Words in the Desert: Earning One's Place and the Torah Portion of Pinchas

B"H

This week's Torah portion begins with the description of the great reward given to Pinchas for his dramatic act of killing the prince of the tribe of Shimon and the Midianite princess with whom he was openly having relations. In doing so, he stopped the plague that had engulfed the Jewish people. The plague had resulted also from the worshipping of the Midianite idol known as Baal Peor. The reward that Pinchas receives is nothing less than Kehunah, the priesthood.

There is, however, somewhat of mystery to the reward given. One would think that Pinchas, son of Elazar, the Kohen Gadol, would already be considered a Kohen. Rashi explains:

10. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 11. Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal.  12. Therefore, say, "I hereby give him My covenant of peace. 13. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his God and atoned for the children of Israel." 

RASHI:  an eternal covenant of kehunah: Although the kehunah had already been given to Aaron’s descendants, it had been given only to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their children whom they would beget after their anointment. Phinehas, however, who was born before that and had never been anointed, had not been included in the kehunah until now. And so, we learn in [Tractate] Zevachim [101b],“Phinehas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.”
 
Why is it that Aaron's sons, as well as future generations, received the priesthood automatically, while Pinchas had to earn it?
 
We know that in spirituality, certain positions and even character traits are inherited. Judaism itself is something inherited from our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Those that wish to join our people (converts), must earn that right through what is often a long and cumbersome process.

The Torah states that the priesthood was given to Yocheved for her bravery in saving the Jewish newborn babies and ignoring Pharaoh's orders. This reward materialized with Aharon, her eldest son, who showed great initiative in meeting his brother Moshe and being an essential part of the redemption process. As we learn in Pirkei Avot, Aharon himself embodied the ideals of the covenant of peace: He "loves peace and pursues peace, loves the creations and brings them closer to the Torah."

Why then was Pinchas left out? One can certainly assume that he had already inherited the same qualities (from Yocheved and Aharon) that Elazar and the other Kohanim had inherited.

Perhaps the answer is that Hashem wanted to give Pinchas an additional reward and connection to the Kehunah. To earn something, as opposed to getting it as an inheritance, is certainly a lot more special. Yes, the qualities were there all along. However, because Pinchas was able to specifically do something to become a Kohen, it was that much more special.

The same is true regarding converts, as well as our final redemption. Yes, converts have the qualities necessary to become Jewish all along (their souls too were at Sinai), but when they become Jewish through their own efforts, it's that much more special. Yes, Hashem has the ability to redeem us at any moment, but when we put in our own efforts, and share in its coming into being, we will value it that much more. And so will He.  





 

Words in the Desert: Horrible Bosses and the Torah Portion of Balak

B”H


This week's Torah portion is about the greatest prophet among the gentiles, Bilaam, and the evil king Balak, that hired him to curse the Jewish people. Instead of a curse, Bilaam delivers one of the most beautiful blessings ever delivered to our people. 

The Shem M'Shmuel states that Balak and Bilaam were trying hard to nullify everything that Avraham, Itzchak and Yaakov accomplished, and prevent the Jewish people from entering our Promised Land.

The parallels between Avraham and Bilaam are quite extraordinary. Avraham is told that whoever blesses him will be blessed and whoever curses him will be cursed. About Bilaam it states, whoever he curses will be cursed and whoever he blesses will be blessed. 

When embarking on a mission, the Torah states that Avraham arose early in the mourning and saddled his donkey. Almost the same words are used in describing Bilaam's preparations:

21. In the morning Balaam arose, saddled his she-donkey and went with the Moabite dignitaries.
Rashi picks up on this parallel and comments on the above verse: 

saddled his she-donkey: From here [we learn] that hate causes a disregard for the standard [of dignified conduct], for he saddled it himself. The Holy One, blessed is He, said, “Wicked one, their father Abraham has already preceded you, as it says, 'Abraham arose in the morning and saddled his donkey’” (Gen. 22:3). - [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 8, Num. Rabbah 20:12]

Another striking parallel is that both men took with them two young men to accompany them in their mission. Rashi's comments in both passages regarding this are very similar, but far from identical. Regarding Abraham, it states:

3. And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey, and he took his two young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for a burnt offering, and he arose and went to the place of which God had told him.

RASHI - his two young men: Ishmael and Eliezer, for a person of esteem is not permitted to go out on the road without two men, so that if one must ease himself ["go to the bathroom"] and move to a distance, the second one will remain with him. 

Regarding Bilaam:

22. God's wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of the Lord stationed himself on the road to thwart him, and he was riding on his she-donkey, and his two servants were with him.  

RASHI - and his two servants were with him: From here we learn that a distinguished person who embarks on a journey should take two people with him to attend to him, and then they can attend to each other.

Why does Rashi change the wording, regarding Bilaam. Why is it necessary to state that the servants of Avraham will need to distance themselves and go to the bathroom, while regarding Bilaam it says that they will attend to each other. Wouldn't one expect the more "respectful" (non-bathroom) language to be used regarding Avraham and not Bilaam?

The answer is that Avraham's encampment, like that of the Jewish people, was holy. One of the laws regarding a holy encampment is that one may not defecate among it. One must distance oneself and cover the excrement. The servants of Avraham would have to distance themselves when going to the bathroom. Although Bilaam praises the Jewish encampment for being holy, his own encampment was not. Quite the contrary, it was of the utmost impurity, and there was no need whatsoever to distance it from filth.

Similarly, Avraham's servants had a gracious and generous master, someone who knew their limits and would not overwhelm them. When one had to leave, the other would be able to attend to him. Bilaam was self-centered egotistical and the servants needed each other just to be able to cope with their master's vain demands, which most likely were anything but realistic, as we see regarding his interaction with his mule.

As Pirkei Avot makes clear, we must always strive to be students of Avraham, staying holy and pure, and deserving of the highest blessings, that had to be brought down through the impure mouth of the unholy Bilaam.

Words in the Desert: Miriam, the Red Heifer, and the Torah Portion of Chukat

B”H


This week's Torah portion begins with the description of the purification ritual of the "Red Heifer" followed by mentioning of the death of Miriam. Rashi notes the juxtaposition of these two subjects in verses regarding Miriam and states as follows:

1. The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.

RASHI - Miriam died there: Why is the passage relating Miriam’s death juxtaposed with the passage of the Red Cow? To teach you that just as sacrifices bring atonement, so the death of the righteous secure atonement. — [M.K. 28a].

The parallels between Miriam and the Red Heifer appear to go beyond the idea of atonement for the Jewish people. The Red Heifer appears related to atonement for Miriam herself. The Red Heifer is said to be an atonement for the cardinal sin of idolatry, related to the Golden Calf (a young cow), but it also appears to be related to a sin that is equal to all three cardinal sins (idolatry, murder, and adultery): Lashon HaRah, evil speech. Miriam's words regarding Moshe, even though they were said with the best of intentions, is the quintessential example of Lashon HaRah. Below are two verses that recount the occurence and Miriam's punishment. The opening verse of the story and the last one:

1. Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses regarding the Cushite woman he had married (lit. “taken”), for he had married (lit. “taken”) a Cushite woman.

…

15. So Miriam was confined outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not travel until Miriam had entered.

Regarding the Red Heifer, the first verses of our Torah portion contain very similar language to the above:

1. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying:
2. This is the statute of the Torah which the Lord commanded, saying, Speak to the children of Israel and have them take for you a perfectly red unblemished cow, upon which no yoke was laid.
3. And you shall give it to Eleazar the kohen, and he shall take it outside the camp and slaughter it in his presence.
4. Eleazar the kohen shall take from its blood with his finger and sprinkle it toward the front of the Tent of Meeting seven times.

Rashi's comments also parallel Miriam and her actions towards Moshe:

RASHI - This is the statute of the Torah: Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, “ What is this commandment, and what purpose does it have?” Therefore, the Torah uses the term “statute.” I have decreed it; You have no right to challenge it. — [Yoma 67b]

and have them take for you: It will always be called on your name; 'the cow which Moses prepared in the desert.’- [Mid. Tanchuma Chukath 8, see Etz Yosef]

perfectly red: lit., red, perfect. It shall be perfect in redness, so that two black hairs disqualify it. — [Sifrei Chukath 5]

1) Just as Miriam was told by Hashem that she has no right to challenge Moshe's separation from his wife, so too, the Satan and the nations are told that they have no right to challenge the mitzvah of the Red Heifer.

2) Just as Miriam is introduced in the Torah as Miriam's sister, so to the Red Heifer will always be called by Moshe's name.

3) Just as Miriam attempted to disqualify Moshe's actions regarding his marriage to a "Cushite" (black) woman, which is repeated twice, so too, even just two black hairs disqualify a Red Heifer. 

There are other parallels between Miriam and the Red Heifer. Miriam is the ancestor of King David, who is described in the Torah as being red. She merited to have the line of David descend from her because she acted with pure unblemished faith before Pharaoh, when she did not obey his command to kill the newborn children of the Jewish people. 

Miriam was also from the Tribe of Levi, which did not have to serve as slaves in Egypt. She therefore had no yoke placed upon her.

It is interesting to note that in Book I of The Kabbalah of Time, Week 27, the week of the Cow, is very close to Miriam's yahrzeit. That week is also a week connected to purification through the Red Heifer, as it comes immediately prior to Passover.

Moshe's actions following the description of the Red Heifer and Miriam's death, appear to be a further attempt to spiritually fix what Miriam had done. After Miriam speaks to Aharon, Hashem appears and tells them:

6. He said, "Please listen [SHIMU NAH] to My words. If there be prophets among you, [I] the Lord will make Myself known to him in a vision; I will speak to him in a dream.

In this week's Torah portion, right after Miriam's death, there is no water for the people:

2. The congregation had no water; so they assembled against Moses and Aaron.
RASHI - had no water: From here [we learn that] all forty years they had the well in Miriam’s merit. — [Ta’anith 9a] 

(...)

10. Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock, and he said to them, "Now listen, [SHIMU NAH] you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?"

Moshe was trying, once and for all, to make the people stop doubting their leadership: "Please listen, understand!" The problem was that this time it was Moshe that did not properly understand - Hashem had said to use the staff to gather the people, but not to hit the rock... Miriam, whose merit the water had been provided until now, was known to speak (not hit) to crying children in the gentlest of manners:

 15. Now the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one who was named Shifrah, and the second, who was named Puah.



RASHI - Puah: This was Miriam, [called Puah] because she cried (פּוֹעָה) and talked and cooed to the newborn infant in the manner of women who soothe a crying infant. פּוֹעָה is an expression of crying out, similar to “Like a travailing woman will I cry (אֶפְעֶה) " (Isa. 42:14).

After all, knowing the power of words is the main lesson of the entire Book of Bamidbar.

Words in the Desert: Human Calculations and the Torah Portion of Korach

This week's Torah portion depicts Korach's rebellion against Moshe and Aharon and the Divine retribution that followed. Rashi makes an extensive comment that explains the nature of the rebellion, quoted below in most relevant part:

1. Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi took [himself to one side] along with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben.

RASHI - Dathan and Abiram: ... [Korach said] Who is entitled to receive the second [position]? Is it not I, who am the son of Izhar, who is the second brother to Amram? And yet, he [Moses] appointed to the chieftainship the son of his youngest brother! I hereby oppose him and will invalidate his word ...  He dressed [250 men] with cloaks made entirely of blue wool. They came and stood before Moses and asked him, “Does a cloak made entirely of blue wool require fringes [’tzitzith’], or is it exempt?” He replied, “ It does require [fringes].” They began laughing at him [saying], "Is it possible that a cloak of another [colored] material, one string of blue wool exempts it [from the obligation of techeleth], and this one, which is made entirely of blue wool, should not exempt itself? 

Korach was very smart. His logic was flawless. There was only one slight problem: the G-d of Israel is not limited to human logic. The main issue with Korach's dispute is not that he was wrong; people make mistakes all the time. The problem was that by limiting the entire situation to logic, he was not only debasing Moshe, but also Israel, the Torah, and G-d Himself. After all, Moshe did not make any decisions on his own. G-d was the One that appointed Moshe and his brother! Moshe did not decide that a cloak of Techelet requires Tzit-Tzit any more than he decided his role as leader. Korach's challenges put him on par with Dathan and Abiram, who our sages teach us, time and again failed to see the G-d's hand in everything that took place since the first moments of redemption from Egypt. It is therefore not coincidental that Rashi's comments are placed next to both of their names.

We also must open our eyes and realize that the events of our lives are truly Divinely ordained, and not simply a product of human calculations.

Words in the Desert: Ants, Grasshoppers and the Torah Portion of Shelach

Thank you to Daniel Najman for thinking of this question in Rashi.

The Torah portion for this week includes the disgraceful account of the spies. All but two of them (Calev and Yehoshuah) went about exploring the Land of Israel in the wrong way, coming back with a negative report. Their report, and the people's reaction to it, caused the Jewish people to wander an additional 40 years, and that entire generation did not enter the Land.

A particularly puzzling part of the spies' report is a comment about how they looked in the eyes of the former inhabitants:

33. There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, descended from the giants. In our eyes, we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes. 
It is one thing to state how they saw themselves compared to them (which is bad enough), but yet a whole other level of lack of emunah to think that the inhabitants themselves saw them in the same light. How could they know?

Rashi gives an answer to this inherent question by commenting as follows:

RASHI: and so we were in their eyes: We heard them telling each other,“There are ants in the vineyard who look like people.” - [Sotah 35a]

Rashi answers the above question but raises another. Why does the description change from "grasshoppers" to "ants."

Perhaps the answer is as follows: Depending on the context, being seen like an ant can also be a very great compliment. In Proverbs, King Solomon states, "Go to the ant and become wise." (Proverbs 6:6; Perek Shirah 6:6 also!)

Grasshoppers are generally considered pests and not good for the land. Ants are generally considered good and compatible with working the land. The spies, who actually wished to stay in the desert living a completely spiritual existence, were trying to say that we did not belong in the Land of Israel.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The spies had said, "The land we passed through to explore is a land that consumes its inhabitants..." They were afraid of its physicality and did not wish to be consumed by it. They did not comprehend that this was Hashem's will. He wants us to engage with the physical and elevate it. That is how we know if our spirituality is real in the first place.