meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Daat Zkenim/Torah/Daat Zkenim on Numbers/English/merged.txt"}
text: Daat Zkenim on Numbers
  דעת זקנים על במדבר
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  
  Daat Zkenim on Numbers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שאו את ראש בני ישראל , “take a census of the sum of Children of Israel;” according to Rav b’chor shor, this census was performed by means of each person included handing over a shekel, as opposed to the census in Exodus 30,13, where only the total number of Israelite males between the ages of 20 and 60 was of interest. Here we find that the number counted in each tribe is listed separately, and they were listed according to families, i.e. each individual was of consequence. In Numbers, in the fortieth year after the Exodus it was of interest to number of members of each tribe all of whom had replaced the generation that had been condemned to die in the desert. This latter count did not include a single person who had been counted by Moses and Aaron at this time.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  ויהיו בני ראובן בכור ישראל, “the number of males counted of the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn son was etc.” this is pointed out, as when it came to the marching in order of the tribes, Yehudah was the first. Reuven was mentioned here first is that he was Yaakov’s firstborn son.
  במספר שמות לגגלתם, “according to the number of their names, head by head.” Why does the word לגלגלתם occur only in connection with the members of the tribe of Reuven and Shimon, and none of the other tribes? The reason is that when Yaakov spoke to each of his sons prior to dying, he chided both Reuven and Shimon, instead of giving them an outright blessing. They were therefore in need of atonement, forgiveness. The function of counting by means of the silver coins was in order to achieve atonement, [although these descendants had no special need to atone for the sins of their forefathers. Ed.] At any rate, Moses wished to assure them that they had no longer any need for atonement.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  והלוים למטה אבותם לא התפקדו בתוכם, and the Levites according to their tribal affiliations had not been included in this census. The reason was that the basis of counting them was not the same; they were counted from thirty days and up instead from twenty years and up. They were also only counted from thirty years and up when they were ready to perform their duties. (Numbers 4,3). (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 1,12)
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  אך את מטה לוי לא תפקוד, “but do not count the tribe of Levi;” this verse excludes the tribe of Levi from the decree of requiring atonement for the sin of dying in the desert which was a decree that was going to be imposed on the males who had been adults at the time of the Exodus after the spies came back declaring that the people could not conquer the Land of Canaan. (Numbers 14,29) Seeing that would be so, G–d did not even want to count them here with the other tribes of Israel.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ואלה תולדות אהרן ומשה, “and these are the descendants of Aaron and Moses.” In other words, “these are the priests and their descendants and the Levites and their descendants.” The descendants of Aaron are listed separately at first, just as they have been in Chronicles I 23,13. Seeing that the sons of Moses were not separated in any way from the other Levites, they are included in the Levites described as the descendants of Moses’ father Amram, although Aaron was also a son of Amram.
  ביום דבר ה' את משה, “on the day on which the Lord had spoken to Moses.” This will be dealt with further on.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  'לפני ה, “before the Lord;” Rabbi Yochanan queried this wording, asking if Nadav and Avihu had indeed died “before the Lord, i.e. while performing service in honour of the Lord?” He therefore concludes that when righteous peple have to die, their death is as difficult for the Lord to come to terms with as if they had died while performing service to the Lord. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 2,24).
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  שנים ועשרים אלף, “twenty two thousand.” This number corresponds to the number of angels that formed G–d’s entourage when He descended to Mount Sinai at the time of the revelation of the Ten Commandments. We have an allusion to this in Psalms 68,18: רכב אלהים רבותים אלפי שנאן, “the Lord’s chariots, myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands.” (Compare Talmud, tractate Avodah Zara folio 3) The Talmud there suggests that the spelling of the word be amended to read שאינן instead of שנאן. The meaning of רבותים אלפי, is 22000. Seeing that the Lord, with His knowledge of the future was aware that the Israelites would all serve the golden calf with the exception of the 22000 Levites, He took only 22000 of His angels with Him when He revealed Himself at Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  ולקחת חמשת חמשת שקלים לגלגלת, “you will take five shekels apiece pr head;” this would be the method by which a census of the Jewish people would be performed also in future generations whenever the need for this arose. If you were to ask why the Levites did not redeem their respective first male children, as did the members of the other tribes, the answer is that all the Levites throughout the generations were descendants of the Levites of this generation who had not become contaminated at the time of the golden calf, so that no residue of that sin cleaved to them, as opposed to the descendants of the other tribes. The firstborn males of the other tribes, are not necessarily descendants of the firstborn who had once been redeemed, so that to be on the safe side all have to be redeemed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  וכסו בו את ארון העדות , “they will cover with it the Ark of the Testimony;” at the end of verse six, the Torah adds: ושמו בדיו, “they shall set the staves thereof.” This means that these staves would be attached to the Holy Ark, but not in the ordinary sense of the words, seeing that the Torah, in Exodus 25,15 had already decreed that these staves were never to be removed from the Holy Ark.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  נשא את ראש בני גרשון גם הם, “take the sum of the sons of Gershon, also;” seeing that on the first occasion, (Numbers 3,17) when the Levites were counted from 30 days old and up, the Gersonides were listed first, (seeing he was the oldest of sons of Levi, as per Genesis 46,11) whereas here when only the ones thirty years and older were counted and Kehot was counted first, (seeing that he performed the most holy tasks of the Levites), the words גם הם, “they also,” were added here to show that this section of the Levites also was counted.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  על פי ה' ביד משה, “at the command of G–d, through Moses.” The counting of the sons of Kehot and the sons of Merari are described as having been done by Moses, whereas when it came to the counting of the sons of Gershon, the Torah only wrote: “at the command of the Lord,” without adding the words: “through Moses.” What is the reason for this? During the previous paragraph in verse 18, the Torah had written: וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן, “the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, whereas in this paragraph G–d had only spoken to Moses; when the sons of Merari were counted, (verse 29) no mention was made of this having been at the command of G–d; it was necessary therefore to inform us that that count had also been commanded by the Lord. In order to make up for the omission of mentioning that the sons of Merari had also been counted at the command of the Lord, the Torah had to add that also the last section of Levites to be counted  the sons of Gershon, had been counted at the express command by G–d to Moses.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  לעבוד עבודת עבודה, “who were subject to the duties of service and porterage. Seeing that the specific tasks performed by the priests included the slaughtering of the sacrificial animals, removing their skins, and the cutting up of the various parts of them, the Levites were commanded to perform auxiliary tasks as detailed in by Ezra in the Book of in Chronicles II 29,34 in connection with the Passover festival celebrated under the reign of King Chizkiyahu, when due to the few number of priests available, the Levites were called upon to help in skinning the many animals that had been slaughtered on that day.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  מזכרת עון, “as a reminder of an iniquity committed.” Other types of meal offerings are described as לכפר עון, “to atone for an iniquity committed.” We know of a מנחת חוטא “meal offering of a sinner;” מנחת נדבה “a voluntary meal offering;” these meal offerings are accompanied by oil and לבונה, frankincense, in order for that offering resulting in a pleasant fragrance, ריח ניחוח, in order to remind the Lord of the merits of the donor. Seeing that the mandatory offering discussed here is not intended to remind G–d of the donor’s merits but her husband brings his wife to the priest as an accuser, the offering only serves as a reminder of his sin. [It is not clear yet at this point if the wife was guilty of serious misconduct. Ed.] (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 15)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  מאשר חטא על הנפש, “for having sinned through contact with a corpse ”The incident is best compared to Judges 20,16: קולע אל השערה ולא יחטיא, “warriors accurate sling a stone and not to miss a hair that their arrow was aimed at.” Just as there are no warriors that are so accurate, so for a person when imbibing wine, it is impossible not to be affected by its effect on the body. In our verse, the Nazir, if he had been more circumspect would not have exposed himself to contact with a dead body. [His guilt, of course, was not intentional. Ed.]
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  יברכך ה' וישמרך, “may the Lord bless you and keep you safe;” you should be blessed with material wealth, and be able to fulfill many of the commandments of the Torah. The word שמר is interpreted in the same way in Exodus 12,17, ושמרתם את המצות, “you are to observe the commandments.” (compare Mechilta there) An alternate interpretation: יברך, “may He bless you with sons;” וישמרך, “and may He bless you with daughters,” (who require much more protection.)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון, “and the prince who was the first one to present these offerings, etc.” The Torah underlines the fact that Nachshon was the first of the twelve princes to present this offering, although merely reading the list would have made this clear, as it wanted us to know that although he did not possess the seniority to be the first, he was accorded that honour. Seeing that in the future the tribe of Yehudah would provide the first Royal dynasty with the appointment of King David, this development, as predicted by Yaakov on his deathbed, is hinted at here. Alternately, he was accorded this honour seeing that he was the brother-in-law of Aaron the High Priest.
  ביום הראשון, “on the first day, which was the first day of the month of Nissan.”
  
  Verse 13
  
  וקרבנו, “and his offering;” the prefix letter ו in this verse is superfluous. [i.e. available for exegesis. Ed.] The Rabbis understand it, i.e. “and his,” as a warning to Nachshon not to allow this honour to go to his head and to boast about it. [The fact that he is the only one of the princes presenting these offerings not to be given his title, is evidence of his modesty. Ed.]
  'קערת כסף אחת וגו, “one silver dish;” the weight of this dish, i.e. one hundred and thirty shekels, is an allusion to Yocheved, Moses’ mother’s age at the time she gave birth to him.
  מזרק אחד כסף, “one silver basin, etc.,” the basin’s weight, i.e. seventy shekels, is an allusion to the seventy elders who assisted Moses in his arduous task of leading his people.
  שניהם מלאים סלת בלולה בשמן, “both of which, i.e. the dish and the basin, filled with incense mixed with oil;” in order that we should not think that Aaron was inferior to Moses, the Torah adds the word: מלאים, “filled,” i.e. one was equal to the other.
  
  Verse 14
  
  כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטורת, “one golden pan ten shekels in weight.” The number “ten,” is an allusion to the Ten Commandments. Moses had received these Ten Commandments [inscribed on the Tablets, Ed.], which are symbolised here by the pleasant fragrance of the incense. It is possible to prove from this wording that when the sages said that the cup of wine that accompanies the reciting of the grace after the meal is worth 40 gold pieces. (Compare Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 87) Our verse therefore is to be understood as follows: the letter כ in the expression כף אחת, numerical value 20, represents 20 of the 100 benedictions we are to pronounce each day. The letter ף in the word כף, numerical value 80, total 100. It follows that the cup of blessing, כוס של ברכה, recited over the meal which consists of four separate blessings, is worth 40 shekels of gold.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ולזבח השלמים, “and as the peace offerings, etc.” this part of the offering symbolised the entire Torah, as it has been described as “peace” by Solomon in Proverbs 3,17: וכל נתיבותיה שלום, “and all her paths are peace.”
  בקר שנים, “two oxen;” a hint at the Torah, whose principles have been spelled out on the two Tablets.
  אילים חמשה, עתודים חמשה, “five rams and five he-goats.” An allusion to the five commandments engraved on each of the two Tablets.
  כבשים בני שנה חמשה,”five yearling sheep, during the first year of their lives.” This is an allusion to the Five Books of Moses. Whenever the word עתודים appears it is not spelled with letter ו as it is spelled here. Our sages said that this is to remind us that on this particular day when Nachshon offered his consecration offering there were six things that had never occurred previously in human history. 1) It was the first day that the priests began to function as such. 2). Nachshon was the first of tribal princes to function in that capacity. 3) He was the first of the Israelite people to present his offering next to the Tabernacle. 4) It was the first day of the first month in the Jewish calendar. 5) It was the first anniversary of the Exodus from Egypt. 6) It was the first day when it became forbidden to offer sacrifices to the Lord anywhere but in the Tabernacle. Private altars became taboo, even if the sacrifice offered was addressed to Hashem. Our author adds that this is what he had found (not quoting the source) He adds that he does not quite agree, quoting Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 10, having said that this day had been crowned with 10 crowns. It would follow that more than 6 items in human history occurred on that day for the first time.- In light of the above, it appears to me that the word וקרבנו, “and his offering,” is intended as a warning to Nachshon not to be proud of having been the first of the princes to be allowed to offer this sacrifice. The letter ו at the beginning of that word is a hint at the six outstandingly righteous descendants of Nachshon in the future, which I have explained earlier and which are found in Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 13,7-9. As to the reason why he and all the other princes offered relatively inexpensive offering animal offerings, [apart from the expensive gifts which were not destined for the altar, obviously, Ed.] this may best be understood by a parable. When a king set out on a journey, his servants provided him with the minimum food and other necessities in order to make his journey pleasant. To the king’s question: “is this how you think you can accord me the honour due me,?” His servants replied: “this is what we provide at the time when you set out on the journey. Once you will have arrived at your destination, we will, of course, honour you far more appropriate to your achievements. When the Tabernacle was erected, the princes offered relatively inexpensive gifts. They explained that as long as the people were still in the desert they were not able to honour the Lord in the manner fitting for Him. As soon as the permanent Temple would be built, they would demonstrate that they would honour Him in style, as can be seen from the inauguration ceremonies when Solomon’s Temple was built, as described in Kings I, chapter eight at length. This is also what the Psalmist referred to in Psalms 51,20; “the You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness burnt and whole offerings; then bulls will be offered on Your altar. Similar consecration rites also were performed in the days of Ezra, when the second Temple was inaugurated. (Ezra, 6,17). (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 13,1)
  
  Verse 18
  
  ביום השני הקריב ...נשיא ישכר, “on the second day the prince of Issachar offered his inaugural offering; [an identical one as were those of all the twelve princes. Ed.] The reason that this tribe was accorded the honour of being the second, although according to seniority he was far younger, was that the members of this tribe excelled in Torah knowledge as has been testified to in Chronicles I 12,32: ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים, “and from among the members of the tribe Issachar, who knew how to interpret the signs of the times.” [Whereas the other tribes all sent delegations of between 20000 and 10000 for the official coronation of King David, Issachar sent only two hundred, who made up in quality for what they lacked in quantity. Ed.] This is also the reason why the word הקרב which is always spelled with the letter י after the letter ר is spelled defectively here. Rashi offers a different reason for this
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  ביום השביעי נשיא לבני אפרים, “on the seventh day (it was the turn) the prince of the tribe Ephrayim.” This day was the Sabbath, as the first day of these inaugural offerings was presented on the first day of the week, to symbolise the day on which G–d began to create the universe we live in. Seeing that the original Joseph had been observing the Sabbath, long before it had become designated a day of rest for the Jewish people, a descendant of his was honoured by presenting his offering on that day. The sages deduce the fact that Joseph observed the Sabbath from Genesis 43,16 in which the word, והכן, “he had prepared it,” appears an allusion to the fact that the animals he served his brothers had been slaughtered and prepared on the day before. The Torah, in Exodus 16,5, had instructed the Jewish people to prepare for the first Sabbath after the manna fell from heaven and to prepare their food from it before the onset of the Sabbath, seeing that they had received a double portion on that day. Normally, no offerings of individuals are allowed to be offered on the Sabbath. Seeing that the founding father of the tribe of Ephrayim had honoured the Sabbath when this had not been required, the Sabbath honoured him by allowing him to offer his sacrifice on that day. This is also recalled in Psalms 60,9: לי גלעד ולי מנשה ואפרים מעוד ראשי יהודה מחוקקי, “Gilead and Menashe would be Mine; Ephrayim My chief stronghold, Yehudah My scepter.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that if someone would question the right of Elijah the prophet to have built a private altar on Mount Carmel in his confrontation with the priests of the Baal during a period when this was absolutely forbidden, the psalmist answered that לי גלעד, “He did it at My command.” Rabbi Shimon be Lakish added: if someone were to tell you that Gideon performed seven acts all of which were violations of the Torah’s commandments, including building a private altar, sacrificing on it though he was not a priest, using wood from an idolatrous tree for firewood, etc; (compare Judges chapters 6-25-26) this is what the psalmist had in mind when he said: לי מנשה, Menashe is Mine, i.e. Gideon from the tribe of Menashe did all this at G–d’s instruction. If someone were to tell you that Joshua desecrated the Sabbath when he marched around Jericho for seven days in a row, one of which must have been the Sabbath, (Joshua 6, 3-4) all of this was done at the express command of Hashem It is therefore not so strange to read that G–d permitted the “desecration” of the Sabbath on this occasion by allowing the prince of the tribe of Ephrayim to present his inaugural offering on the Sabbath. This incident is referred to by the psalmist quoted earlier as: “Yehudah My scepter” יהודה מחוקקי. If someone were to tell you that David violated a negative commandment, G–d said that what David did was similar to what a scribe does when he inscribes (as an illustration what is forbidden to write on the Sabbath) The psalmist refers to this in Psalms 51,15, with the words: אלמדה פשעים דרכיך וחטאים אליך ישובו, “by my actions I teach the transgressors Your ways, and the sinners will return to You.” Midrash Tanchuma section 28, on our portion goes as far as quoting The Talmud in tractate Avodah zarah folio 4 where we find Rabbi Yochanan saying, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai having said: “if David became guilty of a gross misconduct in the episode with Bat Sheva, this had been allowed to happen only in order to teach the common people that it is possible to do penitence, both as an individual sinner, i.e. David, or, as in the case of the people sinning at the golden calf, for a community, to do penitence, without the world having come to an end for either that individual or that community.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  בשנה השנית....ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו, “in the second year after the Exodus....let the Children of Israel offer the Passover sacrifice at its appointed time;” in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim chapter one folio 6, the question is asked why the Torah first wrote the chapter about the census of the people in the first chapter of this Book, although it took place a month later than the observance of the first anniversary of the Exodus. The answer given there is that the Torah is not obligated to record events in their chronological order. Granted that this is true, it is nonetheless in order to enquire why the Torah departs from the chronological order when it does so. The reason may be that seeing the Book of Leviticus, containing all the commandments to be performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, and the tasks performed by the Levites were performed either at or near the Tabernacle, it was considered appropriate to continue with a subject closely related to that discussed in the Book of Leviticus. The flags, the order in which the Israelites encamped around the Tabernacle, were a natural continuation of what had been dealt with in the Book of Leviticus. Rashi explains that the reason why this Book does not commence with the observance of the Passover is that it draws attention to the fact that this was the only time in forty years that the Israelites did observe the anniversary of the Exodus in the manner prescribed. It is therefore an implied criticism of the Jewish people. If you were to ask that actually mandatory observance of the Passover was linked to residence in the land of Israel as spelled out in Exodus 13,5: והיה כי יביאך ה' אל ארץ הכנעני.....ועבדת את העבודה הזאת בחדש הזה. שבעת ימים תאכל מצות וגו', "it will be when Hashem will bring you to the land of the Canaanite........then shall you perform this ritual. For seven consecutive days you are to eat unleavened bread, etc.” So where is the implied criticism? Not only this; even this instance of offering the Passover was observed only after the Israelites had received specific instructions in verse one of our chapter. We would have to understand Rashi as implying that if the Israelites, due to their shortcomings, had not been forced to delay conquest of the land of the Canaanites for forty years, they could have fulfilled this commandment consecutively during all these years already.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  מאסף כל המחנות, “as the rearguard of all the camps;” the word מאסף, which literally means “ingathering,” was chosen here as this tribe was responsible to see to it that any stragglers who for one reason or another had not been able to keep up with the pace of the rest of the people, would not be left behind.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  כי על כן ידעת חנותנו במדבר, “for you know how we can best make camp in the desert.” [Moses tries to make Yitro feel that his presence has become indispensable for the Jewish people. Ed.] He also implied that seeing that his father-in-law had become a witness to the miracle G–d performed daily for His people, how could he leave them at this juncture?
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  וארון ברית ה' נוסע לפניהם, “and the Holy Ark of the Covenant with Hashem traveled in front of them. During each night the Divine cloud was resting above the Holy Ark. Clearly the Israelites had not been able to travel without resting for three days and three nights. Jewish law rules that if someone swears an oath that he would not three for three consecutive days, i.e. for 72 hours, he will be subjected to the penalty of 39 lashes, as he undertook something he knew he would not be able to fulfill. (Talmud, tractate Shavuot, folio 25.) The cloud would resume its position above the camp of the Israelites in the morning, and the Levites would make the necessary preparations before the main body of the people resumed travelling. This is the plain meaning of the words: נוסע לפניהם, “was travelling ahead of them.” The Holy Ark was a distance of three days’ walking on foot in front of the main body until the people came to Kadesh in the desert of Paran. (Numbers 13,3) From then on they travelled without the Holy Ark, as we know from Numbers 14,44, when Moses did not allow the ones who were then willing to try and conquer the land of Canaan to take the Holy Ark with them. The meaning of the words: דרך שלשת ימים , is “a distance of three days’ march. This construction is also found when the Torah describes G–d as having created the universe in six days, i.e. ששת ימים. (Exodus 20,11)
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  'קומה ה' וגו, “rise up O Lord, etc.” this is a prayer that if enemies will gather to attack the Israelites they should be dispersed by G–d before carrying out their plans. If, for some reason they had already succeeded in massing, G–d should put them to flight. [In both instances Israel’s enemies are described as G–d’s enemies by definition. Ed.]
  
  Verse 36
  
  'ובנחה יאמר וגו, “and when it rested he would say, etc;” Moses would say when the cloud came to rest above the Tabernacle: ‘may the hundreds of thousands of Israelites rest in this place without diminishing in numbers. May their next departure find them without any of them being absent or missing.’ Compare (Deuteronomy 30,3)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “the people were like murmurers;” the people were already mourning the potential casualties they would incur when going into battle against the Canaanites in order to conquer their land. They were lacking in faith and dreading warfare.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember the fish, etc.” the word דגה for fish, we have found already in Yaakov’s blessing for Joseph and his children in Genesis 48,13: וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they multiply as fish on the face of the earth.” The Torah then lists details of the food the Israelites claimed to have had in abundance in Egypt, all for free.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך, that You should say to me: “carry them in your bosom;” Moses implies that if he had not been commanded to carry on in his position, he would by now have quit.
  
  Verse 13
  
  !תנו לנו בשר, “give us meat!” Their request was inappropriate, seeing that one of the qualities of the manna was that it assumed the taste of whatever the person consuming it wished it to taste like. We know this from Psalms 106,15: ויתן להם שאלתם, בשר., “He gave them whatever they had asked for.” The people had meat from sheep and oxen, as they had taken herds with them from Egypt, as stated Exodus 12,38: “and a mixed multitude went up with them, as well as very much livestock, both flocks and herds.” If you were to say that they had consumed all these herds and flocks in the desert, we have a verse in Numbers 32,1 according to which the tribes of Reuven and Gad had a surfeit of flocks and cattle. Seeing that this was so prompted Rabbi Shmuel to state that what they really lusted for were the women that had now become forbidden for them as wives, (sexual partners) since these laws had been promulgated. If they were described as lusting for “meat,” this shows how they saw in marital unions primarily the element of sexual unions. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 15, section 24). The Midrash there quotes Psalms 78,27: וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He made it rain upon them meat like dust, winged birds like the sands of the sea. Whenever the word שאר appears in the Torah, it is a euphemism for the sexual aspect of marriage, as we know from Leviticus 18,6: איש איש אל כך שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “none of you must approach sexually any kin of his,” The Midrash reinforces its interpretation by pointing out that the Torah, apparently gratuitously, added that the people cried למשפחותם, “on account of their families,” i.e. family members now out of bounds for them for the purpose of sexual union. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130). It was this that caused Hashem’s anger in verse 10, and Moses” displeasure. At that time Moses said to Hashem that up until that time he had the seventy elders who had been appointed already when he made ready to ascend Mount Sinai for the first time, as we know from Exodus 24,9, where Nadav and Avihu had been named as his assistants as well as seventy unnamed elders. Now, he said, there was no one left that he could call on to assist him. This is why he exclaimed: “I alone am unable to continue to carry this burden!” Nonetheless we are bound to ask what had happened to the seventy elders mentioned in Exodus chapter 24. We must conclude that they had been amongst the people who had been described as murmurers in verse one of our chapter where many people had died by heavenly fire as stated. We had read there in verse four that not only the mixed multitude of Egyptians who had joined the bandwagon of the Jewish people at the Exodus, but also בני ישראל, always an expression describing the elite of the Jewish people, had been included amongst those who had died then. There is a dispute amongst the sages if the people there described as אספסף, had been part of the mixed multitude or had been these seventy elders. According to one view the expression בקצה המחנה, normally translated as “at the outer edge of the camp,” had in fact been the elders whom at this point the Torah referred to euphemistically. Actually, they had been guilty of death by heavenly fire already from the event described in Exodus chapter 24. They too had been guilty of disrespect when experiencing a vision of the Divine glory, not only Nadav and Avihu, who had been named there. (Exodus 24,11) At the time, i.e. the revelation at Mount Sinai and the joyful atmosphere prevailing then, G–d did not wish to disturb these festivities by killing them. We find an allusion to this episode in Psalms 106,18: ותבער אש בעדתם, “fire consumed their congregation.” The expression עדה, “congregation,” is always reserved for describing the highest court of seventy. Compare Numbers15,24: ואם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, “and if an error was committed because the true situation had been hidden from the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the highest court, Sanhedrin. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 15,24)
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I do not have to look at my wretchedness.” Moses prefers to die immediately instead of his fate remaining tied to theirs.
  
  Verse 16
  
  אספה לי שבעים איש, “assemble seventy men for Me.” Why did G–d say: “for Me,” and why did He say: איש, “man,” singular mode, instead of אנשים, “men,”? In both instances the wording implies that the men selected were to be especially outstanding people. G–d Himself is described by Moses in his song of gratitude for the Israelites’ deliverance from the armies of Pharaoh as איש מלחמה, “man of war.” (Exodus 15,3) and when the Torah wishes to compliment his humility, it does so by calling him: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and the man Moses, was exceedingly humble.” We did not need to be told that Moses was a man; the Torah wished to add this word as a mark of Moses’ outstanding distinction. The Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin, folio 36, understands Numbers 11,16: והתיצבו שם עמך, “so that they may stand there with you,” as meaning that these men should be of a stature similar to that of Moses. [The word עמך in that verse was not really necessary, as it would have been understood automatically that these men were to stand there alongside Moses. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the word לי, refers to the fact that the whole universe belongs to Hashem. The function of the seventy men to be selected by Moses is to ensure that the universe and its people created by G–d will endure, i.e. that His rules for it should be observed. We have a verse in Amos 9,6: הבונה בשמים מעלותו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה, “He Who builds His chambers in the heavens, and founded His vault on the earth.” The prophet means that G–d’s creative work regarding the earth, was conditioned on people helping Him to keep it in shape. If earth were to collapse due to man’s failings, G–d would have no reason to keep the heavens going either. Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 15,24 illustrates this by the following parable. When palaces have been built on the decks of ships, as long as these palaces are connected to their bases, the ships, all is well, once the palaces have been detached from the ships, these ships have no reason for further existence.
  אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם, “whom you have known to be the elders of the people;” they allowed themselves to be beaten rather than to impose more hardships on their fellow Jews. Compare Exodus 5,14, regarding this. We have a tradition that anyone who deliberately suffers in order to spare fellow Jews suffering, will eventually be rewarded by being appointed to an important position, and will be granted a measure of Holy Spirit.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  וירדתי, “and I (the Lord) will descend, etc.” from this we learn that this day was as important for G–d as the day when He gave the Jewish people the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We know this as it is the only day that has also been described as G–d descending. Compare Exodus 19,11, where the Lord has been described as descending to Mount Sinai on the third day of the people preparing for that event. (Bamidbar Rabbah 15,25)
  ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will draw on the spirit that is on you, etc.;” what transpired now could be compared to a King who owned a beautiful orchard and had hired an expert to look after it all by himself. After a while this expert said to the owner that he could no longer fulfill this task all by himself, but that he wanted other guardians to share the burden with him The owner agreed with the condition that this expert would share the wages that had been paid to him thus far with his helpers as the King was not prepared to budget for additional expense for this orchard. G–d made it clear that he had equipped Moses with sufficient Holy Spirit for the task at hand, but that if he were prepared to distribute this mount of Holy Spirit also among the elders this was acceptable to Him. G–d had resented Moses’ implication that he had not been equipped with the tools necessary to lead this people successfully without additional helpers. Proof that this had been G–d’s attitude can be found by the fact that 40 years later when Moses appointed a successor, Joshua, G–d told him to appoint only one single successor, not a team of leaders. (Numbers 27,18) When Moses transferred his authority to Joshua after forty years to Joshua, as described in Numbers 27,18, this did not result in Moses “losing” any of the Holy Spirit residing within him. According to Bamidbar Rabbah,15,25, we must simply understand this as if a candle imparted its light to another candle, without thereby becoming even one iota less capable of giving of its light to its surroundings.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  לא יום אחד ....ולא עשרים יום, “not one day or even not twenty days, etc.”  Why did the Torah have to give us all these details, instead of simply writing that the people got quails lasting for thirty days? The days listed by the Torah here have to be viewed cumulatively, so that the quail episode extended for a period of 67 days. In the Jewish calendar year there are a total of 67 days which are holidays, i.e. the Sabbath days and the festivals. [This applies when the year has 354 days, seeing that it does not always have the same number of days. Ed.] The message is that on each of these days the consumption of meat is a mitzvah; on other days meat consumed on these days may have negative effects, as opposed to meat consumed in honour of the Sabbath or a festival. Personally, I prefer to understand the expression: לא יום אחד, “not one day, that there is one of those days, i.e. the Day of Atonement on which consumption of meat is forbidden. [The author continues in a somewhat forced manner to find justifications for each individual number listed. Since he has to resort to numbers which are appropriate only for the additional days for a festival observed in the Diaspora, and since at the same time he does not consider Purim as a day deserving be honoured by the eating of meat, I decided to skip this. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  'ויאמר משה שש מאות אלף וגו, “Moses said: six hundred thousand (men plus their families You will provide with meat?)” Many people are appalled at how Moses apparently questioned G–d’s ability to provide the people with such an amount of meat. This is why hagaon ha-rav Nissim suggests the following interpretation of this verse. Moses asked that while he was well aware of G–d’s ability to provide a quantity of meat to last the people for 30 days, but that seeing this meat was not provided by G–d as a gift but in order to make the meat something that revolted them, what was the point in letting so much meat rot, after a day or two, seeing they had no means to keep it edible? Not only that, but how could they collect all that meat in the single day that it materialized for them? Moses drew a comparison when he spoke about the fish in the ocean, saying that even if all of them could be trapped in a single net, no one could remove sufficient fish from that net in a single day to last the nation for thirty days.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  ?ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, Hashem said to Moses: “is there then a limit to the Lord’s power? You will see presently if My power is inadequate!” G–d implied that just as it was within His power to provide what He had said He would provide, so it was in His power to see to it that they collect it until His word has become fulfilled. This is the meaning of 11,31: ויטש על המחנה בדרך יום כה ובדרך יום כה סביבות המחנה וכאמתים על פני כל הארץ , “and He strewed them over the camp, a distance of a day’s walk in each direction and to the height of two cubits above the face of the earth.” The people did not even need to stretch out their hands and bow down in order to take hold of the quails. An alternate interpretation of Moses’ question if sheep and cattle were to be slaughtered for them, how could there be sufficient for their needs. Moses knew that at that time any meat which was not the result of having been slaughtered as a sacrifice for the Lord was forbidden for the people to eat. There were only a total of three priests available to slaughter the animals required on sacred soil, i.e. Aaron and his two surviving sons. How could they slaughter enough animals in one day to satisfy the craving of all the people? And, even supposing this could be done, seeing there was a strict time limit, maximum two days and a night, during which sacrificial meat was allowed to be eaten, how could they eat meat for thirty days? (verse 21) Moses’ statement regarding fish as an alternative to supplying meat was not meant as a question, but as a comment that such an alternative, not involving ritual killing of the fish which would not require priests, would also have presented great difficulties albeit miracles of a different kind. The people could never have collected enough fish in a day to last them for a month. G–d’s answer to Moses was simply that He would provide birds which did not require ritual slaughter by priests, as did cattle or flocks.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  וירץ הנער, “the lad ran;” the lad was Moses’ son Gershom.
  ויגד למשה אלדוד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה “he told Moses: “Eldod and Meydod are prophesying within the boundaries of the camp.” These two men were (half) brothers of Moses. When the Torah was given, and certain types of family members were no longer allowed to live in married union together, such couples separated in accordance with the law. This caused sorrow among such families as we know from verse 10 in our chapter where Moses is portrayed as listening to the weeping of families which had been broken up as a result of the new laws. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130.) Amram, Moses’ father, was also affected by these new laws, as when Pharaoh had decreed that all male Jewish babies were to be downed, he had divorced his wife Yocheved, who was his aunt. He had remarried and Eldod and Meydod were sons sired by him from this marriage. Their named reflected that they were compensations for a marriage broken up as a result of the prohibition to marry one’s aunt. [I find this hard to understand as the new laws came into existence after Moses, son of Yocheved, was at least 81 years old, and any children his father could have sired from another wife subsequently could not have been more than babies at the time when the demand aired by the Israelites for meat could have happened. How could such babies have prophesied, much less have been taken seriously if they did? Besides we have no reason to assume that Amram had left Egypt at the Exodus as his son Moses by Yocheved, who had married him at the age of 130, so how old must he have been at the time of the Exodus? Ed.] Our author claims to have found a manuscript of a certain Rabbi Amram, son of a Rabbi Hillel, who had lived in the land of Israel, in which the author writes as follows: “I have personally seen the graves of Eldod and Meydod brother of Aaron through his father’s side but not from the same mother.”’ Some scholars claim that Eldod is identical with a certain Elidod son of Kisslon, mentioned in Numbers 34,21. Meydod is supposed to be identical with Kemuel son of Shifton in verse 24 in that chapter. According to Midrash Tanchuma, section 12 on our portion both these men had humbled themselves in five different ways. Whereas the other seventy men who had drawn lots making them elders, practiced prophecy only on that day, (as indicated in verse 25 when the prophecy concerned the imminent arrival of the quails). Eldod and Meydad prophesied what would happen at the end of the forty years, i.e. Moses’ death and Joshua becoming his successor. They were rewarded by enjoying prophetic status for an indefinite period. According to some opinions they predicted details of the last war before the coming of the messiah, the war involving Gog and Magog. Whereas the other seventy elders did not enter the Holy Land, these two men did. We know that Kisslon and Kemuel entered the Holy Land (Numbers 34). The names of the other seventy elders were not mentioned by the Torah, whereas the names of these men were mentioned. The reason why the prophetic powers of the seventy elders ceased, was that they had been a “’branch” of Moses’ prophetic powers, whereas these two men received their prophetic power directly from G–d. The Holy Spirit is described as functioning when they were not in the vicinity of Moses. This is why the Torah describes their prophesying “inside the camp” not only while on sacred ground next to the Tabernacle. This is the conclusion arrived at in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 17. The author finds it difficult to believe that these two men had been half-brothers of Moses seeing that according to the Torah in Numbers chapter 34, Elidod and Kisslon were members of the tribe of Binyamin. Kemuel is described there as a member of the tribe of Ephrayim.
  
  Verse 28
  
  !ויאמר: אדוני משה כלאם, he said: “my lord Moses”. lock them up!” according to the plain meaning of the text, that only seventy elders were to be chosen according to G–d, the man described here as הנער, assumed that these two men must be false prophets, as there were already seventy such men apart from Eldod and Meydod. As a result, they deserved to be locked up pending judgment by the court.
  
  Verse 29
  
  'ויאמר לו משה וגו'...ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו, “and Moses said to him (the (נער, “I wish that all of the Lord’s people were prophets, etc.” Moses meant that possibly what these two men had prophesied was true. The reason that he felt that way was that the prophetic insights granted to the seventy men were part of what had been his portion of Holy Spirit, whereas the two men had received Holy Spirit directly from the source. In the first chapter of tractate Sanhedrin folio 17, the conclusion of the sages after a lengthy discussion of this episode is that if Eldod and Meydod had only predicted that Moses would die, the demand to lock up such a person would make sense, but if they also predicted that Joshua would lead the people into the Holy land, this would have violated the rule that no one is allowed to make new rules in the presence of his Mentor, i.e. to give Moses instructions whom to punish and whom not to punish. If Eldod and Meydod had predicted only that there would be a war involving Gog and Magog, what was wrong with that? Why should they have been locked up? The answer to this rhetorical question given is that such a prediction violates the rules of good manners. They would have given the impression that their prophetic insights extended way beyond those of Moses, their teacher and King. Perhaps, as suggested there in the Talmud, the meaning of the word כלאם, is: “impose upon them to become servants of the community,” and you will find that they will break down and die under that burden without any external assistance.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth, before it had been chewed, etc.;” to the question of why G–d waited this long before displaying His anger, the answer is that if He had reacted angrily sooner, the people would have interpreted His anger as proof that He was unable to meet their requests. Once He had proved that He could provide not only what they had asked for but more, He reacted with the anger that He had withheld up to then. We find an interesting verse in Psalms 78.31:ויהרוג במשמניהם, “He killed the healthy, fat ones among them.” The psalmist considers that the healthy young men amongst the people at that time, were more guilty than any other section of the people as they had lacked absolutely nothing, as testified to by their continued health and vitality even in the desert. The Torah describes some people dying while not even having swallowed the meat yet, others are described as eating from it for a whole month. How do we understand this? The moral level of different Israelites varied. The ones on the lowest level did not even get to swallow it, whereas those on higher levels died at a time appropriate to their respective moral standing.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke critically about Moses.” Seeing that it is a fact that women indulge more in loose talk, Miriam is mentioned here first, seeing that she was a woman.
  כי אשה כושית לקח, “for he had married a woman from the land of Cush.” (Ethiopia) According to Moses’ biography, Moses had been king in that country and his wife had been a queen in her own right previously. Moses had ruled over that land for a period of forty years (before coming to Midian) This is why the Torah reported Miriam and Aaron as speaking critically only of Moses (“did G–d only speak with Moses?”) They thought that seeing that G–d had spoken with Moses, Moses had felt that no Jewish woman was good enough for him to marry, i.e. that he had given himself airs. They did not criticise Moses for having married Tzipporah, as he had done so in circumstances when he was a refugee from Egyptian justice at the time.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  והאיש משה ענו מאד, “and the man called Moses was an extremely humble person.” The Torah testifies that Moses had not married the Cushite queen from a sense of pride, but that circumstances had led to that marriage. [It might have been decreed by heaven before he had been born, i.e. mazzal.] Even at this point, he remained humble by not responding to unwarranted criticism of him, until G–d acted as his advocate.
  ענו, the combined numerical value of the letters in this word is 248, a hint that there was not a bone in his body that was conceited. [We are supposed to have 248 limbs in our bodies. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  פתאום, “suddenly;” G–d reacted so immediately in order that Miriam and Aaron could not say that G–d’s reaction was due to Moses having complained about being slandered.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  'אם יהיה נביאכם ה, “if there be a prophet among you;” these words referred to their having said that they too were prophets, seeing that G–d had spoken to them both. G–d now proceeds to teach them that there are different levels of prophecy, of man’s intimacy with the Lord. G–d’s relationship with Moses, He explains, is of a different dimension altogether than that between Him and any other prophets. Other prophets receive a vision during a dream, and when waking up required the dream to be explained to them. They do not come face to face even with the vision, only with its reflection, mirror-like. In other words, they are told a parable and have to work out how the facts match what has been shown them as a parable. We find examples of this in Ezekiel 4,4, the prophet being instructed to lie on his left side. Or compare Daniel 8,13: “I heard a holy one speaking and the holy one was saying something to an anonymous one.” There are numerous examples in the Bible of such enigmatic communications emanating from the heaven but not clear in meaning. G–d tells Miriam and Aaron that Moses never receives a communication from Him which is not clear and its meaning beyond doubt.
  
  Verse 7
  
  לא כן עבדי משה, According to Targum Yonathan, this means that contrary to any other prophet, the entire nation always accepts everything Moses tell them in the name of Hashem, as having been relayed to him and conveyed by him without chance of anything having been added or omitted.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth;” according to Rashi, G–d told Miriam and Aaron that it was He who had expressly told Moses to divorce his wife. At the revelation as related in Deuteronomy 5,28, G–d had told Moses to send the people home to their wives, whereas He had told him: “you stand here with Me.” If that was what had transpired already then, what did Miriam and Aaron get upset about now that Moses had separated from his wife? What other choice did he have? We may have to understand what transpired as follows. Moses had separated from his wife before being told to do so. Seeing that we have a rule that we are allowed to carry out our desires, i.e. permissible desires, בדרך שאדם רוצה ליליך מוליכין אותו, “G–d lets a person pursue the choice he makes concerning his lifestyle.” [otherwise what is free will all about? Ed.] Having heard that Tzipporah had told Eldod and Meydod that Moses had already separated from her earlier, before being commanded by G–d to so, Miriam and Aaron were upset about that. They were convinced that G–d would not have commanded him to do so, unless he had indicated that he was willing to do so even without being commanded to.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  אל נא תהיא כמת, “let her not be like someone dead!” anyone afflicted with the disease known as tzoraat is considered as dead if this affliction is visible already at birth. The reason is that in such instances the affliction will never heal. As opposed to this, when the affliction is due to the person having committed a sin, it can heal as a result of repentance and prayer. We find, for instance that Pharaoh who had been afflicted with that disease for trying to rape Sarah, was healed as soon as he restored her to her husband.
  
  Verse 13
  
  א-ל נא רפא נא לה, “Heal her, please, O G–d, I beseech You!” the first word נא  is to be understood as a plea, whereas the second time Moses used the word נא it means: “now!”
  
  Verse 14
  
  תכלם שבעת ימים, “should she not be locked up for seven days?” According to Rashi, we are dealing here with a lesson in logic. If for insulting a parent the penalty is seven days of being ostracised, is it not logical that for insulting G–d the penalty must be at least ostracism for fourteen days?” G–d shows Moses that He is very considerate of Miriam by decreeing only seven days of such ostracism. Rashi raises the question that the so-called logic here is halachically incorrect, as we have a rule that this type of logic may not be applied to something being in excess of the basis for the comparison. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31) The sages say that man was created by three partners, G–d, his father, and his mother. The father supplies the semen, which later on forms bones and tendons, nails, brain and the eyes. This makes five parts. The mother supplies the blood, and the material forming the flesh. G–d provides the spirit and the soul, as well as the appearance of the face, eyesight, sense of hearing, ability to formulate thoughts into words, the lips, and the ability of the legs to walk. In other words, G–d makes ten contributions, twice as many as the father. This is why the number 14 appears here. It is not appropriate therefore that the punishment for Miriam, only a human being, should symbolise something Divine, but seven days of ostracism suffice, as they represent the part of father and mother in the development of the human being. Rabbi B’chor Shor raises the question that if everything that is serious is derived from something that is less serious, the kal vachomer principle, and that therefore the number 14 would symbolise a type of infinity, [like G–d. Ed] something that has no end, this would mean that a person stricken with tzoraat, who is examined at weekly intervals by the priest to determine the progress of the disease, would be condemned to carry that disease till he dies if it had not healed after the priest’s second inspection. Rabbi Baruch ben Yitzchok disagrees, saying that the two inspections by the priest cover a period of only thirteen days, as the seventh day is considered as belonging both to the first week and the second week. The difficulty with this interpretation is that we have no source for knowing that a father’s curse is limited to seven days, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse. From where did the Torah consider this as axiomatic? Perhaps the number seven as the length for such negative phenomena is based on the length a woman experiences ostracism during her menses. The period of active mourning for close relative is also limited to seven days. Still, this seven day mourning period is only of Rabbinic origin, not decreed by the Torah. Besides, another question, whence do we know that a father will spit in his daughter’s face as an indication of his displeasure with her behaviour, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse? Miriam’s father was not even alive anymore at that time! Upon reflection, I think there is no problem at all. The Torah simply posits that if her father had still been alive, and she had caused him great displeasure this is how he would have reacted. At any rate, there are sages who answer this problem by referring to Miriam’s father’s displeasure at the time of Moses’ birth at which time her father had hit her lightly on the head, asking her what had become of her prophecy, now that she had a brother who had to be drowned in the Nile? (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13) That incident resulted in her being ostracised for a period of seven days as we derive Exodus 2,4, from the words: ותתצב מרחוק. “she had to stand at a distance.” Just as a person stricken with tzoraat has to wait for seven days before the priest could declare him as healed, so the minimum period such ostracism lasts is seven days. As a result, even after having been declared healed, the formerly afflicted person has to wait for a period of seven days before he can rejoin the people as we read in Leviticus 14,8. This is also the verse that the Talmud based itself on above, as well as the Talmud in tractate Moed Katan folio 16.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  'איש אחד, איש אחד וגו, “one man each, etc.” no spy was dispatched from the tribe of Levi, seeing that this tribe would not receive an ancestral portion of land in the Holy Land.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  למטה יוסף, למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, the tribe of M’nashe; here “M’nashe is mentioned first, as the representative of that tribe who would prove to be one who slandered the Holy Land together with the majority of the spies, whereas Joshua, the representative of Ephrayim, the other half of the tribe of Joseph, although the favourite of Yaakov (Genesis 48,19) when he blessed the children of Joseph, was not lumped together with the other spies. (Compare Numbers 1,10, 32, and Numbers 26,28)
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses called (changed) the name of Hoshea to Yehoshua son of Nun. The Midrash Tanchuma, section 6 on this portion, in dealing with this change of name, writes as follows: “what prompted Moses to change the name of Hoshea to Y’hoshua by adding the letter י (equivalent the number ten) to his name? Moses foresaw that Calev, another spy who did receive his ancestral share in the Holy Land received one share, as detailed in the Book of Judges 1,20, seeing he had bothered to make a special detour at Chevron (Numbers 13,22) (“he,” sing. came to Chevron) whereas Joshua, who would lead the people to the Land and conquer it, received ten shares, this was hinted at by the change of his name.        [Seeing that Joshua personally did not have any children, looking at the matter technically, although his tribe of Ephrayim, did of course receive their share, perhaps Moses wanted to indicate that he in fact, at least, in the spiritual sense of the word, “inherited” the 10 shares of the Holy Land, that would have become the shares of the other ten spies had they not slandered the land. Ed.] According to the Talmud Yerushalmi tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 2, halachah 6, by adding the letter י at the beginning of his name, so that it began with the two letters spelling the name of G–d, Moses hoped to arm him spiritually against becoming spiritually contaminated by the other ten spies. When Sarah’s name שרי had been changed to שרה, she had lost a letter, i.e. the letter י. Joshua now received this letter. Avraham had the letter ה she had lost, added to his name when that was changed from אברם to אברהם. [Seeing that they both no longer needed these two letters, having died long ago, they were used by Moses as helping Joshua to withstand the brainwashing by the ten spies. Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות, “and all the people we saw inside it are men of great size.” The spies said that they did not attribute the fact that people seemed to die like flies in that land to their having a weak constitution to start with. Alternate interpretation: “do not think that these people died from excessive drinking and eating; they are very robust persons and appear to eat and drink quite normally.”
  
  Verse 33
  
  הנפילים בני-ענק, “the Nephilim, descendants of Anak (giant);” anyone who took a look at these people would be overawed by them and feel totally inadequate, scared that they would attack him.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  'מבלי יכולת ה, “because of the Lord’s inability, etc.” the surrounding nations would not interpret G–d’s wiping out the Israelites as an act of punishment, because they had angered Him, but as an admission of His inability to fulfill His promise to them to bring them to the Land of Canaan. After all the gentile nations had had ample opportunity to have seen how much G–d loved His people as was described in verse 14. Therefore the only explanation of the demise of the Jewish people they could accept would be His inability to make good on His promise.
  
  Verse 17
  
  'ועתה יגדל נא כח ה, “and now I pray let the Power of the Lord be great;” Moses considers a display of being able to suppress one’s anger as the greatest proof of greatness. Our sages in Ethics 4,1, have defined the term גבור, “hero,” as someone who can conquer his emotions when they threaten to overrule his intellect. This is what Solomon already taught us in Proverbs, 16,32: טוב ארך אפים מגבור, “he who is slow to anger is better than the mighty.”
  כאשר דברת לאמר, “as You have declared, saying:” Moses refers to Exodus 33,13: where he had spoken to G–d asking Him to reveal to Him His way of reacting to the people’s sins if and when they would occur. He had requested that G–d reveal to him all of His attributes relevant to judging His creatures. At that time, when the glory of Hashem, passed by him while he was hiding in the cleft of a rock, one of the attributes G–d had revealed to him was the one known as ארך אפים, “slow to anger.” At this point Moses did not remind G–d of His attribute רחמים, “the Merciful One;” on that occasion both of theses attributes had to be called upon, whereas here there was no pointing referring to any attribute other than that of Mercy. He also did not refer to the attribute אל, G–d in His capacity of judge, seeing that he could not hope that G–d would completely ignore the people’s lack of faith and their having accused Him of hating them. He could only ask G–d to temper His anger by limiting the penalty. Moses concentrated on those attributes which, if displayed by G–d at this time, would preserve the people’s future, even if the people personally guilty of accepting the slander of the ten spies would obviously have to pay a price, i.e. they had rejected the Holy Land, therefore G–d would accept their rejection of it and not make them live in it.
  Our author details why Moses refrained from mentioning any Divine attribute which would prove counterproductive if Moses would refer to it.
  
  Verse 18
  
  ונקה לא ינקה, “and He will not let a guilty person be exonerated completely without having paid a price for knowingly having sinned.” [This is the standard explanation of this expression. Ed.] Our author- if I understand him correctly,- understands it as G–d saying that the world we live in will never be completely free of deliberate sinners. He used Jeremiah 30,11 as his proof for this interpretation. The Prophet there says: ויסרתיך למשפט ונקה לא ינקך, (after having wiped out the sinful nations) “but I will not let you go unpunished, but I will chastise you in measure”.
  פוקד עון אבות על בנים, “visiting the sins of the fathers on the children;” this is another aspect of G–d’s attribute of Mercy, that He delays punishing the fathers, waiting if the children or grandchildren will return to Him before carrying out the punishment that had been deserved by them. In Exodus 34,7, where the list of G–d’s attributes first appears, the wording isבני בנים , “grandchildren,” not “children,” as here. In both instances, the point G–d makes is that while He may delay exacting punishment, depending on the severity of the sin in question, He will not allow sins that are not repented to go totally unpunished.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  'ויאמר ה, “Hashem said (in response to Moses’ plea): “I have forgiven in accordance with your words.” G–d teaches Moses that He has set aside a date in the calendar reserved for forgiving, i.e. the day of Atonement, Yom Kippur.” This Day will serve as the day for forgiveness throughout the generations. To the question whence we know that G–d forgave the people the sin of the golden calf on that date, we derive this from when Moses had asked G–d to act as He had done “when the people had recently come out of Egypt,” (verse 19).The day G–d had forgiven that sin had also been the tenth day of the month of Tishrey. Furthermore, G–d having said to Moses here: כאשר אמרת “as You had said,” is a clear reference to the first time G–d had forgiven the people as a whole.
  
  Verse 21
  
  ואולם חי אני, “Nevertheless, as truly as I live for ever,” this is a formula for an oath. Hashem does not spell out the details of this oath. He contents Himself with warning Moses that He has to be concerned with insuring that the whole earth will become filled with His glory. This is one of the reasons why the Jewish people have to be given the land He had promised that Avraham’s children would inherit. If this were not to happen His name would indeed become desecrated; therefore the children of the generation that had been redeemed from Egypt would be the ones that would prove that He had fulfilled this promise. The men who had been redeemed as adults from Egypt, however, could not be allowed to do so, seeing that they who had experienced all the miracles G–d had performed for them in Egypt had still not inspired them with sufficient faith that He could make them defeat the Canaanites. Their children who had not witnessed all these miracles would do so, however.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  והעמלקי, “and the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwell in the alley;” a number of commentators are puzzled by this statement as in verse 45 of this chapter the Amalekite and the Canaanite are described as “descending” from the mountain; according to the plain meaning of the text, we must assume that the Amalekites and Canaanites in anticipation of an invasion by Israel had taken up position on high ground in order to ambush the Israelites from there. A more mystical interpretation would be that although G–d meant to punish these people, He did not enjoy doing this, and made them take a route toward the desert which would afford some chance of escaping.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם,”when you come to the land of your permanent settlement, etc.;” what is the reason that this paragraph has been inserted at this point in the Torah? If anything, the legislation added here would not be applicable for at least another forty years! The people at this stage were so frustrated that they did not believe they would ever get to the Land of Canaan and settle there, as they might become guilty of so many more sins, looking back at the less than two years they had been out of Egypt, and what had befallen them during that short period. The wording of the paragraph, i.e. G–d’s promise to Moses at this point, was meant to reassure them that unless the settlement of the people in their ancestral homeland would become a fact, what would be the point in introducing legislation that is capable of being applied only after they were settled in that land? Moses relayed this legislation to the present generation in order to convince them that their children would definitely become residents of the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  אם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, “if a person (soul) will commit a sin through an error, etc;” the author draws the reader’s attention to the fact that on Leviticus 4,2 he had already explained that the effect on the soul of a person committing a sin through error, i.e. psychological effect is more profound than the effect on his body. This is why the Torah used the term נפש, “soul,” rather than איש or אדם which we might have expected.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “While the Children of Israel were in the desert, etc.;” our sages say that if the Israelites had (all of them) observed a second Sabbath in a row, no nation could ever have achieve mastery over them. (Talmud, tractate Shabbat, folio 118). Whence do we know that the Sabbath on which they found the man gathering sticks was that second Sabbath? This is clear from the sequence of the words: ויהיו וימצאו, which means that as soon as they had been commanded all the rules of Sabbath observance, they found this man violating it. How do we know that this man was Tzelofchod? The letters in the sequence עצים ביום  have the same numerical value as the letters in the name צלפחד. [The Israelites desecrated already the first Sabbath, when some of them went out to gather manna, compare Exodus 16,27. Ed.] Why has the paragraph about Tzelofchod been inserted in the Torah at this point? At the time when this man desecrated the Sabbath Moses had been saying to Hashem “Lord of the universe, it is written in the phylacteries that wearing them is in order to remind the wearer to talk about the Commandments, (Exodus 13,9) and You have forbidden the phylacteries being worn on the Sabbath.” (Talmud, tractate Menachot folio 36) If only Tzelofchod had worn his phylacteries on that Sabbath, he would have reminded himself of the prohibition of gathering sticks on the Sabbath.” Hashem answered him that He had already commanded the people a commandment to remind them of the laws of the Sabbath, and that is the wearing of the tzitzit on their prayer shawls. (four cornered garment requiring these fringes).
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  על ציצית הכנף פתיל תכלת, “fringes in the corners of their garments with the fringe of each corners containing a thread of blue wool.” This thread had to be interwoven with the white ones. Our sages also said that the length of one third of these fringes had to be twisted, whereas the other two thirds were to be free hanging each. (Talmud tractate Menachot folio 39) The reason for this has been explained in the Midrash, i.e. the eight threads (after being doubled over) are symbolic of eight attributes, emotions that are present in the heart. (I did not find the origin of this Midrash, Ed.) Alternately, what the Midrash means is that the “heart” is known by eight different names. Its location in the body commences in the top third of the torso, and this is why the fringes extend to the bottom of the second third of the torso. (מהר'ם) (Chapter 6 section 34 shaar kedushah, reyshit chochmah) 
  
  Verse 39
  
  וראיתם אותו, “when you see it, etc.;” since being able to look at the tzitzit when you wear them is of the essence, garments worn only at night are not required to have such fringes attached to them. This is also why a blind person is not required to attach fringes to his garments. In other words, the commandment to look at the fringes is meant for people able to see them. (Menachot folio 43). If you look at the fringes with the proper concentration it is considered as if you looked at the throne of G–d, which is supposed to look like wool dyed blue. Rabbi Meir, in describing the difference between that tint of blue from all other colours, said it is because it is closest to the blue of the horizon, which by definition is a reminder of the heaven beyond it. He bases this on Exodus 24,10 as interpreted in the Talmud, tractate Menachot, folio 10, where the elders are described of having looked at a Divine apparition which they described as looking like bricks made of sapphire. The colour of a sapphire is supposed to be just like the colour of the horizon. The sequence of three verbs in our verse, i.e. “you will see,” “you will remember,” and “you will do, i.e. perform,” explains the importance of this commandment and how fulfilling it will stimulate our heart and eyes to be loyal to G–d.
  'וזכרתם את כל מצות ה, “you will remember all of the Lord’s commandments;” Rashi points out that the numerical value of the letters in the word ציצית is 600, (he is aware that the word is spelled defective, with one letter י missing, so that it is really only 590.) The word appears three times in the paragraph, once with the prefix ל, the numerical value of which is 30, so that we may consider these three words as all having been spelled perfectly. I have also heard that the manner in which some people arrange the fringes are separated from one section to another with knots and ringlets around each section, each of a different number of ringlets amount to a total of 613, so that the wearer is constantly aware that he is clothed symbolically in the 613 commandments. The Talmud in Menachot folio 39 goes into all the details.
  ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם, “do not follow your heart and your eyes in a lustful urge.” The Jersualem Talmud, tractate B’rachot chapter 1, halachah 5 describes the heart and the eyes as the principal agents of the evil urge within us.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויקח קרח, “Korach betook himself;” according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 109, the above words mean that Korach made a bad bargain by challenging Moses and Aaron. He caused a “bald spot” among the Israelites, his very name meaning: “bald,” devoid of hair where there ought to be hair. An alternate interpretation of the use of the word: ויקח, at the beginning of this portion. The numerical value of the letters in his name i.e. 308, is equivalent to the word שדד, “he destroyed, laid waste;” he did not observe the laws of the Torah.
  בן יצהר, “son of Yizthar;” who had illuminated the earth as does the sun at noon;
  בן קהת, “who in turn was the son of Kehat;” who had blunted the teeth of those who begat him. (By becoming infected with his grandson’s ambitions, though personally being a bearer of the Holy Ark)
  בן לוי, “the son of Levi;” “who made himself a companion to gehinom, hell.” You may ask why the Torah does not also trace him to the founding father of the Jewish nation, to Yaakov? This is answered by a Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok, who says that Yaakov prayed that his name not be associated with such a person as Korach. This is how he understood Genesis 49,6: בקהלם אל תחד כבודי, “let my honour not be associated with their counsel.”
  ודתן, “and Datan,” who flouted Jewish law.
  ואבירם, “and Aviram,” “who prevented his heart from repenting.”
  ואון, “and On,” who spent all his days in mourning.
  בן פלת, “son of Peleth,” a son who performed miracles.”
  בני ראובן, “of the members of the tribe of Reuven;” a son who was intelligent enough to correctly interpret the meaning of what his eyes beheld.” Seeing that he was from the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn whom his father had deprived of the privileges of the birthright, Korach thought he had reason to join his rebellion.
  ואמר רב, and he (Korach) said: “enough, too much!” On son of Peleth was saved from sharing Korach’s fate by his wife. She told him that regardless of the outcome of the rebellion, he would not become a member of the priestly caste regardless, so that the outcome would on no account be of personal benefit to him. To this, On answered that seeing he had sat in the council with Korach and had sworn him loyalty, how could he now renege? His wife said to him: he himself has declared the whole community as being holy, so how could he punish you?” (compare verse 3) She told him to simply remain inactive, and she would devise a means to save him. She gave him wine to drink, and made him comfortable in the house. She then sat at the entrance to her tent and busied herself with straightening out her hair, a lengthy procedure, and not one to be watched by males. Before she had completed her coiffure, Korach and his supporters had already been swallowed by the earth. She thus became the model that Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 14,1: חכמת נשים בנתה ביתה ואולת בידיה תהרסנו, “the wisest of women builds her house, whereas the foolish one destroys it with her own hands.” Solomon’s model for the foolish woman was Korach’s wife, who had urged him on to confront Moses and Aaron in their desire for more personal glory. She supported her husband in his quarrel by describing Moses as being only concerned with appointing his closest relatives to leading positions but ignoring her husband and appointing his nephews, Aaron’s sons as deputy High Priests instead. He allocated portions of every farmer’s harvest to the priests and even demanding of the Levites’ tithes that they give ten percent to the priests also. She described the manner in which the Levites had been appointed instead of the firstborn of each family’s household as the only ones that could enter sacred grounds as having been a demeaning procedure, each one of them having been bodily heaved as if they were chattel. (Compare the procedures described in Numbers 8,13) In short, Korach’s wife was a demagogue of the first order, who instead of calming his sense of having been passed over when honours were being distributed, egged him on, so that ultimately he and all his family-except his sons who recognised their father’s bias, so that they eventually became authors of the most beautiful hymns in the book of Psalms,-thus partially redeeming the honour of the family. [Different Midrashim elaborate on how Korach used even the occasion when Moses had elevated him to become a Levite as having performed acts to demean him so that no one could recognise him anymore, as all the hair of his body had first to be shaved off. [as had, of course, the hair of all the other 23000 Levites elevated thus on that occasion. Ed.] Korach answered his wife that Moses himself, being a Levite, had also shaved off all his own hair. She answered him that he had done so in order to get all the other Levites to do so, just as Samson when pulling down the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines, was aware that he would die also during the performance of this feat. (Judges 15,30) Korach’s wife ridiculed the law about fringes, and this is why it has been inserted in the Torah at this point. She did the same with the commandment to affix a mezuzah to every room in our houses except the bathrooms and the toilets. The Torah wished to emphasise that observance of these commandments, not on account of the logic behind them, but because they had been commanded by Hashem, brings us closer to Him. These reminders are with us both when we are at home and when we are away from home, when we wear the fringes at the corners of our garments. [In those days, practically all garments started out as being square sheets of cloth. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 2
  
  ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומתים, “and two hundred and fifty of the elite of the Children of Israel.” Who were the men whom the Torah referred to here as the “elite” of the nation? They were Elitzur ben Shdeyur, the leader of the tribe of Reuven and his companions. Even though the Torah did not name them here, it provided us with hints to their identity. We find the expression: ואנשים מבני ישראל, “and distinguished men from among the Children of Israel,” (Numbers 1,17) They appear here in 16,2 again almost referred to in identical terms. Our sages explain this in a parable. When a person up to that time respected for his absolute integrity, was found having stolen something in the public bath, and the owner of the stolen object did not want to embarrass the thief, he started throwing out hints, such as asking the thief: “who stole your robe?” He assumed that a person of high repute would realise that it was he who was referred to, and after the owner describing the thief in detail without mentioning his name, would give him a chance to return the stolen object, making some excuse. The Torah did something similar here by not referring to these rebels by name. (Tanchuma, section 2 on this portion) If you needed proof how serious the sin of Korach and his followers was, consider that as a rule the heavenly tribunal does not judge someone guilty until he reaches the age of 20, as we know from Yishmael in Genesis 21,17 where his prayer was accepted although he was already 16 or 17 at the time, whereas human tribunals hold people accountable already from the age of 13. In this instance, where Korach and followers were judged by a heavenly tribunal, even their infants were punished alongside their parents. The Talmud in tractate Baba Metzia, folio 87, learns from this that maintaining peace between human beings is so important that those who destroy it are judged and punished immediately regardless of age. (Compare author’s commentary on Genesis 18,13).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  והיה האיש אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “then the man whom the Lord chooses, he will be the holy one.” This statement by Moses appears superfluous, as the rebels were surely aware that there were only these two alternatives. We must therefore understand Moses’ statement as a warning to them not to become guilty of the punishment for their actions. He reminded them that the incense offering was the one most beloved by Hashem and that it contained a deadly poison for people not qualified to offer same. This had been demonstrated beyond doubt when two of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, had been killed by heavenly fire on the spot for daring to offer it while they were not qualified to do so. If all his supporters were to dare to do the same, they would all share the fate of Nadav and Avihu. All of these people, in spite of thus having been warned by Moses, insisted on proceeding with their plan, and they paid the price of disobeying his warning. This is why Numbers 17,3 refers to them all a sinners, guilty of death. If you were to ask how Korach, an extremely intelligent individual, could have committed such obvious foolishness, our sages say that he had foreseen that great men would be descended from him in the future, and he thought that was proof that he had to survive this confrontation with Moses. Compare Rashi on that subject. Furthermore, he misinterpreted the words of blessing in Deuteronomy 7,13: according to which תירושך ויצהרך, “your wine and oil will be blessed,” as a reference to himself seeing that his father’s name had been יצהר, “oil.” He was aware that in any mixture of liquids, oil always rises to the top. He concluded that he had therefore been destined for distinction. Zachariah 4,14, commences with the words: ואלה בני היצהר, “these are the descendants of Yitzhar, etc.” Seeing that oil has no descendants, Korach interpreted this statement by the prophet as referring to himself. Actually, the prophet had referred to Aaron and Chur, who had been anointed as priests or the honour of hereditary monarchy with the oil of anointing. David took the honour of hereditary monarchy, whereas Aaron received that of the Priesthood. Korach reasoned, that if these who had only been anointed with oil had qualified for these honours, he who had been referred to as the descendent of oil twice, surely was in line for these honours. As a result of such considerations, he decided to revolt against Moses. [who in his opinion had forfeited the right to leadership seeing that his whole generation had been decreed to die in the desert. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  כאשר דבר ה' ביד משה, “as the Lord had said via Moses.” The plain meaning of the verse is that Eleazar took the copper fire-pans as he had been instructed to do by Moses, whom G–d had told to instruct with this task.
  
  Verse 6
  
  'אתם המיתם את עם ה, “you (Moses and Aaron) have killed the Lord’s people!” The people accused Moses and Aaron as having done this knowingly, as they knew telling them to offer incense outside the sacred soil of the Tabernacle would result in their death. After all, Nadav and Avihu who had been anointed as priests, as opposed to the 250 men Moses told to offer incense had been killed on the spot for doing so in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Moses told Aaron to take the fire-pans that had served these 250 men as the base for their incense and to demonstrate that it was not the incense nor the pans in which it had been offered that killed people but that it was their sins which killed them. When the people heard this, they replied that this was no proof, as they may have died seeing that they were not worthy of becoming priests. G–d therefore ordered Moses to take staffs from each of the leaders of the tribes of Israel and to place them side by side inside the Tent of testimony, (Tabernacle) each staff belonging to the respective leader of their tribe, (verse 17) [people whom they considered most worthy, Ed.]) In this way, from the results of this test, G–d hoped to silence the people’s complaints about nepotism once and for all. (verse 25)
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  והנה פרח מטה אהרן, “and behold the rod of Aaron of the house of Levi, had begun to sprout blooms.” From this verse we learn that there are two kinds of flowers, פרח and ציץ. Not only did these blooms sprout forth, but they retained their freshness and did not wilt, as do normal flowers. The flowers were still in bloom after having already produced fruit, i.e. almonds. We have proof of the above from the Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 21, (based on Isaiah 35,2) as well as from the chapter in the Talmud discussing items in the Temple that were hidden to prevent them from falling into the hands of our enemies. Some sages believe that this staff of Aaron was hidden during that period, which would prove that it and its fruit had remained in prime condition for hundreds of years.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ואני הנה נתתי לך, (G–d speaking to Aaron) “as far as I am concerned, lo, I have given to you charge of My heave offerings;” in this paragraph all of the 24 different kinds of gifts reserved for the priests are collectively described as תרומה, “heave offering.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  מן האש כל קרבנם, “reserved from the fire; each of their offerings.” These offerings also include baked goods, i.e. the minchah offerings.
  ולכל חטאתם, “and all of their various kinds of sin offerings.”
  ולכל אשמתם, “and all of their various kinds of guilt offerings.”
  אשר ישיבו לי, “which they return to Me;” i.e. which are symbols of their having returned to Me in repentance. This is a specific reference for repentance for having stolen from a convert, who has died in the interval, and to whom no restitution can be made by the thief. By giving the value to the priest, it is considered as having been returned to G–d, Who is the original owner of everything.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  תרומת מתנם, “the heave offering of their gift;” this is a reference to the parts of the thanksgiving offerings designated for the priests and the parts of the peace offerings of sheep and bullocks, i.e. chest, foreleg, stomach and jaw.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  כל חרם, “everything that has been proscribed (for ordinary Israelites) as detailed forthwith;”
  
  Verse 15
  
  כל פטר רחם, “the first issue of every womb;” this is a reference to the firstborn male child which needs to be redeemed for five shekalim.
  ואת בכור בהמה הטמאה “as well as the firstborn of the ritually unclean domestic beasts;” the only animal that fits this description among the ritually unclean beasts is the donkey/ass.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  בכור שור, בכור כשב או בכור עז, “the firstborn of the oxen, sheep or goats;” these are the firstborn of the ritually pure beasts.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  מים חיים אל כלי, “fresh water into a vessel.” The word כלי here is interpreted as the respective first letters in the words: כהן, לוי, ישראל, i.e. when reading the Torah in public, a representative of each of these categories of Israel is to be called up to the Torah. The expression מים  is a euphemism for the word: Torah, (Isaiah 55,1) and the word: חיים , is a euphemism for the Torah which is also known as עץ חיים, “tree of life.” (Proverbs 3,18)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, “take the staff and assemble the congregation!” According to Rabbi b’chor shor, the instruction to Moses to take the staff was meant in order for him to strike the rock with it which was meant to produce the water. [The instructions addressed to both Moses and Aaron in the same verse, were addressed to both Moses and Aaron who were to speak to the people first Ed.] This was similar to the instructions in Exodus 17,6, except that there the rock was called צור, tzur. At that time G–d was going to provide both bread (heavenly), meat, (quails) and water, each one of which was listed in detail shortly thereafter. The provision of water on both occasions is to be understood as the same miracle, and that is also why the first location was called מסה ומריבה, “trying and strife,” and on this occasion reference is only made to מי מריבה, “waters of strife” (verse 13) When Moses, in retrospect, refers to these events in Deuteronomy 33,8 he uses both expressions in the same verse. They are referred to also in Numbers 20,24:למי מריבה ”at the waters of strife.” Those waters were in the desert of Sin, near Mount Sinai, (during the first year of the Exodus) As far as the instructions here for Moses and Aaron to address the rock by word of mouth, ודברתם אל הסלע, is concerned, they were meant to speak to the people near the rock in order to watch the miracle about to be performed. On the first occasion, Moses took the elders with him, but the people stayed far behind and they did not even witness the striking of the rock. Those elders had long died so that the present generation had not even been told what they had witnessed. (Exodus 17,5) The water at that time formed into a small river and that was where the Israelites filled their buckets from. Moses and Aaron, instead of announcing the miracle about to take place, addressed the people by calling them rebellious, and asking if they really expected that they were worthy of G–d performing such a miracle for them. They should have known that it was not in Moses’ or Aaron’s power to get water out of a stone, so what was the point of accusing them of the shortage of water. Therefore, they should have prayed to G–d in a deferential manner, asking Him to help them in their predicament. If Moses and Aaron had explained all this to them without displaying anger with a thirsty people, the result would have been a great sanctification of the Lord’s name. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses’ and Aaron’s sin consisted of using the word נוציא לכם מים, “We are going to produce water for you,” instead of saying that “G–d is going to produce water for you.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ויסעו מהר ההר דרך ים סוף, “they journeyed from Hor Hahar in the direction of the sea of reeds, ...making a long detour around the Land of Edom, and the people’s state of mind became very short tempered.” Their dissatisfaction was not caused by the journey, but by the fact that they traveled in the opposite direction of their objective, i.e. crossing the river Jordan. This was as hard for them to swallow as if they had been sentenced to death. They had felt until recently that they were close to their objective and would soon taste the fruit of the Holy Land and they now saw all their hopes as dissolving like an illusion. To the question what they had to complain about as long as they had manna and water, the answer is that once one has set one’s sights on something that can be enjoyed by the senses, eyes, ears, taste buds, feeling it with one’s hands and one’s sense of smell, the sameness and predictability of the manna, instead of being a sign of how G–d provided for them, became something of insignificance, קלקל, “lightweight” for them. The Torah therefore told us already in Numbers 11,8 that the manna, far from being so insubstantial, lightweight, insignificant, lent itself to grinding between stones, pounding, in a mortar, boiling in a pot, making into cakes. Moreover, it tasted like cream. [It is human nature that familiarity breeds contempt. After forty years of the same diet without getting to the destination they were seeking, the people’s reaction is understandable, although it had been due to their having displayed themselves as not yet worthy to dislodge the Canaanites from their homeland. Ed.] The pleasant taste of treated manna is also described in Numbers 11,8.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  עשה לך שרף, “make for yourself a fiery serpent, etc.” the reason why G–d instructed Moses to construct a serpent, the symbol of everything negative since time immemorial, was to demonstrate that this very negative symbol would miraculously heal them from snake bites if used in the proper manner. It is only the Lord Who can use destructive instruments equally well for constructive purposes.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ויחנו באובות, “they encamped at a place called Ovot. This was located between almost at the border of Moav, as we know from Numbers 33,44. This is where the plague of snakes had occurred.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  משם נסעו, “from there they journeyed onwards;” from the place called iyyey havavarim. The next place they encamped was called nachal zered. In Parshat Massey, that place is referred to as divon Gad (Numbers 33,45. According to some commentators the differences in the names of the encampments is due to their sometimes being referred to according to the brooks of water there, and in others according to the names thy had been known as. They are called here as their sources of water, seeing that was most important to them.
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויחנו מעבר ארנון, “they encamped across the river Arnon. They encamped on the bank that used to belong to King Sichon after having made a detour around the land of Moav. They had not been allowed by G–d to cross the territory belonging to Moav at that time. They were only allowed to straddle its border, without crossing it. (Compare Judges, 11,17) where Yiftach recounts the history of the people’s wanderings. They had approached that spot coming from the east, leaving the land of Moav on their west, bordered by the territory that belonged to King Sichon.
  כי ארנון גבול מואב בין מואב ובין האמורי, “for the river Arnon was the border between Moav and the Emorite.” In practice this means that the river separated the borders from one another. Originally, both banks of the river were part of the land of Moav, but Sichon had conquered all the land on the north bank of that river. The Israelites took possession of all the formerly Moabite lands that Sichon had conquered from them. That land was no longer considered out of bounds to them when they came out of Egypt. G–d rearranges nations’ boundaries from time to time, as He sees fit. The respective rulers during such warfare who appear as winners or losers are pawns in His hands.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  על כן, “This is why, etc,” in G–d’s records of nations’ wars these changes of borders are recorded, just as we find such changes mentioned in the Book of Chronicles of the Bible.
  את והב בסופה, “the word: “vahav, “ is one word, the letter ו at the beginning is not a conjunctive or prefix. It is similar to Genesis 45,1, where Joseph reveals his true identity to his brothers and we read: בהתודע יוסף, “when Joseph revealed himself.” That word should really have been ואתודע. Here too, the correct word should have been אתיהב למלך מואב בסופה וסערה, meaning that the King of Moav had been defeated by Sichon in battle when he lost this part of his land right up to the banks of the river Arnon.
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואשד הנחלים, “as well as its tributary wadis.” We find the word אשד also in Deuteronomy 3,17, i.e. אשדות (in the plural mode)
  אשר נטה לשבת ער, “stretched along settled country.” Seeing that these valleys seemed to overhang territory belonging to Moav, that latter began to settle in it. At any rate, at the time of writing these lines both banks of the river Arnon were populated. [The reason why this is all spelled out become clear when we read about how the Jewish people had been saved by an earthquake turning fatal for the Emorites who had planned an ambush in the clefts of the protruding rocks. [Compare the Midrashim on verses 17-19 of this chapter. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ומשם בארה, “and from there to a place called “Be-er.” The well mentioned here appears to have emanated in the place they came to immediately afterwards. It was water gushing out of a rock.
  
  Verse 17
  
  אז ישיר ישראל, At that point Israel broke out in a song of thanksgiving; when the people took possession of this well their hearts were full of gratitude, as they had previously been afraid of if not dying from thirst themselves, their livestock dying due to a shortage of drinking water. According to Rashi, Moses did not join in that song, seeing that according to Onkelos as well as Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel, Moses and Aaron had dug that well. (Compare verse 20)
  עלי באר ענו לה, “arise O well sing unto it” The verb ענה, is used in a similar manner Deuteronomy 27,14: וענו הלויים, “the Levites responded at the top of their voices.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  באר חפרהו שרים, “a well dug by princes.” This well was not like other wells in the Bible which had been dug by servants of slaves, as we know from Genesis 26,25, but it was especially honoured through having been dug by Moses, Aaron, as well as the elders of Israel.
  במחוקק במשענותם, “with their scepters and their staffs.” In other words, this well was not dug with ordinary tools like ordinary wells, but by employing a rod given Moses by G–d, something that had served as an instrument of producing miracles repeatedly in the past. This serves as proof, that G–d had never objected to Moses hitting the rock in chapter 20 at the waters of strife. Had He objected to that how could the people have rejoiced jubilantly over something that G–d had shown them that He objected to? According to some commentators the “lawgiver,” referred to here is not Hashem but Moses just as it is in Deuteronomy 33,21. Compare the Targum there.
  וממדבר מתנה, and from a place called Midbar to Matanah. This is a hint that the well just discussed was so powerful that it turned the surrounding desert area into “a gift.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  וממתנה נחליאל, and from Matanah to Nachliel. This well was not like the other wells which supplied a steady amount of water, but it increased as time went on so that it was easily accessible even when the Israelites crossed elevations in the ground on their way.
  
  Verse 20
  
  ומבמות הגיא, “and from the elevated ground back to the valley.” It continued to flow until it came to the summit which looked down on a district known as the face of the wasteland. Compare chapter 32,10. This was a source of great joy as they could see that even in the distance and in that wasteland there was plenty of water to provide water for their herds and flocks. In the Talmud, tractate Eyruvin, folio 54 the Talmud concluded that the words וממדבר מתנה, the point that the Torah was making is a figure of speech, i.e. that if one allows oneself to be trampled on by others as they trample the ground in the desert, one will be rewarded with acquiring a great deal of Torah knowledge as if it had been given to one as a gift. Seeing that it had been come by as a gift, it will become almost a hereditary gift, and being so that person will eventually attain considerable stature among his peers, i.e. ומנחליאל במות, “and due to gifts from the Lord he hill rise to lofty heights.” On the other hand, if he starts out in life with a haughty attitude, he will ultimately wind up very low, like the גיא, valley, at the bottom of the lofty hills, במות. If he will then change his attitude, the Lord will raise him up again, i.e. כל גיא ינשא, “every valley will be uplifted,” (Isaiah 40,4) [The passage is understood as a synopsis of Jewish history. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we cross your borders. (on the walk past it).” They had not even asked to traverse Sichon’s territory. They were going to walk around close to the borders. The same was the case with walking around the territory of the land of Edom. This is why they could refer to having had no objections from the Edomites, or for that matter from the Moabites (Compare Deuteronomy 2,29)
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  עד יבוק עד בני עמון, as far as Yabok (a river) as we know from Genesis 32,23) Sichon had conquered these parts of what was formerly a much larger land of Moav. The river had acted as a boundary.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  כי חשבון עיר סיחון, “for Cheshbon had been Sichon’s city originally, prior to his having conquered large sections of the lands of Moav and the Bney Ammon. His reputation as a mighty warrior was based on those campaigns. When the Israelites are described in verse 31 as settling in the land of the Emorite, this is only to inform us that this is where Sichon had originated as a king. This was long before Balak became king of what remained of the kingdom of Moav.
  
  Verse 27
  
  'על כן יאמרו המושלים וגו, “this is why those who speak in parables used to say: “let the city of Sichon be firmly established.“ Many such people had taken up residence in Cheshbon, where they flattered its King.
  
  Verse 28
  
  'כי אש יצאה וגו, The entire line is a quotation of how the people speaking in parables flattered the powerful King of Cheshbon. The Torah describes all this in order to show the reader what a tremendous victory Moses had scored when he totally vanquished this empire, annihilating him and his people totally. Yiftach, in the Book of Judges 11,24, refers sarcastically to the claims of the king of Moav in his time, claiming that that the Israelites have to give him back the land that a former king had lost to Sichon.
  
  Verse 29
  
  נתן בניו פליטים, “He has given his sons as fugitives;” the reference is to the minors who were not old enough to fight and had therefore been spared by the sword. The use of the word נתן in our verse is similar to the use of the same word in Song of Songs 1,12: נרדי נתן ריחו, “my aromatic plant gave off its aroma.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  ונירם אבד חשבון, “when we shot at them Cheshbon was laid waste completely;” our author understands the word ונירם as a derivative of the noun ניר, as a reference to their king as their shining light, who had been completely extinguished. He quotes Kings I 11,36, where it has been used in this manner i.e. להיות ניר לדוד עבדי, “to be a lamp for My servant David.”
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויאמר ה' אל משה אל תירא אותו, Hashem said to Moses: “do not be afraid of him!” Rashi explains that there was a reason why G–d had to say this to Moses concerning Og, although He had not said this to him before joining battle with Sichon. Moses was afraid that Og had acquired a great merit by warning Avraham at the time that his nephew Lot had been taken prisoner by a King who had thought that he was Avraham, as he had meant to kill or capture Avraham. Compare Genesis 14,13, and the explanation in the Talmud tractate Niddah folio 61 on that verse. If you were to say that according to that statement in the Talmud, Og had actually meant to kill Avraham so that he could marry Sarah, i.e. hardly an intention qualifying for additional merit, the fact that he was instrumental in saving Avraham at that time and in saving Lot by Avraham coming to his rescue, was enough to make Moses fear him. [After all this Og was at least 500 years old if he had been a somebody already at that time. Ed.] The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 105 tells us that the 42 burnt offerings offered by Balak to Hashem at the direction of Bileam, was enough for him to be rewarded that Ruth the Moabite became descended from him. Balak had also intended only to cause Israel harm at that time, and nonetheless the sages of the Talmud felt that G–d had to reward him. Some sages understand the fact that Og was described –though indirectly- as a fugitive, in Genesis, this means that he had escaped not Nimrod, but that he had escaped the deluge and had managed to survive it somehow. This would be good reason for Moses to feel that he had G–d’s protection even at his time. He is also supposed to have been a brother of Sichon, giving him good reason to attack Moses who had killed his brother. Our author refers to what he had explained in Parshat Noach in the name of Rabbi Yehudah hachassid who had pointed out that the numerical value of the words אך נח in the line: וישאר אך נח, “only Noach survived,” is identical to the numerical value of the word עוג, i.e. 79. (Genesis 7,23) There is also a statement by Rabi Yechiel bar Yoseph, according to whom Og had been born before the onset of the deluge, his mother having been pregnant with him at the time, and having married one of Noach’s sons, her pregnancy having been caused by one of the people whom t*he Torah had described as בני האלוהים, usually understood as “fallen angels.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירא בלק....לאמורי, “Balak had taken note of all that Israel had done to the Emorite” (foremost Canaanite tribe). The reference is, of course, to Israel having defeated Sichon and his army totally. Balak now reasoned that if that was what they had done to mighty Sichon, they would do the same to him and the Moabites. Therefore, he preferred to have the assistance of someone who was known to have good relations with the supernatural powers.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ועתה ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, “and now this horde of people and livestock will lick up every blade of grass in our vicinity.” They were not worried about their lives, apparently knowing that G–d had forbidden the Israelites to make war upon them, but they faced economic ruin nonetheless. (They must have known about what G–d had said in Deuteronomy 2,9 about not harassing Moav.)
   כלחוך השור, “just like oxen lick up;” oxen are known not to have teeth in the upper parts of their gums, so that instead of chewing the grass they rub it in their mouths, unlike horses or donkeys. As a result also the roots of the grass are destroyed and will not grow again.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  וארגשנו מן הארץ, “so that I will be able to expel them from the land.” He did not mean to exterminate them but merely to chase them away from land which was his. According to Rashi, he referred specifically to that part of Moav which Sichon had many years earlier conquered from Moav.
  כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מבורך, “for I know that the ones whom you bless will be blessed.” Bileam (one of the people speaking in parables) had prophesied earlier that Moav would become a victim of Sichon, as we know from Numbers 21,27)
  
  Verse 7
  
  וילכו זקני מואב, “The elders of Moav went forth, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 105, tells us that there never had been peaceful relations between Moav and Midian before, but now that both felt threatened, they became like dogs when afraid of wolves that threaten them, and they acted in unison.
  וקסמים בידם, “and they had brought instruments .of divination with them.” They brought money with them to pay Bileam for employing divinations with which to curse the Israelites. This is the way the Jerusalem Talmud translated our verse. An alternate interpretation is that seeing that Balak himself was no novice in that art, he sent along samples of what he used when practicing divination.
  
  Verse 8
  
  וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם, “the emissaries of Moav spent the night with Bileam.” This raises the question of why the elders of Midian did not remain there also? When they heard that Bileam was going to consult with the G–d of the Israelites about how to conduct himself, they reasoned that a father (G–d as Israel’s father-figure) will not display hatred for his son, so what possible answer could Bileam expect from him asking permission to curse G–d’s son? They therefore left.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   בלק בן צפור, “Balak, son of Tzippor, etc.” He was one of three people mentioned in the Bible as not having answered G–d appropriately. The other two were Kayin and King Chizkiyah. When G–d had asked Kayin where his brother Hevel was (after Kayin had murdered and buried him Genesis 4,9) he answered: “am I my brother’s keeper?) He should have answered G–d that seeing G–d is omniscient He was well aware where Hevel was. Similarly, when G–d asked Bileam who the men were that had come to visit him that evening, he too should have answered that he was well aware that G–d knew full well who they were. When the prophet Isaiah, in Kings II 20,14 asked King Chizkiyah who his visitors were and what they had requested from him, he said only that they had come from Babylon. When Isaiah persisted in knowing why they had come, and what they had seen in his palace? He replied that he had shown them all the treasures in his palace. Isaiah then told him that as a result of the King’s foolishness, the time would come when the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and take with them all the treasures the king had so foolishly shown them. I am troubled by the fact that the Talmud refers only to these three people, omitting Adam, who when asked by G–d where he was hiding, did not say that he knew that G–d must be well aware of where he was, but pretended that he had thought that he could hide from Him. If he was smart enough to have given all the animals appropriate names, he must have known that their Creator would know where each one was at any given time. We would say that Chizkiyah should be removed from that list and Adam should be substituted, Actually, of the four we have mentioned only three spoke to G–d directly, namely Adam. Chizkiyah had been spoken to by the prophet, and prophets do not know everything.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים, “if these men who have visited you came to invite you (in your professional capacity) etc.” I would not want you to accuse Me of having been instrumental in your forfeiting a substantial fee for your services.” However, I want you to say only words which have been approved by Me.” (You are not free to use your power of speech freely)
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא , “G–d’s anger was kindled that he was walking (with them in the spirit);” although Bileam had been given permission to accept Balak’s invitation to come to him, he had not been given permission to curse the Israelites. It was obvious that unless he had intended to do just that, (manipulated G–d) he should have stayed at home. Bileam had thought that seeing the first time G–d had told him not to go to Balak, and now He had agreed to let him go, He must have changed His mind due to something having occurred after the first emissaries had returned to Moav. Seeing that Bileam was too anxious to collect his fee, he had not noticed that he had only been allowed to go אתם, with these emissaries, i. e. physically, but that he was still forbidden to go עמהם “with them in spirit,” something that G–d had forbidden already in verse 12. In order to save Bileam from committing a fatal sin, G–d even dispatched the angel as an obstacle, hoping that he would take the hint on his own. He hoped that Bileam would realise that G–d knew what he was up to.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ותלך בשדה, “she (the ass) walked in the field (instead of on the path).” Rashi’s comment on verse 26 based on Tanchuma that the angel showed Bileam a hint of the three founding fathers of the Jewish people, needs a super commentary. It appears to mean the following: the first time the angel positioned himself as an obstacle on the path, he did so that the ass could pass either to the right or to the left of him but could not proceed without making a detour, the choice that Avraham had given Lot (Genesis, 13,9). The sons of Avraham by Keturah and Hagar are viewed as partially his descendants, as they had a different mother than Sarah. In other words, Bileam would not be permitted to curse Yitzchak who was a descendant of both Avraham and Sarah. The second time the angel tried to obstruct the ass in a narrow passage in the vineyard, he did so in a manner that allowed the ass to squeeze by but painfully, this was a hint that even cursing Yitzchok’s descendants would be allowed only if he cursed Esau, not Yaakov and his descendants. The third obstruction, which forced the ass to lie down, as passage was blocked completely, was a hint to Bileam that on no account would he be permitted to curse any of the descendants of Yaakov and his twelve sons. This is what the angel showed Bileam, using the patriarchs as his symbol.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   גם אותך הרגתי, “I would also have killed you.” Rashi considers this verse as having been truncated, as no reference was made to who would have been the angel’s first victim. I believe Rashi must be understood as follows: if we were to assume that he meant that the angel would have killed the ass first, this line would make perfect sense at this point. But, how are we then understand his adding in the same breath: “and her (the ass) I would have allowed to remain alive?” When we turn the verse around, as implied by Rashi, the meaning would be “not only would I have blocked your progress on this path, but if you had not taken the hint to turn around, I would have been forced to not only delay you but to also kill you in order to prevent you from getting to Balak.” In that event, I would not have needed to kill your ass. Once you had been dead, there would not have arisen the embarrassment of Bileam’s ass having been treated with more concern than its owner, as the dead cannot be embarrassed. However, thanks to the fact that even your ass talked to you and criticised you, this has saved your life as I did not want you to be considered as inferior to your beasts.
  ואותה החייתי, “but I allowed her to remain alive.” From this wording it appears that Bileam’s two man servants had been killed by the angel as they have not been mentioned anymore.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  ואפס את הדבר, “however, only the word, etc.;” (Bileam is warned that he will have to utter words against his will to do so). If these words refer to an earlier part of this chapter, as according to a different commentator, then we must assume that the angel had been sent as a warning, in order to frighten him.
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  וירא משם קצה העם, “from that point he was able to see part of the people.” Our author understands these words as meaning that he saw the entire nation from one end (קצה) of the camp to the other.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויקר אלהים אל בלעם, “G–d met with Bileam.” [This verb does not occur in connection with any other prophet, proving that he was not really a prophet. Ed.] All the scholars wonder why apparently G–d came towards Bileam, when He had never done so to Moses? He called to the latter to come towards Him, as we read repeatedly: ויקרא אל משה, “He called out to Moses!” Some commentators understand the description of the relationship between G–d and Bileam as comparable to a King who sits in his palace and is suddenly visited by a person displaying symptoms of the dreaded disease tzoraat. He calls out at the gate that he desires an interview with the King. When his servants tell the king about this, the king tells them not to admit him to the palace lest he infects the palace with his disease. However, the king declared himself willing to grant the stricken person an audience outside the palace. Although the person concerned wants to speak with him, he does not move from the spot, so that the king relents and admits him to his palace after all.
  
  Verse 5
  
  כה תדבר, “G–d commenced with the same word with which He had announced to Avraham that he would become the founding father of a nation, though at that time he had not yet been able to father a single child. [Compare Genesis 15,5, a conversation between G–d and Avraham which had preceded the command for him to leave Charan in chapter 12. Ed.] He reminded Bileam by referring to that promise that any attempt by him to curse Avraham’s descendants would be futile. In fact G–d had guaranteed to Avraham that his descendants would increase and multiply.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  'ומה אזעום לא זעם ה, “how could I successfully curse someone whom Hashem has not cursed?” Bileam, who specialised in timing G–d’s “moods,” knew that at that time G–d had not had any reason to be angry at His people. If you were to quote the prophet Micah in Micah 6,5, who refers to Bileam having detected that G–d did display anger at Israel at the time, (as interpreted by the Talmud, tractate B’rachot 7,) that anger lasted but a moment and did not enable Bileam to pinpoint accurately. At least Bileam did not have time enough to curse all the Israelites before the curse was turned into a blessing as we know from what Moses said in Deuteronomy 23,6 where he describes G–d as interfering in Bileam’s attempt immediately He had become aware of it. If Bileam had cursed them with the single word: כלם, “make an end of them” he would have had time enough. According to the Talmud the words ותרועת מלך בו, “and the King’s shofar blast is active on their behalf,” (in verse 21 of our chapter) hints at how G–d annuls Bileam’s attempt at cursing the Jewish people. The word מלך, “King,” consisting of the same letters as the word כלם,” destroy them,” shows how G–d interfered with Bileam’s curse. Our author raises an objection to this methodology of turning curses into blessings by quoting the Talmud on the same folio where it reports Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi being harassed by a member of the Tz’doki sect, raising what he considered contradictory verses in the Torah. One day the Rabbi took a cockerel, positioned him at the bottom of his bed, and looked at that bird intently, intending that as soon as the time when G–d is briefly angry would arrive, he would curse that Tz’doki. By the time that hour arrived, the Rabbi had fallen asleep, (and missed his chance). When he awoke, he realised that he had been saved from committing a sin by having fallen asleep at the crucial time, and he interpreted Proverbs 17,26: גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב, “it is also not good to punish the righteous,” to mean that one must not deliberately become the instrument by which G–d punishes the wicked. Our author questions how Rabbi Joshua ben Levi could have succeeded to successfully curse that Tz’doki at the precise moment of G–d’s anger, as it would have taken too long, according to what we just learned? He therefore comes to the conclusion that what is critical is only if the beginning of one’s curse coincides with the precise moment at which G–d is angry. He supports his theory by pointing to the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin folio 105 where Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as having said that the very wording of Bileam’s blessings hinted already at the fact that they had been meant to be curses which G–d had reversed. When he had meant to say that he wished that the Israelites would lack synagogues and Torah academies he commenced with the words: ”how goodly are your tents, etc?” [The word אהל for “tent” in which to study G–d’ Torah occurs frequently, commencing with Yaakov in Genesis 25,27. Ed.] He quotes some other “blessings” of Bileam there as similarly revealing what his curse would have sounded like had he been permitted to pronounce it. Clearly, he would not have had time enough to pronounce all these curses in the minute time span G–d remains angry. This proves that the very beginning of uttering what was in his mind is what is critical.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ומספר את רובע ישראל, “or count the number of Israel?” Our author traces the word רובע as related to רביעה, i.e. as a rainfall ensuring ample growth of the grass in the field. An alternate interpretation: he was able to see only one of the four flags denoting the encampment of the four (ארבע) army groups comprising the men of military age.
  תמות נפשי מות ישרים, “may I die in the same way as do the righteous. Here is proof that there is an afterlife, if Bileam, the arch enemy of Israel wishes for himself the same kind of afterlife reserved for righteous or repentant Israelites. After all, it is indisputable that he was speaking while having been temporarily inspired by the Holy Spirit.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה ברך לקחתי, ”behold, I have been bidden to bless, etc.” I have received a blessing from the Lord to be an instrument of blessing Israel.”
  וברך ולא אשיבנה, “and I am unable to reverse the blessing.” He continues justifying the Lord Who instructed him to bless Israel, as this Lord has not found fault with Israel, i.e. לא הביט און ביעקב, and therefore ותרועת מלך בו, “and their King’s acclaim is in their midst.” The expression תרועה, reveals fondness and companionship for the subject to whom it is applied. He Who took this people out of Egypt is powerful indeed, as the prophet Ezekiel has stated also in Ezekiel 17,13: אילי הארץ לקח, “He took away the nobles of the land.”
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  כתועפות ראם לו, “He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.” The word תועפות is equivalent to “double, twice as much.” G–d’s protection for His people has been demonstrated to be at least twice as strong as the strength of the wild ox. The word: וכפלת in Exodus 26,9, is rendered by the Targum as ותעוף. We find that expression also used in Job 11,17: תעופה כבוקר תהיה, “you will shine you will be like morning,” (when the light is especially bright.) Bileam likens G–d to the wild ox in His listening to human beings, just as on other occasions the prophet Hoseah 11,10 likens G–d’s roaring to that of the lion, and the prophet Amos 3,8 also compared Him to a lion, as inspiring fear and dread.
  
  Verse 23
  
  כי לא נחש ביעקב, the word נחש here is to be understood as in Genesis 30,27: נחשתי ויברכני, “I have through testing found out that G–d has blessed me economically by your presence.” Bileam explains why it would be totally useless to even try and manipulate G–d [to Whom he refers to by the ineffable name. Bileam is seen by the sages as reincarnate of Lavan, and both, refer to the G–d of Israel by the ineffable name, a name that Pharaoh refused to admit he had ever heard when Moses used it. Ed.] He adds that in case Balak thought that granted that he could not curse the Jews in the name of G–d, why did he not invoke other deities or means of divinations to do so, he makes plain that no such קסם, sorcery, would be effective.
  כעת יאמר ליעקב, “at a time when it will be said of Yaakov and Israel all that G–d had has wrought;” we find this construction also in Genesis 18,10: כעת חיה ולשרה בן, at this time next year Sarah will have a son.” G–d will continue to perform miracles for Israel until all the nations will have to acknowledge this. This is an alternative of such expressions as מה רבו מעשיך ה', “How great are Your manifestations o Lord,” (Psalms 104,24)
  
  Verse 24
  
   הן עם כלביא יקום, “they are a people that rises like a lioness;” Bileam tells Balak that far from being humiliated, this nation will rise to greater heights, as do lions.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  'ולא הלך וגו, “he did not continue to attempt using divinations;” he knew that such attempts would be futile. From this point on he blessed the Israelites with a full heart. G–d Himself assisted him in doing so. This is why the Torah immediately testifies at that point the spirit of Hashem came to rest upon him. Alternately, Bileam’s mindset actually was not deterred, but G–d forced him to utter blessings because he had been so inspired from above.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  מה טובו אהליך יעקב, ”how goodly are your tents, Yaakov;” In the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 105 treatment of this verse, Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that the wording, i.e. the metaphors of Bileam’s blessings reveal that these blessings had been involuntary. He had intended to point to the paucity of synagogues and houses of Torah study, but what came out of his mouth were words of admiration for same. He referred to these houses of studies now as if they were equivalent to Tabernacles devoted to G–d as His residence, i.e. משכנותיך ישראל. Instead of saying that its dynasties would be short lived, he said that they would flow like rivers. Instead of saying that they would not enjoy orchards and vineyards, he said: כגנות על נהר, “like gardens situate near a river;” (for easy irrigation) Rabbi Yochanan there continues in this vein. An alternate interpretation by Rabbi Abba bar kahane: all of Bileam’s blessings eventually turned into curses when the Jewish people did not live up to the idealistic version of them he had painted, except the blessings concerning the synagogues and houses of Torah study. A different scholar understands the word נטיו, derived from נטיה, meaning: “propensity,” rivers having a propensity, inclination, to wend their way through the landscape in a certain fashion sometimes becoming wider or narrower depending on the contours of the landscape surrounding them. Bileam suggests that the fortunes of the Jewish people in the future will parallel what we observe with rivers. Isaiah uses the same simile in Isaiah 66,12, when he said: נוטה אליה כנהר שלום, “like a river at peace.” (as opposed to flood in the next simile of the prophet) Bileam’s similes reflect the changing experiences of rivers and streams as reflecting Jewish history in the future. The more active the rivers, the more they symbolise powerful blessings for the Jewish people. Isaiah 54,2 is also a metaphor describing this concept where it is applied to the earth’s solid surface.
  'כאהלים נטע ה, “like aloes planted by Hashem.” This is a metaphor recalling the excellence of the plants in the garden (Eden) which G–d Himself had planted. (Compare Genesis 2,8)
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   יזל מים מדליו, “water shall drip in a stream from its boughs;” the root נזל is used by Bileam in the same sense as by Devorah in her victory hymn to the Lord, Judges 5,5: הרים נזלו, “mountains quaked;” just as at the revelation on Mount Sinai. The power of rushing waters we call tzunami nowadays, are described by the prophet in Isaiah 8,7 as the turbulent flood waters of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris in Assyria.
  וירום מאגג מלכו, “and its king will rise above that of Agag. Bileam foresees the first king of the Israelites, King Sha-ul, as defeating the Kingdom of Amalek headed by Agag at the time (Samuel I chapter 15). All the Kings of the Amalekites bore the title “Agag,” just as all the Kings of Egypt bore the title “Pharaoh.” All the kings of the Philistines bore the title “Avimelech.”
  ותנשא מלכותו, “their Kingdom shall be exalted;” the kingdom of the Israelites.
  
  Verse 8
  
   יאכל גוים צריו, “they shall devour its oppressors.”
  ועצמותיהם יגרם, “and it will cause their bones to be crushed.”
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  לכה איעצך, “now I will give you some advice.” According to Rabbi Yochanan, there were three people involved in this “advice.” They were Bileam, Job, and Yitro. Job who kept silent was punished for not objecting with the afflictions described in the Book of Job. Yitro who left this discussion in disgust, was rewarded by his descendants becoming seated in the offices near the Temple of Solomon. Bileam was killed by the sword in the campaign against Midian. This has been documented in Chronicles I 2,55. The families of scribes mentioned in that verse were the descendants of Yitro. They are also mentioned in Judges 1,16: as “the sons of Keyni, the father-in-law of Moses, who had settled in the cities of Date Palms, (formerly Jericho) (based on Sanhedrin folio 106. An alternate explanation of the word: איעצך. “I will give you an advice concerning your concern that the Israelites in your proximity will completely ruin any grassland with its roots.” As long as you will not provoke them you have nothing at all to fear from them.”
  אשר יעשה העם הזה, “what this people will do in the future.” This will be explained presently.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אראנו ולא עתה, אשורנו ולא קרוב, “what I see for them will not be yet, what I behold will not occur soon.” This is in contrast to prophecies by Moses in Deuteronomy 32,35: כי קרוב יום אידם וחש עתידות למו, “for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that are to come upon them shall make haste.” The subject can be better understood by a parable. A king took a stroll accompanied by both one of his friends and by someone whom he knew to be hostile to him. When the king mentioned that he had become thirsty, the hostile man said that they were a long distance from the nearest source of water, in order to make the king feel even more uncomfortable. His friend, on the other hand, encouraged him to ride on, assuring him that there was a source of water nearby. (He wanted to encourage the king even though he was not certain that what he said was true) Bileam, the enemy of the Israelites portrayed the salvation of that people as being a long way off, whereas Moses, the people’s friend, encouraged the people to observe the law of the Torah as a result of which their salvation would prove to be quite near (chronologically).
  דרך כוכב מיעקב, “there shall step forth a star from Yaakov, etc.” The verb דרך here is used as similar to the prophetess Devorah using it in Judges 5,21: תדרכי נפשי עוז, “march on my soul with courage!” [In both instances it is used poetically as walking in a reinforced manner, with determination and purpose. Ed.] (Compare Isaiah 56,1,כי קרובה ישועתי לבא וצדקתי להגלות, “for soon My salvation shall come and My deliverance will be revealed.”)
  וקם שבט מישראל, “and a scepter shall arise out of Israel;” our author understands the word שבט here as meaning a rod used to discipline someone. This rod will be applied to Moav in the distant future. The word פאתי in our verse, commonly translated as “corners of,” is understood by our author as meaning the same or almost the same as in Psalms 118,22: היתה לראש פנה, “had become the chief cornerstone.” This prophecy was fulfilled in the time of David (Samuel II 8,2) ויך את מואב וימדדם בחבל וגו', “He smote Moav and made them lie down on the ground, and measured them with a cord.”
  וקרקר כל בני שת, “and break down all the sons of Sheth.” According to Rashi, the reference to Sheth, the third son of Adam of whom all mankind is descended after the deluge, the word is a metaphor for the gentile nations. It does not include the people of Israel here, seeing that at the beginning of the verse Bileam had made the Jewish people the subject in his prophecy.
  
  Verse 18
  
   והיה אדום ירשה, “and Edom shall become a possession;” the Edomites became servants to David, paying annual tributes to him.
  והיה ירשה שעיר אויביו, “Seir, also Israel’s enemies, became a possession of those who had previously been its enemies.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירא את עמלק, “he saw Amalek” (in a prophetic vision). Bileam is also described as seeing the Kenite, the descendants of Yitro in our verse, also a prophetic vision. These two nations are lumped together here because the Amalekites were the first anti Jewish nation, whereas the descendants of Yitro, the Kenites were the first pro Jewish nation. This is why Bileam predicts total destruction for Amalek, and lofty dwellings for the Kenites. The word שים here is not an imperative mode of the root שום, “to place, to set,” but is a noun meaning: “the place of, the seat of.” They will dwell on rocks, i.e. secure from attack from below
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי אם יהיה לבער קין, “nonetheless Kayin will be laid to waste;” this will occur when the are exiled. [Seeing that there had not been male descendants of Kayin since the deluge, the meaning of this line is somewhat obscure. Ed.]
  עד מה אשור תשבך, “for how long or when will this occur?” When the Israelites themselves will go into exile and will be sent to Assyria. [According to this, the word Kayin here is a derivative of Kenites. Ed.] The descendants of Yitro will never be subject to total oblivion as will the Amalekites. Therefore it is foolish to be hostile to them, and it is wise to befriend them.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ?ויאמר אוי מי יחיה משמו א-ל, He said: “alas who shall live (unless) G–d has planted him firmly?” According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, the meaning of this line is: “woe to any person who when assuming authority compares himself to G–d!” According to Rabbi Yochanan, the former’s brother-in-law, the meaning is: “woe to any nation that is around at the time when G–d will redeem His people!” Anyone at that time daring to declare himself as ruler anywhere will pay dearly for such arrogance. He is compared to placing his throne between a male lion and that lion’s mate, when that pair is in its mating season. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 106.) Another interpretation: Bileam refers to any fool who still has aspirations at ruling after the Messiah has taken his rightful place on earth.
  
  Verse 24
  
   וצים מיד כתים, “and the fleet of large ships sailing from the harbours of the Assyrians.” [Many commentators understand the word כתים, as a reference to the Romans. Ed.] We find what appears like a similar reference in a prophecy of Isaiah in Isaiah 33,21: וציר אדיר לא יעברנו, “where no floating vessels can travel.”
  וענו אשור, “and they shall afflict the Assyrians.” This will occur despite the might of the Assyrian Empire.
  וענו עבר, “and they shall afflict Ever, (Ivri) i.e. the Hebrews.”
  וגם הוא עדי אובד, “and it too will perish totally.” (The Roman Empire) The successors of the Roman Empire too will perish when the era of the messiah will commence.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “Israel had settled down at a place known as Shittim, when the common people profaned themselves by whoring.” It is well known that whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word: וישב, what follows is some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 37,1 when Yaakov “settled” down and the disaster with Joseph followed and he was sold by his brothers. When in chapter 50,22 of Genesis Joseph is described as having settled down, this is followed by his announcing to his brothers his premature death. (Genesis 50,24) When Israel is described as having settled down in Egypt, (Genesis 47,27) this is followed shortly by the report about Yaakov’s (premature) sickness and death. (verse 29) In Kings I,5,5 we read that the people of Israel including the tribe of Yehudah had settled securely, this is followed by a report in chapter 11,14, by: G–d arranging a revolt by the King of Edom against Solomon’s kingdom. [The Edomites had paid annual tribute to the state of Israel since David’s time. G–d had arranged this as His response to Solomon allowing his wife to erect an altar to the Moabite idol chemosh. Ed.]
  בשטים, according to Rabbi Elazar this had been the name of that place already previously. Rabbi Yoshua disagrees and says that it was so named after what happened there, i.e. that many Israelites committed the ultimate folly, shtuss, of sleeping around with gentiles and prostrating themselves to idols; [in order to please their partners who considered this as payment for granting them sexual favours. Ed.]
  ויחל העם לזנות. They profaned themselves by falling victim to the advice Bileam had given to Balak to lure them into harlotry, a great sin the eyes of the Jewish G–d. (Compare Talmud tractate Gittin, folio 56)
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  'פינחס בן אלעזר הכהן וגו, “Pinchas son of the High Priest Eleazar, etc.” although this was not news to anyone, the Torah had to repeat his genealogy so that the reader would not think that he could be hated for having taken the law into his own hands by killing Zimri. On the contrary, by doing so he had succeeded in arresting the vengeance G–d was in the process of taking from the sinners. Had he not done so, the people criticising him might themselves have been killed by the plague G–d had sent.
  
  Verse 12
  
  לכן, because (he had performed this deed of valour) on My behalf; הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I am forthwith giving him My covenant “peace.” G–d assures Pinchas that even if either relatives of Zimri and Cosbi will hate Pinchas, He will protect him against any act of overt or covert hostility. In the Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 66, attention is drawn to the fact that the letter ו in the word שלום is written with a break in the stem of that letter, to indicate that when a priest is not totally whole in all of his limbs, he is not fit to perform the service in the Temple. His service would be rendered invalid retroactively.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו, “and both he and his descendants will enjoy the status of being priests.” This is the case with the descendants of all priests, but what is meant here is that the special priest assigned to soldiers before setting out on a war of conquest will always be one descended from Pinchas. (Compare both Numbers 31,6 and Talmud Zevachim, folio 101)It also follows that prior to Pinchas’ having killed Zimri in an act of zealousness he had not been a priest although he was the son of a priest.This also explains how Pinchas could have permitted himself to kill Zimri as by doing so he would defile himself, something forbidden for a priest to do? We would have been able to answer that up until now only Aaron himself and his sons had been forbidden to defile themselves through contact with a corpse.We find that also during the description of the consecration of Aaron and his sons as priests the Torah had emphasised the anointment of him and his sons, (not any grandsons. Compare Exodus 28,40-41.)It is also possible to answer that when Pinchas withdrew his dagger from Zimri and Cosbi, they had not yet been quite dead. [These speculations are necessary as there is a debate between the sages as to when Pinchas had become a priest. His priesthood might not have been hereditary to his descendants prior to here. Ed.] Concerning this interpretation, Rabbi Sh’muel raises the point that Pinchas must have been a priest in the full sense of the meaning of the word no later than on the eighth day of the consecrations rites, [38 years earlier. Ed.] or the Midrash could not have included him in the seven joyful events that Aaron’s wife Elisheva was supposed to have enjoyed on that day. It is possible that Moses appointed him to that position although he did not permit him to perform service in the Tabernacle until after he had earned that right by being zealous on G–d’s behalf at the right time at the right place. Only now had all the privileges of the priesthood been bestowed upon him and his descendants after him.
  ויכפר על בני ישראל, “now that he had achieved atonement on behalf of the whole Jewish nation, he would henceforth be an instrument gaining atonement on other occasions.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ושם האשה המוכה, “and the name of the woman who had been slain, etc,” the reason that the Torah bothered to name the woman in question was only in order to tell us that she was of the elite of the women in Midian, and although Pinchas was aware of this, and the possible political implication of killing her, this did not stop him from acting zealously on behalf of Hashem, as he remembered that G–d said to Avraham, after he had killed four prominent kings in order to free his nephew Lot, that he should not be afraid of the relatives of those kings seeking revenge. (Genesis 15,1).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי אחרי המגפה, “it was after the plague had ceased, etc.” At that time G–d instructed Moses to conduct another census of the people (males between 20-60 years of age). Joshua would have to know how many soldiers he had at his disposal when commencing his conquest of the land of the Canaanites. The people had been counted twice. In this count the names of the families in each tribe are mentioned. When they had been counted in the desert of Sinai, only the tribal allegiance of each person counted had been recorded. According to the plain meaning of the text, not all tribes entered the land of Israel in accordance with the families of their respective tribes. Some of them did not have male descendants of the requisite age, so that they would be lumped together with their brothers, sons of the same father. For instance, although we know that according to the count of Yaakov’s grandchildren descending to Egypt in Genesis chapter 46, six are listed, when the Torah reports the result of the present census only three, i.e. Ohad, Yachin, and Zochar are mentioned by name. Sometimes the name of the family is that of the third generation, as in the case of Zerach. We had never found that any of the six sons of Shimon included one named Zerach. Similarly, Gilad, a great grandson of Joseph appears to have been the mainstay of Menashe’s descendants, as he had performed deeds of valour. In some instances the names of the original sons of Yaakov were changed slightly by the time they constituted families of substantial numbers. For instance: Yemuel in Genesis became Nemuel in Numbers, and Chusham in Genesis became Chushim in Numbers.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  ושם בת אשר שרח, “And Asher’s daughter was called Serach.” Seeing that she had been mentioned by name already in Genesis, when eligibility for army service was quite irrelevant, the Torah mentions her here again. [According to our tradition she was still alive after 250 years after Yaakov had come to Egypt. Ed.] There is reason to wonder why the verse mentioning her commences with the connective letter ו, “and.” There is also reason to wonder why the Targum apparently understood Serach as not being Asher’s daughter though she was the daughter of Asher’s wife. Asher apparently had raised her after her mother had died when she was a baby. This is why the Torah describes her as being Asher’s daughter. This would also account for the letter ו at the beginning of this verse, as if to hint that she did not become his daughter already at her birth. The difficulty with this interpretation is that if she had been born to one of the other tribes why did the Torah not mention this? If she was not born to any of the members of the 12 tribes, why is she listed as such in the count of the people Yaakov brought with him to Egypt? Perhaps she was indeed the biological daughter of Asher, and because already before the family descended to Egypt she had acquired a reputation of being especially pious, the Torah decided to mention her name.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
   אשר ילדה אותה ללוי, “which she had born for Levi.” For this was the name of Levi’s wife.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “you are to transfer his estate to his daughter.” In all the other verses dealing with the daughters of Tz’lofchod, this “transfer” is defined by the word: ונתתם, “you are to give.” Why is it described here as only a “transfer?” If this ”transfer” occurs to a married daughter who has inherited it from her father, it will subsequently become the husband’s, i.e. it will be known as her husband’s property.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  וביום השבת, “and on the Sabbath day, etc.;” there is a comment by Midrash Shocher tov on Psalms 92,1 that amongst all the mussaph offerings there is none that is as inexpensive as that of the Sabbath, i.e. consisting of only two not more than one year old sheep. According to the author of that Midrash the Sabbath complained to G–d about this. G–d told the Sabbath that this day is distinguished by a number of things that occur on it or relating to it in duplicates. It has two hymns dedicated to it; its special offering consists of two sheep; it is known as עונג, “pleasure, delight,” not once but twice; when it is deliberately desecrated it brings a dual penalty, i.e. מות יומת, the show breads are paired on the table in the Temple. This is also why we speak of this mussaph offering being כראוי, “tailored to its essence.” This is an expression that has not been applied to the mussaph offerings on any other occasion. The Midrash elaborates by means of a parable: a King told his servants to prepare his meal for “my sons”. The servants prepared two separate meals. After both his sons had consumed these meals, the king asked for a meal to be prepared for him. The servants asked him which kind of meal he desired. The king asked what kind of meal they had served to his sons? The servants spelled out the details for him. The king then responded that they should not prepare a more elaborate meal for him than they had prepared for his sons. [My version of this Midrash does not quote the Sabbath as having complained to G–d. Ed.] G–d acted in a similar manner when He provided the Jewish people with a double portion of manna for the Sabbath even before the Sabbath had commenced. Seeing He gave His people the equivalent of two loaves of bread before the Sabbath, He wished this to be remembered by “feeding” Him the equivalent of two loaves of bread as the special offering on the Sabbath. This is what the two sheep of the mussaph offering on that day represent. Seeing that we are on the subject of preparations for the Sabbath, let us explain also the central part of the Sabbath Mussaph prayer which commences with the words: תכנת שבת, “You (G–d) have instituted the Sabbath, etc.” The sequence of the letters תכן in the word תכנת, are a reminder of Exodus 5,18, where in response to Moses requesting a three day vacation for the Israelites to serve the G–d of his people, Pharaoh not only refused, but doubled the work load of the people by denying them the straw that had been given to them for making bricks, and insisting that the daily number of bricks required תכן לבנים, remain the same. The “institution” the author of the prayer speaks of refers to G–d having named each day of the creation sequentially so that the Sabbath would be the seventh day, a number which G–d is especially fond of. (Compare Vayikra Rabbah 29,11) [The author of the Midrash there makes a long list of proving the statement he has just made. Ed.] He claims that this is why G–d took a special liking to Chanoch, the outstanding human specimen of the seventh generation.]
  רצית קרבנותיה, ”You took pleasure in its offerings.” Any offerings of animals which had been alive for at least one Sabbath are especially welcome to G–d. [In fact animals which have not been alive on at least one Sabbath are not considered as fit as such. [Compare Leviticus 22,27 Ed.]
  צוית פירושיה עם סדורי נסכיה, “You did commanded its special obligations with the order of its drink offerings.” The word “You did command,” implies that violation of the command carries a serious penalty. Rashi explains this in connection with the words זכור, “remember,” and שמור, “make sure you do not violate,” appearing on the two versions of the Sabbath Commandment in the two sets of Tablets. (Exodus 20,8) He explains that these two versions of the same commandment were uttered by the Lawgiver at the Revelation as if they were a single utterance. We find something similar in connection with one of the commandments concerning incestuous relationships, where the Torah wrote לא יקח איש את אשת אחיו, “a man is not to take as a wife a woman who had been the wife of his brother, but where the reverse i.e. “the nakedness of the wife of the wife of your brother you must not reveal.” (Leviticus 19,15) In Deuteronomy 25,5, we find a similar construction concerning the levirate marriage. One utterance, but two written recordings. The Torah writes: יבמה יבא עליה ולקחח לו לאשה ויבמה,”her brother-in-law shall sleep with her, and take her as a levirate wife.” Although some of these statements appear on the face of it as if they contradict one on another in some way, the one concerning the Sabbath does not contain a contradiction but appears to complement one the other. Some scholars see in even this commandment some contradiction to the extent that the word זכור, which our sages interpret as making kiddush over wine when it commences, i.e. a positive commandment, which would relieve women from observing it as positive commandment linked to a specific time frame are not binding on women, and it is clear to the whole world that Sabbath observance applies to women no less than to men. [The double portion of manna was provided for men and women equally, i.e. both were included in that legislation. Ed.] The expression שמר only appears in the Torah in connection with negative commandments, i.e. violation involves an act. (Compare Talmud, tractate Zevachim, folio 106. At first glance it looks as if שמר is the opposite of זכור. Actually, this is not so, as women are no less obliged to sanctify the Sabbath seeing that the Talmud stated specifically in tractate B’rachot, folio 20 that whosoever is obligated not to violate the negative commandments of the Sabbath is also obligated to fulfill the positive commandments pertaining to that day. One might raise the question of why we do not publicly read both of these paragraphs every Sabbath? We do this every New Moon, and on every festival, whenever we pray a mussaph prayer in remembrance of the sacrifices offered in honour of such days. The fact that these two paragraphs consist of only two verses each is no excuse for not reading them in public on every Sabbath, and the Talmud, tractate Megillah folio 22, prohibits the public reading of paragraphs of the Torah that are not at least three verses long. The fact remains that we add this paragraph to the public reading of the Torah on every New Moon day that occurs on a Sabbath. The reason that we do so on those days is that New Moon is a day associated with the need to obtain atonement of sins as pointed out in the Talmud, tractate Taanit, folio 27; This is supposed to date back to the time of Avraham in Genesis chapter 15, when upon being told by G–d that he would have biological offspring who would develop into a great nation, he had asked for some sign as confirmation that he had not imagined G–d speaking to him. He wanted to know by what merit he had deserved such a promise and such a future. G–d spelled this out to him in verse 8 and 9 of that chapter when He asked him to prepare some sacrifices to Him. In other words, these sacrifices would earn him the merit that this promise of G–d would be fulfilled. When Avraham heard this, he responded that this was all well and good as long as there would be a Temple in which to offer these sacrifices daily. What would ensure that even during years of exile, which G–d had indicated that his descendants would have to endure, there would not be a chance to offer these sacrifices? G–d replied that these exiles would recite the relevant portions of the Torah in which the legislation about the sacrificial offerings is written, and then He would consider this as a substitute for their not having been presented on an appropriate altar. On New Moon we recite a verse in the mussaph prayer relating to a male goat that had to be presented on that day as a sin offering. An alternate approach: When the Torah dealt with the subject of the festivals at length in Leviticus chapter 23, it wrote: “these are the festivals for the Lord which you are to proclaim (ahead of time)”, and it is forbidden to interpret a text contrary to the plain meaning, p’shat, and the Sabbath is obviously not included in this commandment as it occurs at the end of every week, and the people are all aware of this, neither is that day ever referred to as a moed, days which are related strictly to certain days of the calendar, whereas New Moon is included in the days called: moed. (Lamentations 1,15, based on the Talmud in tractate Taanit, folio 29). The sages felt the need to explain why, for instance, the sin offering in the mussaph offering is described as לה', “for the Lord,” i.e. on behalf of the Lord, a formulation we do not find elsewhere. The sages of the Talmud tractate Sh’vuot folio, 9 suggest that this offering is offered on behalf of the Lord for having diminished the size of the moon, which had originally been the same size as the sun. This is a very puzzling explanation. We may have to understand it as follows: G–d, in speaking of a sin offering on His behalf, refers to our offering an atonement offering on His behalf throughout the generations on New Moon and this will comfort the moon for having been demoted. The “comfort” will help babies not to be infected with certain diseases called diphtheria to small children, seeing that the first renewal of the moon occurred on the fourth day of the week, the day on which G–d had “hung” the luminaries during the six days of the creation. (Compare Talmud tractate Taanit folio 29.) This is also how Rashi explains this when commenting of Genesis 1,14. He draws our attention to the defective spelling of the word meorot, luminaries, which ought to have been spelled מאורות, seeing it is derived from the word אור, “light,” but the first letter ו has been omitted. By omitting this letter, what remains is the plural of the word מארה, “curse.” On the first day of the month when the light of the moon is at its weakest, the children are more at risk than during any other day of the month. Hence G–d, in a manner of speaking, apologises for this, so that this day makes that sacrifice atonement for anything that could have harmed these children in the normal course of events. [G–d does not “apologise” to the moon, -He had diminished the size of the moon for a valid reason- but to our children who would have been at greater risk had we not offered this extra sin offering on each New Year’s day. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וביום השביעי, “and on the seventh day;” I have found that an identical verse is recited also on the seventh day of Passover in our mussaph prayers, i.e. 'ביום השביעי וגו.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  In connection with the festival of Sh’vuot, although the line: שעיר עזים אחד לכפר עליכם, “one male goat to atone for you,” appears, the customary word: לחטאת, “as a sin offering “ is absent. Presumably this is in honour of the Torah which had been given to the people on that date. This is also why the author of the liturgical poem recited in many congregations on that day, writes that: “sin is not mentioned on that day so that the Lord can enjoy a day of rest.” An alternate explanation. Seeing that on that day, at least, the entire congregation was free from sin, [when the Ten Commandments were given at Mount Sinai. Ed.] According to the Midrash, their status was like as if they had never sinned, as on that day they had unanimously accepted the yoke of the Torah. We find also the line: מלבד עולת התמיד, “apart from the daily burnt offering,” immediately following this verse and it is strange that these words do not appear in connection with the two wave-breads that were offered up only on that day of the year. This was the pattern of the Torah in chapter 29,6,as well as in chapter 29,11, in connection with the mussaph offerings on New Year’s Day as well as on the Day of Atonement. Perhaps we can answer this question by suggesting that this statement had already been included in the description of the mussaph offerings on that day commencing in verse 26 of our chapter. We also find that in connection with the details of the mussaph offerings on New Year’s Day, (29,2) it is written specifically: ועשיתם עולה, “you are to prepare a burnt offering, etc;” Why was this expression different in any way from the usual formula of והקרבתם עולה, “you are to sacrifice (bring to the altar) that the Torah employs everywhere else when discussing the burnt offering? We may understand that the reason is that that day is the day when all of mankind is being judged, and from the moment we enter the New Year, we are all considered as if we had only been created on that day. The author of the liturgical poems for that day probably had this in mind when he wrote: הבוראם בריאה חדשה, “Who had created them as a new creature.” According to the Midrash, these words in the liturgy for the Days of awe should be read only on the Day of Atonement. (based on the Midrash on Psalms 102,19 where the psalmist speaks of a new people having been created.) [There are several disagreements quoted by the Midrash as to who precisely the psalmist referred to, at any rate all are agreed that he referred to people not yet created at the time when the psalmist composed this hymn. I am therefore not continuing with this part of the author’s commentary. The reader interested can read the Midrash Tehillim Ed.] The reason why on Sukkot we recite the entire Hallel as opposed to the festival of Passover is that on each of the days of Sukkot, the composition of the offering is different from every other day, thereby giving each day a special significance. On Passover, the mussaph offering is exactly the same on all of the seven days. The reason why on the eighth day, sh’mini ha-atzeret, only a single bullock is part of the mussaph offering, is to show that it is not the Lord Who is in need of these offerings, but they are presented as a sign of honour by G–d to the Jewish people to the gentile nations. It would have been appropriate that this day occur on the 50th day after the end of the Sukkot festival, just as the festival of Sh’vuot occurs on the fiftieth day after the first day of Passover. It has been shifted as the climate at that time makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem a hardship during the rainy season. (Tanchuma section 15 on this portion) Our author quotes another liturgical poem for these days referring to this point. [We, especially in the land of Israel, where these festivals are part of the everyday atmosphere on these days, do not recite most of these poems anymore, as we do not need them as a reminder of the significance of the days. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  You shall bring [ועשיתם] a burnt-offering. Why was this different than all the other sin-offerings in which it was written “ והקרבתם— and you shall offer”? The answer is because Rosh HaShanah is the Day of Judgment, and when the people of Israel enter judgment they are made [נעשים] like a new creation. And this is what the liturgical poet wrote: He Who created them as a new creation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות וגו'...זה הדבר אשר צוה ה,“Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of Israel....this is what the Lord has commanded.” When Rabbi Sh’muel son of Meir, a grandson of Rashi, was asked where we can find that the legislation concerning vows was commanded to Moses, he directed the questioner to what has been written in the Torah immediately prior to our portion, namely: “these are the rules concerning the festivals for the Lord, apart from your vows, etc. “(Numbers, 29 39) The reference is to free willed vows and free will offerings, etc. There is also another category of vows, which is discussed in the Torah. Our verse refers to the chapter 28 in Numbers which commences with rules concerning sacrificial offerings.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  וישלח אותם משה, “Moses sent them forth;” (the 12000 men making up the punitive expedition against the Midianites) You, the reader, will recall that the Lord had instructed Moses personally to head this expedition. (Verse 2 in our chapter, where He also added that after having carried out this mission Moses would die.) Why did Moses delegate others to do what he had been commanded to do himself? The reason must have been that seeing that he had found refuge there from persecution by the Egyptian secret service and had even became the son-in-law of a prominent priest in Midian, he did not think that G–d had meant for him to lead this campaign, just as he had not been ordered to strike the Nile which had sheltered him but had delegated that task to his brother Aaron at the time. He acted according to the well known proverb: “do not bite the hand that fed you.” Another interpretation suggests that the Midian of which Cosbi had been a princess was not the same Midian as that which is described in the Book of Exodus. [The Midian which Moses fled to bordered the desert of Sinai, whereas the Midian which is featured in connection with Bileam and Balak is situated in the Arabian peninsula bordering the red sea. Ed.] The reason why Moses chose Pinchas to be the leader of this expedition was that seeing he had commenced with turning away G–d’s wrath from the people, he should be given a chance to complete this good deed by punishing the seducers of his people. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 23,4)
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  כל דבר אשר יבא באש, “any vessel that can withstand fire, etc.;” it seems strange that the Israelites had not yet been commanded concerning the need to ritually cleanse vessels that were part of a war’s booty already after they had conquered the land of Sichon and Og, lands which they had taken physical possession of, and which was considered as part of the Holy Land, its soil having been promised to the descendants of Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis? Perhaps the reason is that those campaigns were fought in open fields, and the soldiers at the time of killing their adversaries did not need to enter the homes of their victims and come into physical contact with all their victims’ personal belongings. Now they had to be taught that such belongings of idolaters had to be treated as out of bounds until their idolatrous character had been removed from them.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ובקר שנים ושבעים אלף, “and seventy two thousand head of cattle.” We need to examine why no camels were found among the livestock captured in this list of booty from the Midianites. We know from Judges 6,5, that the Midianites owned large flocks of camels. Perhaps they had not started raising camels until after this period. [Perhaps the Book of Judges referred to the other Midian mentioned in the Book of Exodus. Ed.]
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  'ונקרב את קרבן ה, “we have brought the Lord’s offering, etc.” Rashi explains this verse in his commentary on the Talmud tractate Shabbat, folio 64, by saying that whereas these soldiers had all withstood the temptation to sin during this campaign, they had not been free from the temptation to sin, and it was to atone for this temptation that they brought the offering mentioned in our verse. Although we know from the Torah that a Jewish soldier who falls in love with a physically attractive prisoner of war is even allowed to marry her after she has converted, and no mention is made of his having to bring an offering for having even slept with her prior to this, this exemption only applies to the first time he could not resist this sinful temptation. To be lusting after her after having first satisfied his lust is forbidden for that soldier also.
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  אנשי הצבא בזזו איש לו, “the men actively involved in the fighting of that campaign had each taken personal loot to keep for themselves.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  'ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן וגו, “and The Reubenites possessed large quantities of livestock;” the tribes of Reuven and Gad, who possessed more wealth than the others grew to love their material possessions and this is what encouraged them to separate from their brethren, the other tribes to the extent that they wanted to make their residence on the east bank of the river Jordan. A look at history will show us that these tribes were the first to be exiled from their land. Both they and half of the tribe of Menashe who had also taken up residence on the east bank of that river (Compare Chronicles I 5,26.) [They were exiled in 740 B.C. about 20 years earlier than the tribes that had split from the Davidic dynasty on the west bank of the Jordan. Ed.] Psalms 75,7-8 refers to this event when the psalmist says: כי לא ממוצא וממערב ולא ממדבר הרים כי אלוקים שפט זה ישפיל וזה ירים, “for neither from his point of departure , motza, from birth, (the constellation governing that date) nor from the east or west, (geographical position) or from the wilderness or mountains (is man’s fate determined) for G–d is it who gives judgment. He lifts up or brings down.” In other words, man’s travails and planning are not what determines his success or failure in matters concerning material wealth. Rabbi Acha is on record as saying that every time the word הרים, “mountains” appears in the Bible it is to be understand literally, except in this verse in Psalms when the author uses it as a metaphor, for describing man’s status among his fellow man, i.e. his wealth. Man must not boast of his wealth as it may be here today and gone tomorrow. It is G–d Who has given him wealth, and it is He Who will deprive him of it when He sees fit to do so. What is the reason why in the Hebrew language physical possessions are referred to as נכסים, “chattels?” Because these “possessions,” have a way of moving from one “owner” to another “owner.” The same is true for the word זוז which describes coins in the Hebrew language, a word derived from the root which means: ”to move.” The same is true of the word ממון meaning “money,” i.e. something being constantly counted. It is also called מעות, reminding us that it is being used to deceive people, to falsify. Another quote on this subject is provided by Rabbi Abba, who draws our attention to the prayer of Channah in Samuel I 2,7: ה' מוריד ומעשיר, משפיל אף מרומם, “It is (only) the Lord Who makes poor and rich, He casts down and He also lifts high.” Even though He elevates a person, this does not have to be at the expense of casting down another person, as He can do it to the same person.” The Torah had described how each soldier enriched himself during the campaign against Midian. Although G–d brought disaster upon Midian, the Israelites were enriched. The same happened in Egypt when the plagues G–d had brought upon the Egyptians ended up by enriching the Jewish slaves. All this happened simultaneously. Our sages said that G–d gave mankind three gifts. They are: חכמה, גבורה , and עושר, “wisdom, physical strength and bravery, as well as material wealth. Whoever is endowed with either one of these gifts has actually been endowed with all three of them. How is this line to be understood? As long as these gifts are the result of studying the Torah and being G–d fearing. Unless these endowments are the product of the above, they are useless in the end. This is why the prophet Jeremiah has said in Jeremiah 9,22: אל יתהלל חכם בחכמתו ואל יתהלל הגבור בגבורתו, ואל יתהלל העשיר בעשרו כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידוע אותי  כי אני ה' כל עושה חסד חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ, “let not the wise boast about his wisdom, let not the strong boast about his strength; let not the rich glory in his riches; but only in this should one glory (if at all) in his earnest devotion to Me. For I the Lord act with kindness, Justice, and equity in the world.” (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah on this portion) I have also heard an explanation on this verse along the lines of a statement in the Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 16: there is one angel by the name of laylah, who is in charge of everything connected with conception; he presents every drop of human semen to the Lord and asking Him whether the ovum this drop will fertilise shall be endowed with wisdom, or foolhardiness, with physical strength or weakness, with wealth or poverty. He does not ask if the human being that will be born from this drop of semen will be a wicked person or a righteous person, as this is something that G–d has abstained from interfering with. It is the basis of the whole freedom, i.e. “image of G–d,” G–d has given to man as opposed to the angels and the animals, not to mention inert parts of the universe. The three outstanding examples of the endowments called “wisdom, physical strength and material wealth,” i.e. the wealthy Korach and the wealthy Haman, were symbols of the latter, one Jewish one non Jewish, who came to a totally disastrous end, each after having boasted of enormous admiration amongst his supporters. They had both displayed what we call wisdom, and instead of this helping them, it led them to an early and ignoble death. They had not been endowed with their wealth from G–d, but had acquired it by immoral means. Solomon, in Kohelet 5,12, refers to this when he said that “riches hoarded by their owners lead to their misfortune.” (Compare Tanchuma 5 and Bamidbar rabbah 22,7 on our verse on this subject.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  בלתי כלב בן יפונה, “except for Caleb son of Yephune, etc.” this line is puzzling, seeing that Yair son of Menashe also entered the Holy Land as explained by the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 44 on Joshua 7,5: where the 36 men of Israel that are reported as having been slain by the men of Ai, (in the first assault) are understood by the Talmud as having been only one man, whose moral value was equivalent to that of a majority of the members of the Jewish Supreme Court which consisted of 71 elders. This man was Yair, son of Menashe. This occurred after the theft by Achan ben Karmi of the loot from the city of Jericho, which had not been brought to the attention of the court although his family members were aware of this. We may have to answer the above query by assuming that the decree that all the men who had left the land of Egypt who had been subject to the decree of dying in the desert as a result of the debacle with the spies did not include any who had been under twenty years at the time. [Since the Torah described Joseph as having held great-grandchildren on his knees before he died at the age of 110, and more than 86 years elapsed after the death of the last of Joseph’s brothers until the Exodus, many of whom died much older than he, it is hard to believe that Yair, at the time of the Exodus, had not reached the age of twenty. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  מוסבות שם, “their names having been changed;” originally they had been named by the Ammonites and Moabites. After being conquered by Sichon, their names were changed. When they were conquered by the Israelites their names were changed again to sound Jewish.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  ובאלוהיהם עשה ה' שפטים, “and the Lord executed judgments on their gods.” Read שופטיהם, “their judges,” instead of their gods; “judgments” cannot be executed on inert idols. The Torah here uses a play on words, seeing that the word אלוהים is also used in the Torah for judges. (Compare Exodus 22,7)
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  ואבדתם את כל צלמי משכיתם, “you are to destroy all their molten images.” According to Tanchuma 8 on this verse this is what is meant in Job 35,11 מלפנו מבהמות ארץ, “who gives us more knowledge than the beasts of the earth.” G–d told the Israelites to learn a lesson from Elijah at Mount Carmel who had asked the priests of the Baal to prepare one bullock as their sacrifice to the Baal and to wait if the Baal would respond in any manner at all. When almost the whole day had passed and no response from the Baal had been forthcoming, Elijah proceeded to dig a trench around an ancient altar that had been destroyed when the Temple in Jerusalem was built, and he filled the trench with water. He poured water over the bullock after it had been cut up three times and prayed to the Lord of Israel; fire descended from heaven and consumed the bullock and licked up all the water in the trench. (Kings I 18,32). I have heard that the size and shape of that trench was copied from what the Israelites constructed in front of the Tabernacle. The amount of water poured into that trench and over the bullock also was the same as had been used with the altar in front of the Tabernacle. How was he allowed to use jugs which had been used by the idolatrous priests of the Baal? In Kings II 3,11 Elisha, Elijah’s successor, is quoted as having been the one who poured the water on Mount Carmel for his mentor Elijah so that there is no problem of idolatrous vessels having been used. There is puzzling verse in Job 35,11: where one of Job’s friends tells him that “the Lord gives us more wisdom than the birds in the sky.” This was a reference to the ravens which had supplied Elijah with food and water when he was hiding out from King Achav. These birds did not want to enter the palace of the idolatrous king. Our author feels that this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the Talmud on that subject. (Chulin folio 5.) It is stated there that the ravens took that food from the kitchen of the King, which being under the supervision of Adoniah, (a prophet) was strictly kasher.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  מנגב לקדש נרנע, “from the south, (southern border) as far as Kadesh Barnea. Rav B’chor Shor raises the question that in this verse Kadesh Barnea is described as being part of the land of Canaan, i.e. the west bank of the Jordan, whereas when Moses dispatched the spies in Joshua 14,7 Calev described Moses as having dispatched them from that place, and Moses had never set foot across the Jordan. I believe that there must have been two locations each bearing the name Kadesh Barnea, and this is supported by the Talmud in the third chapter of tractate Makkot where Rabbi Yossi is quoted as having said so. This place is also listed as a place on the east Bank of the Jordan in Joshua 15,3. Rashi also explains that there where two locations both named Hor Hahar, seeing that Aaron died there and he too had never crossed the river Jordan. (Numbers 20,28) On the other hand, in verse 7 of our chapter, Hor Hahar is described as part of the Land of Canaan on the west bank of that river.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  והקריתם לכם לערים, “you shall appoint for yourselves as towns;” In Deuteronomy 19,3, the Torah instructs the Jewish people to erect pointers guiding potential inadvertent killers with how to get to the nearest city of refuge at each juncture of major roads in the country. This is also what the psalmist referred to in Psalms 25,8: על כן יורה חטאים בדרך, “therefore He shows sinners the way.” Actually, there was no need for this legislation as it follows logically from another legislation. If G–d shows murderers the way to their rehabilitating themselves, how much more will He show the way to people who are righteous and have erroneously committed a sin. This is why the psalmist quoted above immediately continues with: ידרך ענוים במשפט וילמד ענוים דרכו, “He guides the lowly on the right path, and He teaches the humble His way.”
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  את שלש הערים וגו'...מעבר לירדן ואת שלש הערים וג' בארץ כנען “the three towns etc.; and the three towns etc.; in the land of Canaan.” The Talmud tractate Makkot folio 9 raises the question why it was that both on the west bank of the Jordan and on the east bank three towns of refuge for potential inadvertent killers were provided when more than 80% of the population resided on the west bank of the Jordan? The answer given by the scholar Abbaye is that the area known as Gilead on the east bank was known to harbour many murderers. He based himself on what is written in the Book of Hoseah 6,8: גלעד קרית פועלי און עקובה מדם, “Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” Rabbi Elazar there adds that the word עקובה used by the prophet means that people lay in wait, and ambushed those whom they planned to kill. How do these statements answer our question seeing that the cities of refuge were not provided for intentional murders? The prophet accused the people Gilead of committing deliberate murders! The answer is that the fact that seeing that unintentional killings were common place in Gilead, this encouraged intentional killers to pretend that they had committed unintentional killing. G–d arranged for unintentional killers to be residents of that area in order to be able to tell between deliberate murders committed in the absence of witnesses, and unintentionally committed killings. Their victims would be the ones who had previously committed intentional killings but could not be brought to court due to absence of witnesses. The Talmud on the folio next to the one we quoted uses Samuel I 24,14: מרשעים יצא רשע, “wicked deeds have a habit of being performed by wicked people.” [a quote from David who after having cut off a piece of King’s Shaul’s cloak instead of killing him as his pursuer, wanted to convince him that the people who had accuse him as being his enemy had evil intentions. Ed.] If one person had killed unintentionally, without there being any witnesses, so that he did not bother to go to a city of refuge, G–d arranges that he will do something similar with witnesses, but the victim having previously guilty of intentional undetected murder.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עד מות הכהן הגדול, “for he has to remain in the city of his refuge until the death of the High Priest.” The plain meaning of the verse is to prevent people from complaining about the High Priest doing nothing to avenge the victim of this killer when they see the inadvertent killer leave his city of refuge. Once he has died and another has been appointed in his place, this is no longer a consideration as the murder had not been committed during the tenure of the new High Priest. According to Deuteronomy 26,3: the function of the High Priest is בימים ההם, during each High Priest’s lifetime, he is not held responsible for what occurred before he was appointed or after he had died.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  ולא תקחו כפר, “and you are not to accept a ransom, etc.” if a deliberate killer had fled to a city of refuge, you must remove him and bring him to trial and convict him and carry out the death penalty. We know that Yoav the chief general of David had taken refuge and had held on to the corners of the altar, but had been removed from there and had been executed for the murder of Avner in peace time, in accordance with Exodus 21,14. David had not felt politically strong enough to carry out this penalty, but he had commanded his son Solomon to do so in due course, as if he would allow him to die in his sleep he would forfeit his share in the world to come, something David did not want to have on his conscience. (Kings I 2,28) Yoav was a very wise man, even among the senior members of the Supreme Court (Samuel II 23,8). According to Bamidbar Rabbah 23,13 and the commentators on that, he had been aware that the altar would not protect him against extradition, (seeing this had been spelled out in the Torah and most children under the age of ten had been aware of this.) He supposedly was aware that anyone executed by the Court for a capital offence was not allowed to be buried with his forefathers, and this would be an everlasting shame, and this is why he tried to escape death at the hands of the Court. When B’nayahu who had been assigned the task of arresting him heard this, he related it to King Solomon, who therefore decided to have him killed on the spot so that he could be buried with his forefathers. (Kings I 2, 30-31) David’s instructions to his son had been not to let him die peacefully, without specifying by what method he was to die. (Verse 5 in that chapter) According to our author, what David referred to when he told his son Solomon that Yoav had done something treacherous to him personally for which he was also guilty of the death penalty, referred to a different occasion, i.e. to Yoav having exposed Uriah hachitti, the first husband of Bat Sheva, to almost certain death in the war against the Ammonites. When Uriah was killed the other soldiers were very angry with Yoav their commander for having allowed a hero such as Uriah to be unnecessarily exposed. Thereupon Yoav showed his soldiers a letter that he had received from King David in which the king who had sat out that battle at home, had instructed him specifically to see to it that Uriah would be killed during a battle. Revealing the King’s secret to one and all was a sin for which Yoav was guilty on another score. These details are hinted at in the Book of Samuel, where Rashi (Samuel II 11,18) comments that he does not know why Yoav’s soldiers were angry at him after Uriah had been killed, and Yoav having warned the messengers in which Yoav reported to the king on the battle during which Uriah had been killed, David would criticize the strategy Yoav had used. If this happened they were told to add that Uriah had been killed during that battle. Somewhat strangely, the Book of Samuel 24,1 continues immediately that G–d was angry at Israel without spelling out what had caused G–d’s anger as a result of which He tempted David with conducting a census of the people. Perhaps the anger was caused by Uriah having been killed. If so, it makes sense that immediately prior to this verse Uriah had been listed as one of the 37 outstanding heroes in David’s army. He was listed there as the last, whereas in the Book of Chronicles I chapter 11 he is ranked higher. (number 15) (Perhaps that was before the incident of his having refused to go home on furlough when King David told him to) We may explain all this by means of a parable. A king instructed his servants to record for him all the men deserving of special distinctions and the reason why they deserved these distinctions. The servants did do, and they presented the list to the king and began to read the list out before him. The king enquired after the present whereabouts of each of these people, and what they were currently charged with doing. This is why each one was mentioned by name, until they came to one of these men who had become guilty of a misdemeanour in spite of having been an outstandingly loyal subject of the king. Due to this misdemeanour, he had been killed due to their not having given him support at a crucial moment. Upon hearing this, the king got angry and tore up the whole list. He gave them the choice of one of three punishments for their negligent treatment of that loyal servant. They could either endure a period of starvation, or be involved in a dangerous war in a distant country, or endure a painful physical beating. They unanimously responded that they left it to the king to decide, as they were confident that seeing that he was a merciful ruler he would know how to deal with them. The king instructed them to write a new list of these outstandingly loyal subjects, but to place the name of the one who had become guilty of a misdemeanour at the very end of that list. After they had received their physical punishment they wrote the new list with the name of the party guilty of a misdemeanour (Uriah) at the end of that list. G–d offered David the choice of three punishments, either famine, for three years, or a war in which he would be swept away by his enemies, or sword by the Lord, i.e. a plague lasting three days. (Samuel II 24,12) In Chronicles I 21,12, David is quoted as telling the prophet Gad who had communicated this choice to him that He knew that G–d was merciful and was prepared to fall into the hands of the Lord instead rather than into the hands of merciless men. (verse 14 there) The reason he chose the plague was that it strikes rich and poor alike, weak and strong alike. Had he chosen years of famine, the people would have accused him of discriminating against the poor who had no money to buy anything, whereas he being rich would hardly have to suffer. Had he chosen war, they would have said that during such a war David would rely on his outstanding warriors to bear the brunt of it. After the plague had passed, the list of all these heroes was recorded in the order of their valour, and Uriah appears in his rightful place. At the end of Kings 2,5 in his last testament to his son Solomon refers to “what Yoav the commander in chief has done to me,” followed by a reference to Yoav’s having killed Avner and Amassah in peace time. How was this something that Yoav had done to David? When Yoav had become aware that David had used subterfuge to have Uriah killed, he concluded that he could get away with killing Avner and Amassah. Once the officers in the army knew that David had ordered Yoav to kill Uriah they believed that it was also David who had ordered Yoav to kill Avner and Amassah, seeing that Avner had been a cousin of King Shaul. This caused David to become very angry and caused him to curse Yoav, as we read in Samuel II 3,29: ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצורע ומחזיק בפלך ונופל בחרב וחסר לחם, “may the house of Yoav never be without someone suffering from discharge (from his genital organ) or an eruption on his skin, or a male who handles the spindle or one slain by the sword, or lacking bread.” Having heard this, the Israelites knew that it could not have been David who had instigated the death of Avner. When David told his son Solomon to see to it that Yoav not die a peaceful death, Solomon did not want to do so, as he was the son of his sister. (Chronicles I 2,16) When B’nayahu, at the command of Solomon, set out to kill Yoav, the latter said to him: “tell Solomon not to kill him on two accounts. If you will carry out Solomon’s command you will become afflicted with the curse with which your father has cursed me. Why don’t you let me die as a result of his curses. When Solomon heard this he changed the instructions he had given to B’nayahu, and told him to kill Yoav on the spot, i.e. at the corner of the altar to which he clung, and to proceed to bury him. (Kings I 2,31). Rabbi Yehudah is on record as saying that all the curses were fulfilled on various members of David’s descendants. Solomon’s son Rechavam, suffered the discharge mentioned, (hinted at in Kings I, 12,18, by reference to Leviticus 15,15,9, the word המרכב). King Uzziah suffered tzoraat, eruption on his legs during the last years of his reign (Chronicles II 26,21) ). King Assa was stricken by a spindle (foot ailment) (Kings I 15,23) King Yoshiyahu was killed in battle, (Chronicles II 35,23). According to the Talmud in tractate Taanit, folio 22, he was shot by 300 arrows. King Yehoyachin was a captive of Nebuchadnezzar and had to depend on his handouts for food until he died. Compare Jeremiah 52,34, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 23,12, as well as Tanchuma section 12 on our portion.