Rashi invokes this verse when he describes how the Jews will view Moshe’s (not Jewish) father-in-law if he travels with them in the desert (Bamidbar 10:31). Others imply that the verse does refer to converts. The midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 8:2) records the following parable in describing the plight of a “ger.” A king has flocks of sheep, but one day a gazelle comes and joins them. The gazelle goes out with them to pasture and returns with them at night. When his shepherds tell him of this gazelle, the king takes great delight in watching the gazelle, seeing that it eats, that his shepherds don’t hit it to stay in the assigned areas, that it drinks first when the animals return. They ask him, “You have thousands of sheep over which you make no fuss. So why do you care so much about this one gazelle?” The king answers, “The sheep does what it wants. It goes out and comes back in the evening to sleep, as is its nature. But a gazelle is wild and does not normally live a domesticated life in the presence of sheep or humans. Shouldn’t we give tremendous credit and special attention to this one, who gave up an expansive wilderness and life among all the wild creatures to come and live in our yard?” The midrash concludes, “Shouldn’t we also give tremendous credit to the ‘ger’ who has chosen to leave his family and his people [the nations of the world] to join our ranks? This is why we must be very sensitive so as not to harm the ‘ger’ in any way.”

For the land… is not as the land of Egypt.. where you did sow your seed, and did water it by foot, like a vegetable garden… [rather] it drinks water of the rain of heaven (11:10-11)

“Rain” represents the reciprocal relationship between heaven and earth.  “A vapor rises from the earth” to the heavens, and the heavens return it as rain which  “quenches the face of the land” (Genesis 2:6). This represents the spiritual truth that “an arousal from below evokes an arousal from above” — that G-d responds to the efforts of man, reciprocating our prayers, yearnings and deeds with nurture from Above.

The Chassidic masters explain that this is the doctrine of the rain-watered land. Egypt, however, was nourished not by descending rain but by the overflow of the Nile, which would periodically flood the land. The spiritual  “Egyptian” is one who does not recognize the Heavenly source of the blessings of life. He believes that all is generated from below — that everything he has and has achieved is of his own making. The people of Israel had been subjected to the Egyptian mentality for four generations. Thus they had to spend forty years in the desert during which they were subjected to a diametrically opposite set of circumstance, in which one’s daily bread descends from heaven and one’s own efforts have no effect on the result. Only after this lesson in the true source of life could they enter the Land that  “drinks water of the rain of heaven” — where man’s efforts are crucial and significant, yet are permeated with a recognition of, and dependence upon, the true Source of All.​​​​​​​

~Devorah Abenhaim

 “See that I have taught you statutes and laws as the Lord, my G-d, commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land.” Some philosophers advocate that if a person wants to live a life of sanctity and purity, he must flee from inhabited places and live alone in the wilderness. This is not, however, the path of the Torah. We are told to live an elevated life among other people. True sanctity and perfection is to live among other people and behave towards G-d and your fellow man in a manner consistent with Torah values (Arvai Nachal). The ideal of Torah is to bring sanctity and idealism into all aspects of human endeavor. If you live alone, you will be free from anger, envy, causing others pain, etc.; but, you will also be missing opportunities for kindness, compassion, charity, etc. Only when you are in the company of others can you fulfill allaspects of the Torah.

“And you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and G-d delivered you from there . . . therefore he is commanding you to make the day of Shabbos.” Rabbi Avraham Twerski comments: Several times, the Torah refers to Shabbos with the word “to make,” as though there were something active about Shabbos, although it would seem that the salient feature of Shabbos is complete rest or lack of activity. In the repetition of the Ten Commandments, there is a marked change from the original recitation. There it says that we must observe Shabbos because G-d created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh.” Yet, here it says that we should observe in remembrance of our enslavement in Egypt, Hashem is commanding us to make the day of Shabbos. Why does the Torah give a different reason for Shabbos here? Perhaps it is because that here the Torah is not telling us why to observe Shabbos, but how not to observe it. The idea of a “day of rest” is essentially a secular concept. One rests so that he/she can “recharge” the batteries in order to increase one’s work efficiency for the following week. The day of rest is a means rather than an end. The Torah concept of Shabbos is just the reverse. One works six days in order to be able to have a Shabbos. Exhaustion is not the reason for Shabbos any more than it was for G-d’s resting on the seventh day. Shabbos is a day of spiritual growth and development. It is a day when through prayer and the study of Torah, one should be able to create a new self, a person more refined than one had been heretofore. Shabbos is passive only in the sense of abstinence from work, but that abstinence is not sufficient. It must be used to enable oneself to make oneself into something finer and more spiritual person. This is what the Torah means by repeatedly using the expression “to make” the Shabbos. Make the Shabbos an active day of spiritual achievement and creation.

~Devorah Abenhaim

The Torah reading begins by stating: “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel” (1:1). The word ‘these’ or in Hebrew ‘eileh’ is restrictive, especially in regard to what has been written previously. The Or Hachayyim explains the seeing Moses recorded in this book only words which he had spoken on his own initiative, the Torah wishes to emphasizethat only the admonition recorded in this book were spoken by Moses on his own initiative. We are told in Megillah 31 that Moses personally composed the curses recorded in this book, and that even legislation which Moses repeated in this book he had not been commanded to repeat, but did so on his own volition. The Torah was concerned that we might conclude that just as Moses had felt free to say things of his own volition in this book, he might have done so in the previous four books. This is why the book commences with the “Eileh devarim”, “ONLY these are the words Moses spoke of his own volition, none other.”

Moses addresses the judges of the people and reviews the laws of how to deal justly and rightly with the people that come before them. In our parshah, we have directives of how judges are to judge, and later on in Devarim, we have more instructions. It states later on in Devarim: Thou shalt not pervert judgement; thou shalt not respect persons” (Devarim 16:19).  Similarly, in Leviticus 19:15 it states: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”  Nechama Leibowitz , in her introduction to the book of Deuteronomy comments that our Sages have taught us not to regard any text in the Torah as merely repetitive, and they elicit for us the separate and exclusive messages of each word and phrase. She examines the implications of the repeated references to favouring the “poor” and “mighty”. The word “poor” does not only mean the destitute in worldly goods. Here is the interpretation of our sages on the text in Exodus 23:   If a disreputable and a decent person stand before you in judgement do not say that since he is a disreputable, I shall view his cause unfavourably , but “thou shalt not pervert the judgement of thy poor” – he who is poor in good works (mitzvot). The judge, Leibowitz explains, has to limit his consideration to the parties standing before him in court and take no account of a person’s past, but weigh up the matter objectively on the basis of the facts presented to him. We find a similar duplication in the case of the admonition not to favour the poor man. In Exodus, we are bidden not to favour the poor man in his cause; in Leviticus not to respect the person of the poor nor favour the person of the mighty. Malbim, who specializes in clarifying the subtle differences in apparently synonymous expressions in the Torah directed his expertise to explaining our text: He says that the phrase ‘nesi’at panim’ (“lifting up the face” translated in our text by “respect the person”) implies overlooking some transgression or unsavoury matter. The word “favour” comes from a Hebrew root meaning external beauty (hadar) referring to whatever is attractive in man’s eyes. It is the way of the world to make allowances for poverty and to pay respect to external appearances. The Torah therefore forewarned us against both these pitfalls. But it could be argued that though forbidden to make allowances for the poor in the question of a lawsuit, it is permissible to pay him honour and give him respect, so that his opponent should forego some of his claim. For this reason, the Torah states that it is forbidden, too, to favour i.e. to honour the poor in his cause.​​​​​​​

~Devorah Abenhaim

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

]]> https://www.bethzion.com/parashat-chukat-balak/ Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:19:48 +0000 https://www.bethzion.com/?p=709708 ​​​​​​​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

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

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

The Lubavitcher Rebbe says that it is necessary for us to examine the reason why the Jewish people had to wander for 40 years in the wilderness. When the spies gave a negative report about the Land of Israel, the Jewish people were reluctant to enter the land God had promised them. God, therefore, punished the Jews with 40 years of wandering and decreed that those who had been unwilling to enter Israel would not be allowed to do so. But why did God choose a wilderness for their wandering, as opposed to another location?

A wilderness, the Rebbe explains, is uninhabited by man, and indeed, the desert that the Jewish People wandered through is described as “a great and terrible wilderness: snakes, poisonous serpents and scorpions, and thirst without water to quench.” The Children of Israel, through their travels, were charged with transforming that wilderness and purifying the negative forces that still had their hold on the Jewish people. The cloud that preceded them as they traveled destroyed the snakes, serpents and beasts that threatened their existence. By overcoming the obstacles in the desert the Jews brought light and Godliness into the world. The uninhabited wilderness became the dwelling place, for 40 years, of the millions of Jews who had just left Egypt, and the “unsown land” was blessed with water from Miriam’s well, causing all kinds of plants and trees to flourish.

The commandment to count the Levites charged with transporting the Sanctuary, underscored and gave spiritual strength to this higher purpose — the transformation of a wilderness into an inhabited land. This, too, is the responsibility of every Jew, in every era, no matter where he may live, to transform and elevate his surroundings by infusing them with holiness. If at times it appears that we are surrounded by insurmountable forces, we are to remember the mission with which we have been charged and the special Godly powers we are given to accomplish it. Just as the Children of Israel traveled from place to place by Divine command, so too is every Jew, by Divine Providence, faced with precisely those obstacles and challenges he is charged with overcoming. The Torah assures us that through our actions, we can succeed in turning any wilderness into a flourishing dwelling place for God.

We also learn from the fact that the Levites were not counted or required to carry the Sanctuary until the age of 30, that it is never too late to try to improve oneself. Even if our behavior has been less than admirable and undisciplined — in the category of “wilderness” — we must never become dejected and despair of achieving our spiritual goals. Once the decision to improve is made, God gives us the strength to serve Him, purify ourselves, and uncover the Godliness concealed within.

~Devorah Abenhaim

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

According to rabbinic commentary, the way in which the census is taken, head by head, instills a feeling of self-worth and pride in each individual person. Moses could have instructed the heads of each family to report their number to him. Instead Moses counted each of the 603,550 Israelite men. This method certainly does not seem to be the most effective means of counting. And yet we can see that it was an important way for Moses to connect with each individual in a personal way.

Rabbi Lerner of Hillel Wisconsin explains: ‘Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr., in their book, In Search of Excellence, wrote, “Treat people as adults. Treat them as partners; treat them with dignity; treat them with respect. Treat not capital spending and automation as the primary source of productivity gains. These are the fundamental lessons from excellent companies…” In other words, “If you want productivity and the financial reward that goes with it, you must treat your workers as your most important asset.” (A Torah Commentary For Our Times, p. 13, edited by Harvey J. Fields) Not only is this sound business advice, it is a very Jewish way to treat other people. So when we are involved in other people’s lives, let’s make sure our actions count.’

The Torah says,” These are the offspring of Aaron and Moshe on the day Hashem spoke to Moshe at Sinai: These are the names of the sons of Aaron…” Event though the verse begins by saying “These are the offspring of Aaron and Moshe” it only enumerates and identifies the offspring of Aaron. Rashi cites the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin which says that because Moshe taught Torah to the sons of Aaron they are counted as his children also. As it states, “If a person teaches Torah to his friend’s child it is as if he fathered that child.” Teaching Torah in this context means that the majority of the child’s Torah knowledge comes from his teacher and that the teacher is also the child’s mentor.

Rabbi Kalatsky asks: “The question is why is this principle so important for us to know that the Torah needs to teach us it from the verse dealing with the offspring of Aaron and Moshe? The answer is that the only way that Torah itself can be transmitted and internalized is through a rebbe. Just as the sons of Aaron became the sons of Moshe only through the transmission of Torah from Moshe so too the student becomes the son and the extension of his rebbe through is teaching and mentoring. It is only through this transmission that Torah can impact the individual and transform his essence. Therefore the verse in Pirkei Avos, “Make for yourself a rebbe and acquire a friend” is more than just “good advice”. It is a fundamental aspect of Judaism and the transmission of Torah from generation to generation. “

~Devorah Abenhaim