himself and Aaron: “Through this shall you know that God has sent me to perform these acts; that it was not from my heart” (Numbers 16:28). The Alshekh comments that it would be totally out of character for a man like Moses who always defended his people, even the sinners, to now announce an especially cruel fate for Korach and his associates. He therefore prefaces his announcement and the impending punishment of the rebels by explaining that only in this way could the fact that he had not appointed himself to a position of leadership be demonstrated. Just as his own appointment had been through supernatural power, so the death of the challengers would occur through supernatural power. When a body has been invaded by cancer or some other deadly disease, only the surgical removal of the infected part of the body can stave off total disaster. In this instance too, only the excision of these rebels could prevent the rebellion from infecting the whole nation with fatal results. Theirs was a spiritual disease; the disbelief in the Divine nature of Moses’ prophecy. Moses therefore made the point that the very death of the rebels represented the greatest act of mercy by God, since it saved mankind.
Devorah Abenhaim
Jun 20, 2025 | Torat Devorah
The Torah records in Parshat Shelach, 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 travails 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 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, God 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
Jun 17, 2025 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s Parsha we learn of many exciting moments at the inauguration of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle, in the desert. It begins with the laws of lighting the menorah in the Mishkan, and later in the Beit Hamikdash. Keep in mind that this mitzvah sets up another one much later in history, the mitzvah of Chanukah. The parsha then discusses the purification process of the Leviim allowing them to serve in the Mishkan.
There is an interesting comment by our Sages on a phrase that frequently repeats itself in this week’s parsha. Yet, in this week’s parsha the phrase or one similar to it appears plenty of times. After reviewing the laws of lighting the menorah in the Beit Hamikdash, the Torah states, “And Aharon did so.” Our Sages comment that this was stated to tell us that Aharon did not deviate from anything that Hashem commanded. We are told the same description regarding the inauguration process of the Leviim. After the Torah describes the service, our Sages comment that the Leviim did not stray from one command. Although we often see this comment, in our parsha we find it specifically in relation to Aharon. When Moshe was named the leader of the Jewish people – thereby replacing Aharon – Our Sages relate how Aharon went out and met Moshe with joy and not jealousy. When Aharon’s sons offer up a strange service and die by God’s hand, our Sages point out that the Torah specified that Aharon accepted the sentence and did not cry out in protest.
Why does the Torah stress specifically Aharon’s devotion and following of the mitzvoth? To answer this question let us state a rule in analysis of the Torah. When a point is stressed, it is done so to preempt an opposite idea. It would seem that Aharon’s devotion is stressed because we might have thought that his devotion was lacking. Why would we have thought that Aharon’s commitment was to be questioned? Aharon made one mistake in life, and that was the sin of the golden calf. His good intentions did not end up as he had hoped and the people thought that with his permission they could worship an idol. If one would analyze Aharon’s actions, they could come to the conclusion that Aharon had a tendency towards avodah zara, that his sin was not completely unintentional. The Torah wants us to understand that this is not true. Aharon slipped once, and it was a limited mistake. Except for that one episode, Aharon was the ideal Jew.
There are times where someone we know makes a mistake. They wrong us. It could even have been intentional. It hurts us; it upsets us, and even angers us. The person then asks for forgiveness. We know the proper thing to do is to forgive. It is in our nature to forgive, we are forbidden from holding grudges. Yet, it is difficult to look over, the wrong perpetrated against us. Every time we see that person we relive the hurt and the anger. We might even tell the person that we forgive him, but deep down, we are still bearing that grudge. This week’s parsha tells us to let it go and forgive. We must overlook the insults, the difficult moments in our relationships and understand that although people make mistakes and that they have faults, they are overall good people and deserve our forgiveness.
In the Torah portion of Beha’alotcha there appears a phenomenon that is found in no other place in the entire Tanach – two sentences are bracketed by two backwards facing Hebrew letters, nuns, as a way to set them apart from the rest of the text. “And when the ark would journey, Moses said: ‘Arise God and let your enemies be scattered, and let those that hate You flee from before You.’ And when it [the ark] rested he would say: ‘Rest peacefully God among the myriad thousands of Israel” (Numbers 10:35-36). The first sentence is recited in synagogues around the world when the ark is opened and the Torah removed for public readings, and the second sentence is recited when the Torah is placed once again in the ark.
Rashi, quoting the Talmud, (Shabbat 115b-116a) explains that these two sentences are set apart due to the fact that they are not in their natural chronological place. Rabbi Avraham Arieh Trugman comments: ‘This alone would not seem sufficient reason as Rashi tells us many times that various events recorded in the Torah are not in a sequential order. What then, according to the Talmud, is the reason that they appear here? Rashi informs us: in order to separate between a series of sins which occurred in the desert. The Talmud continues by stating that these two sentences actually are considered an entirely separate book! In this manner the five books of Moses are actually seven, as this two sentence book actually divides the book of Numbers into three books.
As with all verses, mitzvot and stories in the Torah, there are multilevels of understanding, especially when there is a one time phenomenon such as inverted letters that create a separate book of just two sentences.
The Slonimer Rebbe quotes a Torah from the Maggid of Koznitch who suggests that the ark represents a Torah scholar who is compared to an ark containing the Torah. The Torah has been so integrated into his being that he is like a “walking Torah scroll.” The word for “journey” in our verse shares the same root as the word for “test.” Therefore, anytime the ark, in this case a Torah scholar, journeys, it is inevitable that he will face challenges and tests. The Slonimer explains that this idea really applies to every person who wants to journey from one spiritual level to a higher, more refined level of consciousness, which is the ultimate goal of Torah and mitzvot.’
Devorah Abenhaim
