meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Or HaChaim/Torah/Or HaChaim on Numbers/English/merged.txt"}
text: Or HaChaim on Numbers
  אור החיים על במדבר
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology
  -
  -Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Or HaChaim on Numbers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  "In the Sinai Desert..." Our Rabbis expounded precious understandings through this text in Bamidbar Rabbah 1. It is only left to ask why HaShem did not use consistent measures in this verse. When it describes where they were, the general location (the Sinai Desert) is mentioned first and only afterwards does it specific 'in the Tent of Meeting;' but when it mentions the time the specific is mentioned first, 'on the first day of the second month,' and afterwards the general - 'in the second year.'It appears, actually, that in a very intelligent fashion the verse did use consistent measures. This can be understood in the same way they explain "...see there is a place near Me..." (Shemot 33:21) in Bereshit Rabbah 68, saying 'that the place of the Holy One is secondary to Him.' From this perspective, every place is secondary in relation to the place where Gd encamps. Therefore, in our verse, the Tent of Meeting is actually the encompassing measure and the desert is secondary to it. In order that we read the verse from this perspective, the second half was joined to it 'on the first of the month...in the second year.' The phrase 'Tent of Meeting' is actually the encompassing measure, and therefore was placed second just as the words 'second year' were placed afterthe phrase 'on the first day of the month.' You can know how immeasurably awesome is the place where the Lord is from the fact that six hundred thousand men of Israel stood in the two cubits between the poles of the ark (Bereshit Rabbah 5). Though it appears little to the eye, it is great from the persoective of the One who dwells there, Blessed be He.
  I believe that if we look at the text closely we will see that the Torah follows a throroughly logical pattern. We have to remember the comment of <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 45,6 on Exodus 33,21: "there is a place here beside Me," where the meaning of the words "beside" is interpreted as emphasising that the place is secondary to G'd. Were this not so, the Torah would have quoted G'd as saying: "here I am in this place." In other words, the whole concept of space, i.e. מקום, is something secondary as far as G'd is concerned. Once we appreciate this fact, we know that any time the Torah mentions G'd's appearance in a certain place the place mentioned is of minor significance. When the Torah mentions the desert this is really only a detail relative to G'd communicating with Moses out of the אהל מועד, which is the essential message in the verse. The Torah draws our attention to this by first mentioning the day and the month when this occurred before telling us in which year it took place. Further evidence of the miraculous change a place undergoes when G'd honours it with His presence is provided by <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 4,4 as well as 5,6 where the <i>Midrash</i> describes the fact that G'd who was able to call into existence the whole universe and fill it with His presence would most certainly be able to speak to the Israelite people from between the staves of the Holy Ark. 600.000 Israelites were able to "squeeze" into the space of 2 cubits between the staves by which the Holy Ark was carried. We normally perceive of small quantities fitting into containers designed to accomodate larger quantities. Such laws of nature may be reversed at G'd's will and this was a condition He made with nature at the time of creation.
  
  Verse 2
  
   שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, "Count the whole community of Israel, etc." We need to know why the Israelites had to be numbered at this time. Rashi quotes a <i>Midrash</i> according to which G'd ordered the census as soon as He was ready to again allow His Presence to dwell amongst the Israelites (after the sin of the golden calf). This is insufficient to answer our question. If the census had only been an indication of G'd's reconciliation with His people He should have ordered it to take place before the month of Nissan when the Tabernacle was inaugurated, not a month later.
  Before investigating the reason for this delay in the census we have to remember that the previous census which is reported in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> (38,26) gave the number of the male Israelites over the age of twenty as 603,550. This was six months after the sin of the golden calf when the half shekel contributed by each male Israelite over the age of 20 represented his soul's ransom. This number exceeded the number of male Israelites above the age of 20 who left Egypt by (about) 3550 although in the interval during the episode of the golden calf many Israelites had died or had been executed by the Levites because they had participated in the worship of the golden calf. If it had taken only 6 months to replenish their number as reported in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i>, how do we account for the fact that between then and now the number had not increased by even one? Surely a number of Israelites had reached the age of twenty in the interval between the census which is mentioned in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> and that reported here? It is unlikely that any of these people died during a period they were all busy with performing the commandment to bring their contributions for the Tabernacle.
  Our question is reinforced when we consider a comment in <i>Pessikta Zutra</i> according to which the words ויהיו כל הפקודים in Numbers 1,46 are proof that as long as the Israelites were occupied with the work pertaining to the Tabernacle not a single one of them died. This comment seems very far fetched if it is based only on the expression ויהיו, "they remained (alive)." When we look at the numbers presented here we are bound to conclude that more of the people died after the people commenced with the work of the Tabernacle than during the episode of the golden calf!
  However, according to our understanding of <i>Shekalim</i> 1,3 the members of the tribe of Levi were included in the count of the people who had contributed a half shekel per person. We may conclude that in our verse the Levites were most certainly not included in the census seeing that the Torah commands that they be counted separately. The question is then resolved quite easily. In fact, the reason the Torah added the apparently redundant comment that the Levites were not included in the sum of the census given here (1,47), was precisely in order to make this point. It emerges that the natural increase of the Israelites between the time the work on the Tabernacle began and the second month of the second year of their wanderings was equivalent to the entire number of Levites who had been counted on the previous occasion. If the Torah had concluded the paragraph ending with verse 47 with the words: "as G'd had commanded them" as it did at the end of the paragraph dealing with the flags in 2,33, I would have concluded that the mention of the Levites not being included in the count was only to show that the Israelites complied with G'd's instructions not to lump them together with the other tribes. The fact that the Torah did not add these words proves that G'd wanted to alert us not to be surprised at the fact that the number of people counted was so small, relatively speaking, and at first glance did not appear to reflect a natural increase in the population of the Jewish people.
  The meaning of the words in <i>Pessikta Zutra</i> is abundantly clear. The author wants to justify the totally disproportinate natural increase in the number of male Israelites above twenty during such a short period of time as יום כפור of the first year and the beginning of Iyar of the second year by reminding us that no Israelite died during the period they were busy assembling the materials for the Tabernacle and constructing it. G'd waited with this census until this date so as to ensure that the total number being counted would not be smaller than the number mentioned in <i>Parshat Pekudey.</i> Deuteronomy 4,11 which ascribes the fact that the Israelites are alive as of that date to their having cleaved to G'd provides the basis for the statement by the author of <i>Pessikta Zutra</i> that no one died during the period under discussion.
  
  Verse 3
  
   תפקדו אתם, "you shall number them." The reason the Torah repeats this instruction, something which is contained in the command of "count the people" in verse two, is explained by <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on this verse as connected with the jealousy the Gentile nations would display when they became aware that G'd deemed only the Jews worthy of being counted individually. G'd would counter their complaint by inviting them to produce books tracing each family's genealogy. If they were able to do so they too would qualify for a census based on family affiliation as was being conducted amongst the Israelites. This is why G'd employed the expression שאו when He first commanded the Israelites to be counted; He told them that being counted was a form of elevation, promotion, for them as implied in the word שאו, "elevate, uplift!" Subsequently G'd explained in verse three that the males above the age of twenty were so elevated. It follows that the words תפקדו אתם are necessary to describe the actual commandment to count the people.
  
  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
  
   ואת כל העדה…באחד לחדש, and the entire community, on the first of the second month. The Torah announced that the Israelites assembled on the very day the instructions were issued. This is proof that everyone was equipped with a "book" showing who he was and who his father was. The people did not have to go and look for corroboration of their family status by looking for witnesses, etc. This is what the Torah meant by the word ויתילדו being written next to the words "on the first of the second month."
  ויתילדו, "they declared their pedigrees, etc." Rashi comments: "they each brought a book showing their pedigrees and witnesses to their birth in order to prove which tribe they belonged to." Nachmanides does not agree that there was a need for documentation of their status but claims that when each Israelite brought his half shekel he announced who he was and to which tribe he belonged. Moses placed the shekalim of each tribe in a separate box so that he knew how many members each tribe numbered. Perhaps the reason that at this point it had become necessary to produce documentation plus witnesses was to foil the attempt of any bastard who was aware of who his father was and who would produce a book listing his father's prior pedigree claiming to be a member of that tribe based on information provided by his mother.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כל יוצא צבא, all who were able to go to war. The Torah repeats this comment every time the number of males in a tribe is given. This is because the Torah wants to tell us that amongst all the males over the age of twenty counted there was not even one who was physically unfit to go to war.
  
  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…לא התפקדו בתוכם, and the Levites…were not numbered among them. I have explained this in connection with verse 2.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   לא תפקד…לא תשא. "do not count…nor take their sum, etc." The meaning is that the Levites should neither be counted by the traditional means of tendering a half shekel nor by any other means at the same time as the other tribes were being counted. Please refer to my comments in <i>Parshat Ki Tissa</i> on this subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והחנים קדמה מזרחה, "And the ones encamped in the east toward the sunrising, etc." The reason this verse commences with the conjunctive letter ו is that it follows the command to establish the camp around the Tabernacle and only proceeds to give additional details.
  
  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
  
   והלוים לא התפקדו…כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה, and the Levites were not counted among them as G'd had commanded Moses. Even though the count of the Israelites represented a spiritual elevation for them as described in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah,2</i> nonetheless the Levites were not counted together with the other tribes of Israel seeing G'd had so commanded. At that time the angels were described as descending together with G'd's שכינה on Mount Sinai and they inspired the Israelites to ask for flags similar to what they observed among the angels.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   תולדות אהרן ומשה, descendants of Aaron and Moses, etc. Curiously, the Torah enumerates only Aaron's descendants. This is to tell us that they were considered as if they had been Moses' descendants seeing he had prayed on their behalf as we know from Deuteronomy 9,20 where G'd is reported as having been angry at Aaron, ready to exterminate him. This would have resulted in his remaining two sons dying. Our sages in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 7,1 say that Moses' prayer helped to keep Eleazar and Ittamar alive.
  Our verse continues ביום דבר ה׳, to tell us precisely when Moses prayed on their behalf. There is also a hint here of the reason that his prayer was effective as the Torah's mention of Mount Sinai is a reminder that he was such a loyal representative of G'd that he had been found worthy to receive the Torah on Mount Sinai.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אלה שמות…המשוחים, These are the names… who had been anointed, etc. When the Torah repeated the word "these" both in verse one and again in our verse it is to stress that only these four sons of Aaron had been anointed. Had the Torah not repeated the word אלה here we could have assumed that other Levites had been anointed seeing that the chapter commenced with the word ואלה, "and these."
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כל וכר מבן חודש ומעלה, every male above the age of one month. The reason the Levites were counted from the age of one month is that they replaced the firstborn who also were viable at the age of one month. The reason the firstborn had to ransom himself was that a Levite was going to take his place and he had to redeem himself from his former obligation, i.e. sanctity, an obligation which was due to his birth as a firstborn. You may well ask why the firstborn Levites nowadays do not have to redeem themselves. The reason is that the Levites who replaced the firstborn at that time had been appointed by G'd to replace the firstborn of all future generations. Their sanctity was of a permanent nature. Perhaps the Torah alludes to this with the repetition of the words in verse 12: הנה לקחתי את הלוים….והיו לי הלוים. "I have taken the Levites….and the Levites shall be Mine." The second word הלוים seemed redundant otherwise.
  
  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
  
   כל פקודי הלוים, all the Levites who were numbered, etc. Nachmanides wonders at the small number of Levites seeing that we are dealing with a tribe who had proved loyal to G'd during the episode of the golden calf and had not sustained losses in their number at that time. Moreover, they were beloved of G'd already while in Egypt. How is it that their number was so small? Although they were counted from the age of one month, as opposed to the other tribes who were counted only from the age of twenty and over, the number of Levites was smaller than the numerically least populous tribe? Nachmanides provides two possible answers. 1) Seeing the phenomenal increase in the population of the Jews in Egypt was due to the cruel oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians (Exodus 1,12), this blessing did not extend to the Levites who did not have to perform slave labour in Egypt. 2) Jacob's anger at his son Levi. I believe that the second reason cited by Nachmanides is quite difficult to accept. We do not find any source for assuming that the anger of a father caused lack of fertility in his sons. Besides, when you examine Chronicles I 23,3, you will find that the Levites between the ages of thirty and fifty who were numbered at that time (near the end of David's life) comprised 38,000. When we compare this number with the number given in <i>Parshat Nasso</i>, i.e. some 8,500, we certainly do not notice any lack of fertility on the part of that tribe. This means that during the approximately 480 years between our count and the count in Chronicles the Levites increased four-fold. When you compare the numbers given for the other tribes in Israel at that time when they were counted in Chronicles you will find that the other tribes had only doubled in number since being counted by Moses in the desert. In view of this, it is difficult to see how Jacob's anger at his son Levi impeded the development of his descendants.
  The first reason Nachmanides cites why the Levites increased far less during their stay in Egypt is correct and is supported by <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 79,1 according to which Jacob did not die until his descendants numbered 600.000. In order to reconcile the various verses in the Torah quoting numbers, it is necessary to understand the word כן in Exodus 1,12 as telling us that the Israelites who had first decreased in numbers after Jacob's death increased again after Pharaoh's attempt to reduce their numbers by the various measures described in the Torah. As to the statement in Exodus 1,7 about the Israelites being fruitful and multiplying exceedingly until the land appeared full of them, we must interpret that whereas during Jacob's lifetime the Israelites were not prominent in Egypt though numerous, after his death they became more and more visible so that the Egyptians were revolted by this phenomenon. If the original increase in the Jewish population included the tribe of Levi in full measure, why did they not increase the second time in similar measure? The answer is that Pharaoh's harsh decrees did not apply to them so that G'd did not need to compensate them for their suffering. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 5,1 describe that the Levites suffered numerous deaths in connection with carrying the Holy Ark. This occurred however, only after the Levites had already been appointed, i.e. after the count described here.
  I believe the simplest explanation for the relative small number of Levites is the fact that they copied the example of their leader Amram who had divorced his wife when the decree to drown the male babies was published. The Levites, precisely because they were not subjected to hard physical labour and all kinds of abuse, remained very sensitive so that they were not prepared to sire children only to have them drowned at birth. They therefore remained largely celibate after having produced a minimum number of children. Their fellow Israelites who were subjected daily to all kinds of cruel experiences had lost some of their erstwhile sensitivity so that the prospect of some of their children facing death at birth did not concern them quite as much as it did the Levites. As a result, they practiced the commandment of being fruitful without restraint giving G'd the opportunity to reward them with large families. Their wives did not mind giving birth in the fields, something which more civilised people would not do. The Torah did not spell all this out in detail; it mentioned what Amram had done only because he reversed himself when his daughter accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who wanted to kill only the males. The fact that Amram remarried his wife does not mean that the other Levites followed his example. As a result they had a far smaller base from which an increase in their numbers could result. We are all familiar with the comment in <i>Sotah</i> 12 about Miriam's having watched anxiously when Moses was in a basket in the bulrushes to see if her prophecy that Moses would become the redeemer of Israel showed signs of becoming true.
  As to the question why a G'd-fearing tribe such the Levites largely ignored the most basic of G'd's commandments namely to be fruitful and to multiply, they may have applied to themselves the verse in Isaiah 65,23: "in order that they may not labour in vain and give birth to confusion." We find in <i>Taanit</i> 11 that in years of famine one may not sleep with one's wife in order not to fulfil the commandment of being fruitful when circumstances are such that suffering of existing human beings would be further increased. The Levites applied this kind of reasoning when considering the fate in store for their male children. Later on when they too fulfilled the commandment they inreased their number to compensate for the selfless attitude they had displayed while in Egypt.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   ואת בהמת הלוים, and the animals of the Levites, etc. The Torah speaks of those animals which the firstborn owned and which had been subject to redemption such as the firstborn donkeys. The Torah (Exodus 13,13) legislated that the firstborn pure animals had to be offered as a sacrifice whereas the firstborn donkey (being an unclean animal unfit for the altar) had to be redeemed. Firstborn animals of the pure species which for some reason did not qualify for the altar became the property of their owners and lost any status of sanctity they had had prior to becoming disqualified. We could have assumed therefore that the law of redeeming them did not apply when the swap between the Levites and the firstborn Israelites was made. Hence the Torah had to go on record that firstborn donkeys owned by the firstborn being exchanged for a Levite had to be redeemed.
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   והיו לי הלוים אני השם, "and the Levites will belong to Me I am the Lord." The reason the Torah added the words "I am the Lord," is to tell us that although according to <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 364 there will come a time when the firstborn will once again be performing the priestly functions in the Holy Temple, the Levites will not therefore be demoted and cease to belong to G'd. [I have not foumd a reference in the Yalkut to the firstborn being reinstated as priests in the future. Ed.] The very expression והיו לי indicates that just as G'd's name is eternal so is the appointment of the Levites to their task.
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   ולקחת חמשת חמשת שקלים, "You shall take 5 shekels apiece, etc." Why did the Torah commence this verse with the conjunctive letter ו before the word לקחת seeing it is part and parcel of the legislation commencing in verse 46 about the redemption of the extra 273 firstborn for whom no equivalent Levites could be found? Perhaps the letter ו alludes to the fact that the money redeeming these 273 people was to come out of the pockets of the firstborn and not out of the pockets of the Levites. You could have reasoned that the process of redemption would be parallel to the redemption of the animals of the Levites when the money for the redemption had to be paid by the Levites. It would have been logical to conclude that the Levites had to pay. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah had to write מבכור בני ישראל, "from the firstborn of the Israelites" (at the end of verse 46). The Torah spells this out when it came to the actual carrying out of these instructions in verse 50. The Torah describes Moses as taking the redemption money from the firstborn, not from the Levites. In our verse the additional information is the amount of the redemption money per person, i.e. 5 shekels each. The letter ו means that we are dealing with a second commandment. The Torah repeats the word תקח to tell us there is a third commandment i.e. that the five shekels are "holy shekels" worth 20 geyrah each. Every detail mentioned here was an essential part of the procedure.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
   ויתן משה את כסף הפדויים, Moses gave the redemption money, etc. Seeing that the verse commences by telling us that Moses had given the redemption money to Aaron and his sons at the command of G'd, why does the Torah repeat: "as G'd had commanded Moses?" Perhaps the reason is that seeing Aaron and his sons had a direct financial benefit from this מצוה we could have assumed that Moses enjoyed the fact that he could bestow this benefit on his brother and nephews. The Torah tells us that Moses had no such considerations and that he performed G'd's instructions solely because he was commanded to do so.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   נשא את ראש בני קהת, "take the sum of the members of the Kehatites, etc." We have already explained in <i>Parshat Ki Tissa</i> that the act of elevating the Israelites, i.e. numbering them (Exodus 30,12) was performed through their handing over the half shekel which formed their ransom money for the sin of the golden calf and that this is the reason the Torah used the term כי תשא את ראש when you "lift the head" when describing their being counted. This is in contrast with the members of the tribe of Levi who had no need to pay a ransom for their soul seeing they had not been guilty of that sin. This is why the Torah introduced the instruction to count the Levites (3,15) with the words: פקד את בני לוי, "count the members of the tribe of Levi." If all this is correct, why did the Torah change its wording when it came to counting the Kehatites and employ the same term נשא when instructing Moses and Aaron to count them?
  Perhaps the fact that the Kehatites were entrusted with a task such as carrying the Holy Ark and the Table which required them to enter the Tabernacle was a special elevation for them and this is why the Torah wanted us to know this and wrote the term נשא. It is a relative term and shows that their function was more highly rated than that of the family of the clan of Gershon although Gershon was the older of Levi's sons. The reason that G'd chose the Kehatites for this task was that they provided "light for the world" in that Moses and Aaron were descended from them. It was no more than fair that the branch of the Levites who had produced Moses and Aaron should be the ones entrusted with carrying the Torah which Moses had communicated to the people.
  Our verse is careful to say מתוך בני ישראל, "from the midst of the children of Israel," seeing that Kehat was the middle son of Levi's three sons Gershon, Kehat and Merari.
  
  Verse 3
  
   לעשות מלאכה, to perform work, etc. The Torah describes the task of the Kehatites differently from that of the sons of Gershon and that of the sons of Merari where the Torah uses the term לעבוד עבודה. The Torah was anxious to make it plain that though the Kehatites entered the Tabernacle what they did there did not qualify as עבודה, as priestly service. On the contrary, the ark is reputed to have carried its carriers as we know from <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 4. What the Kehatites did was simply מלאכה, ordinary work. Furthermore, because the Kehatites had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders, i.e. perform physical labour as part of their assigned tasks, the Torah used the appropriate word מלאכה to describe their function. The tasks to be performed by the clan of Gershon and Merari respectively did not entail physical work of any major kind.
  
  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
  
   וזאת עשו להם, "and this is what you are to do for them, etc." This means that the Kehatites were not to consider themselves as performing their task on their own authority. If they would do so there was a danger that anyone who loved the sacred vessels would arrogate to themselves a part in the service of the Tabernacle. Rather, all the Kehatites did was to be under the supervision of Aaron and his sons and at their direction. This would ensure that every member of the Kehatites knew his place. This is the deeper meaning of the words אותם איש. When the Torah continues ולא יבואו לראות, "so that they will not come and take a (unauthorised) look at the Sanctuary when the vessels are being covered," this tells us that even looking at something that was not their place to see could prove deadly. The words ושמו אותם stress that it was not enough for each Kehatite to know his place but that they had to wait before putting their hands on the vessels they were to carry until instructed to do so by Aaron. This was different from what the clan of Gershon did; although in that connection the Torah also writes that their task was performed על פי אהרון, at the command of Aaron, the Torah did not add the cautionary words ושמו אותם as they did not face death if they acted prematurely (compare 4,27).
  וחיו ולא ימותו, "so that they may live and not die, etc." The Torah means that carrying the Holy Ark whose contents, the Torah (and the Tablets), is a dispenser of life will ensure that the Kehatites carrying same would enjoy long life. Seeing that some Kehatites might be afraid that unauthorised touching or viewing would cause them to die, the Torah adds the words ולא ימותו, "so that they will not die," to put at rest such fears of the Kehatites that they would die by accidentally touching or viewing what they were not supposed to view or touch.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  -22. וידבר ה׳…נשא, G'd said to Moses: "Take the sum, etc." The Torah had to repeat the line וידבר ה׳ אל משה although it had used this introduction when telling Moses to count the Kehatites. The reason is that in this instance the Torah added the instruction to elevate the status of the clan of Gershon in relation to that of the clan of Merari. The elevation of the clan of Gershon was not of the same nature as that of the Kehatites as compared to the clan of Gershon. The former were distinguished in that they carried the Holy Ark. We would not have known that the clan of Gershon were more distinguished than the clan of Merari had the Torah not employed the term נשא in respect to their tasks. The Torah makes this even clearer when it does not preface the instruction detailing the tasks of the clan of Merari by G'd giving Moses a separate command (compare verse 29). The Torah contents itself with telling Moses to count (תפקד) the members of that clan before detailing their tasks.
  אל משה, to Moses. Interestingly, when the count is actually being performed (verse 34) the Torah reports that both Moses and Aaron did the counting. This was because already in 4,1 G'd had commanded both Moses and Aaron to do the counting. G'd included Aaron in the commandment to instruct the Kehatites to be very careful so that they would not incur death seeing Aaron himself was liable to death if he entered the Holy of Holies, the site where the Holy Ark was situated in an unauthorised fashion at an unauthorised time. There was no need to include Aaron then in the command to assign the tasks of the clan of Gershon or of Merari.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   תפקד אותם, "you will count them." Why did the Torah have to repeat the instruction to count seeing the word נשא already meant "to count?" I have explained this in connection with the instruction to count the Kehatites (4,20).
  לצבא צבא, "to perform public service etc." When speaking of the service to be rendered by the Kehatites the Torah described this only as לצבא, without the word צבא. This was because they carried only the holy vessels that formed the interior furnishings of the Tabernacle. The materials carried by the clan of Gershon were only vessels for the vessels so to speak, i.e. לצבא צבא. [The author perceives the furnishings of the Tabernacle as being the "army" of the Tabernacle, so to speak. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   לעבוד את עבודת אהל מועד, "to perform the service connected with the Tent of Meeting." When describing the parallel task performed by the sons of Gershon the Torah wrote לעבוד עבודה באהל מועד, to perform service inside the Tent of Meeting. The reason is that they had to transport the coverings of the Tabernacle, the curtain, etc., all of which were part of the actual Tabernacle; the sons of Merari, however, transported the outer parts of the Tabernacle, the boards, the bolts, the sockets supporting the boards, etc. This is also why the Torah described the work of the Merarites as לעבד את…הקרשים as this represents the עבודת אהל מועד, i.e. work related to the Tabernacle. The Torah did not fear that by writing only the word לצבא alone instead of לצבא צבא that we would misunderstand its meaning, seeing it had spelled out exactly what the duties of the Merarties were.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ויפקד משה ואהרון ונשיאי העדה, Moses, Aaron and the princes of the congregation counted, etc. Why were three groups of people needed to perform this count? Moses was G'd's agent; Aaron was required as the Levites were subject to his instructions as the Torah made plain in 3,9. The princes of the various tribes had also been appointed to be in charge of the people who were numbered (compare Numbers 7,2). Why were the princes not involved when the Levites were counted who replaced the firstborn, i.e. the Levites from the age of one month and over (3,40-43)? On that occasion the total number was determined by G'd and this is why even babies in a crib had to be included. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 3,9 describes how Moses asked G'd if he was really expected to enter the tent of every Levite family and examine if there was a male baby of 30 days and over. G'd responded that if Moses were to stand outside He would convey to him the number of Levites who qualified for the count inside that tent. As this information was given only to Moses, neither Aaron nor the princes were involved in that count.
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   אלפים שבע מאות וחמשים, two thousand seven hundred and fifty. Here, when reporting the number of Kehatites the Torah did not write: "and seven hundred," i.e. ושבע מאות, as it did when reporting the number of the clan of Gershon between thirty and fifty in verse 40. Also, when reporting the number of Merarites in verse 44 the "hundreds" are preceded by the conjunctive letter ו i.e. ומאתים. Perhaps the absence of the letter ו when reporting the number of Kehatites is an allusion to Korach and those who died with him seeing they belonged to the clan of Kehat. Alternatively, the number seven hundred was subject to correction shortly after the time of the count as the uprising of Korach occurred either immediately before the debacle with the spies or shortly thereafter, at any rate during the same summer. While it is true that the Torah mentioned only one Kehatite by name during that uprising, i.e. Korach himself, other relatives may have been inclined to join him; at least they shared part of his guilt by not protesting Korach's conduct.
  
  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
  
   על פי ה׳ פקד אותם, He counted them at the command of G'd, etc. The actual command to appoint the Kehatites to their respective tasks, the Gershonides to their respective tasks, etc., was given only to Moses. Aaron had no hand in these appointments. Once Moses had counted them Aaron allocated the various tasks to each of the Levites who had been counted. When the Torah writes ופקודיו, "and his appointees," this is a reference to the appointments Aaron and his sons had made. This too, however, was only in compliance with instructions given by G'd to Moses.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   צו את בני ישראל וישלחו מן המחנה, "Command the Israelites to expel from the camp, etc." The reason the Torah wrote this paragraph immediately after the appointment of the Levites to their respective tasks was because G'd had commanded the Levites themselves to keep away from areas possessing a certain degree of sanctity, areas reserved for priests alone. This is why the Torah added that also the Israelites were forbidden to enter areas normally available to them if they had become afflicted with ritual impurity, for instance.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשר אני שכן בתוכם, "that I dwell amongst." This rule applied only as long as G'd's presence was still in the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle had been dismantled so that the שכינה had moved, even people afflicted with צרעת were allowed in the camp (<i>Menachot</i> 95).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   איש ..כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם, "anyone committing any of the sins people are liable to commit, etc." The Torah uses the expression למעול instead of the customary ומעלו מעל, "and have committed a trespass;" this is explained in <i>Baba Kama</i> 110 where the sages say that the verse speaks about a case of someone who perjured himself after having denied being in possession of money belonging to his neighbour. Although the Torah had already dealt with such a situation in <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> it repeats it here as there are numerous details of this legislation which had not yet been revealed. Amongst other details, our verse informs us that the person in question is deemed to have committed his sin at the time when he first denied being in possession of that money, not at the time when he denied it on oath. The very denial is considered sinful as it leads to the person having to swear an oath if his accuser takes him to court. If the accused is not taken to court he is able to make amends for his denial at any time. The verse says: כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם to inform us that the moment one does so one is considered as about to also trespass against G'd, i.e. to render a false oath.
  ואשמה הנפש ההיא, and that soul will be considered guilty. Inasmuch as that person is guilty of perjury he has caused damage to his very soul. The Torah suddenly switched to the use of the singular although previously it had spoken about people (pl) committing sins. Afterwards, when the Torah discusses the sinner confessing his sin it again uses the plural, i.e. והתודו. You will note that the Torah did not write that the soul of the sinner i.e. נפשו is guilty, but it writes הנפש ההיא. This is a reference to the collective soul of the Jewish people which has become tarnished through one of its members committing perjury. You may do well to read what we have written in our commentary on Leviticus 7,20-21 about similar constructions. Inasmuch as the word ההיא is superfluous this is a hint that the Torah speaks about a soul other than merely that of the sinner in question. It is worth reading what the <i>Zohar on Parshat Acharey Mot</i> 67 has to say about Isaiah 26,9.
  
  Verse 7
  
   והשיב את אשמו, and he shall make restitution for his guilt, etc. The Torah again switched to use of the singular although the verse had commenced by speaking about sinners in the plural confessing their guilt. The reason is that when it comes to having to confess one's guilt all sinners are in a similar situation. When it comes to making restitution, however, this is not so as the Torah makes allowances for poor people whose sin-offering consists of lower priced birds or even a meal-offering only. We have learned this in Leviticus 5,7-5,13.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכל תרומה…לו יהיה, "and every heave-offering…..shall be his." Why did the Torah repeat the same subject three times (verses 9 and 10)? Furthermore, why did the Torah repeat the same words, i.e. לו יהיה? Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> explain that the apparently superfluous words "they shall be his" refer to the offering of the first ripe fruit which are normally called ראשית. They too are to be treated in the same way as the heave-offerings, תרומה. They become the priest's personal property. The second time the Torah repeats this expression it refers to priests who performed Temple service at a time which had not been allocated to them. If such a priest offered his own offering i.e. קדשיו, it remained his although his presence in the Temple at the time had not been authorised. The words אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה refer to a situation when a father had given to the priest money to redeem his firstborn son and that baby had died after 30 days. The Torah legislates that the priest does not need to return this redemption money to the father. There are numerous other halachic <i>Midrashim</i> in this vein. All of this does not suffice to explain the plain meaning of these verses.
  I believe that we may approach these verses in accordance with the principle that when the Torah repeats something three times it is intended to show that we may not use the information contained in those statements exegetically by applying them to other commandments. The three statements teach us rules applying to the 24 types of gifts the Torah has allocated to the priests. In the first chapter of his treatise on the laws of בכורים, first ripe fruits, Maimonides writes that the 24 gifts G'd allocated to the priests were divided into five categories, which in reality are only three basic categories. 1) the portions of the sacrifices which they receive from animals which have been offered on the altar. These included: the meat of the sin-offering; the meat of the guilt-offering; the meat of the peace-offerings paid for by the public purse; the remainder of the Omer, i.e. the barley offering on the second day of the Passover festival; most of the meal-offerings except the fistful offered on the altar; the showbreads; the two loaves offered on Shavuot from the new wheat harvest; the oil of the person undergoing purification rites after having been afflicted with <i>Tzoraat;</i> the skins of any animal offered on the altar; the breast and right flank of all private peace-offerings; left-overs of the thanksgiving offerings; the part of the ram of the Nazirite not presented on the altar; the firstborn male of the pure animals. The first ripe fruit (of the seven species Israel is blessed with). These are 14 gifts allocated to the priests. The common denominateor of all the above is that the owner is obligated to offer them on the altar or bring them to the priest. They are all inherently sacred. The second category are such things as the <i>Terumah</i>, a tithe from the grain-harvest, olive trees or vineyard's produce; the <i>Terumat Maasser</i> i.e. the portion of his tithes the Levite has to give to the priest; <i>Challah</i>, i.e. 1/48th of a dough of certain proportions which the Israelite has to give to the priest. The third category are the gifts such as the tithe of the animals when they are shorn (1 tenth); certain fields which were sold by an Israelite and not redeemed within a specified time; the redemption money paid by a father for retaining his firstborn son; redemption money for the firstborn donkey; properties set aside for use by the priest. Property of an intestate convert stolen from him which is inherited by the priests by decree of the Torah. All the latter are not inherently sacred. They are not handed to the priest but he has to claim them by himself.
  Let us now approach our verses. Concerning the first 14 items mentioned by Maimonides all of which are sacred by definition and which the Israelite is obligated to hand to the priests, the Torah wrote וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל. The Torah gives notice that these gifts are sacred by definition. It goes on: אשר יקריבו which they offer as a sacrifice; the Torah mentions that all these items have to be brought to a site which has been sanctified. Concerning the second category the Torah writes that איש את קדשיו לו יהיו. In this instance the Torah does refer to the sacred nature of the gifts but makes no mention of their qualifying as an offering on the altar, seeing the priest himself has to go after these gifts in order to secure his share. Concerning the final seven items the Torah writes איש אשר יתן לכהן, "that which a person has to give to the priest." Nothing is mentioned about any of these things being sacred as they are of an ordinary secular status, i.e. חולין. The word יתן, "he will give, or he may give" alerts us to the fact that a priest may not claim such gifts from the person whose duty it is to dispense them to a priest of his choosing. Once he has become the recipient of the gift, however, it is not reversible, i.e. לו יהיה, it remains his. Please read what I have written in my book <i>Pri Toar</i> item 61 concerning gifts to the priests. The word לו יהיה implies that a priest is cannot refuse to accept such gifts when they are offered to him (compare <i>Yore Deyah</i> 306,4). Having explained all this we see that the Torah had adequate reason to divide the priestly gifts into three categories so that it had to use the word לו יהיה separately for each category. Had the Torah not done so, I would not have known that the priest is obligated to accept these gifts.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   דבר..ואמרת..איש איש, speak..and say.."any man whose wife is unfaithful, etc." Why did the Torah write both "speak," and "say"? Why did it use different words for the same thing, i.e. דבר, אמר? Why is the word איש repeated? A <i>Sotah</i>, a woman suspected of marital infidelity by her husband, may belong to either one of two categories. Either the suspicion is found to have been unjustified, or 2) she is found guilty either by her own admission or by having brazenly drunk the מים המאררים, the waters of bitterness. This accounts for the Torah employing two different words for "say!" The harsher דבור is intended for the woman who is guilty, whereas the softer אמרת is addressed to the woman who turns out to have been faithful though she gave cause for suspicion. The word איש is repeated for the same consideration. At the time her husband accuses her he does not know yet if his suspicions are justified. If the woman is innocent G'd will help her to prove her innocence. We find a popular proverb in <i>Megillah</i> 12 which suggests that the words ומעלה בו מעל could be interpreted to mean "if he (the husband) were guilty of a trespass" i.e. both husband and wife may be guilty of infidelity. As a result our sages stated that if the husband is certain that he has not sinned at all in his marital relations he is entitled to resume relations with his wife after she has undergone the procedure of the "bitter waters" and has been vindicated. The "bitter waters" actually examined the husband as well, i.e. the procedure did not work, the miracle would not take place if the husband himself were found guilty of marital trespass. The word איש is repeated to teach us that regardless of whether the husband knows himself to be pure or not, he still has to bring his wife to the priest.
  Perhaps our verse referred to this idea when writing both דבר and ואמרת. A husband who is himself not blameless may be afraid to have his wife examined by the priest and the bitter waters as his own shortcomings would be exposed both in the eyes of G'd and that of his peers. As a result, he might prefer not to publicise his suspicions of his wife. On the other hand, even if this husband feels certain that his own conduct was always completely blameless he may not wish to expose marital friction between himself and his wife in public. For these various reasons he might balk at the duty the Torah imposes upon him here. The Torah therefore uses a "carrot and stick" approach" i.e. with soft urgings and with tough talk so that he would comply with the legislation in our paragraph.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והביא האיש את אשתו אל הכהן, and this man has to bring his wife to the priest, etc. There are several questions we need to answer in the course of this whole paragraph. What does the Torah mean by calling the offering of the Sotah מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, "a meal-offering of memorial reminder of iniquity?" What did the Torah accomplish with the word זכרון? Why would the offering of a meal-offering consisting of barley as opposed to wheat be designed to be especially memorable, seeing that the Omer, an offering consisting of barley, is offered every year on the second day of Passover? We must also try to understand why the Torah refers to these bitter waters as "holy waters?" What precisely do the waters accomplish and why are they called "holy?" We are told in <i>Sotah</i> 15 that the term "holy" in this instance referred to the fact that the waters were sanctified in the copper basin, כיור. While this is all fine and good, why did they have to be drawn from that basin at all? Moreover, what precisely is the nature of the ספר, the book, in which the priest records the curses which he blots out by dissolving them in the bitter waters (verse 23)? Why does the Sotah have to drink the remains of that book? We can understand that Moses made the Israelites drink the water containing the residue of the golden calf as the kind of pennance described in Jeremiah 2,19, but this situation is hardly parallel. Also, why was it important to have ready loose earth from the Temple floor which had to be added to this water, and such earth could not be freshly dug (verse 17)? Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 15 also quote a halachah according to which the earth had to be poured into the vessel after it was filled with water and had to float on the water. If the vessel had first been filled with earth the whole procedure was פסול, defective and useless. Why should such a minor detail disqualify the whole procedure and the name of G'd having been written in vain? I find it noteworthy that the Torah did not use the term חוקה in connection with this subject; had the Torah done so it would have prevented us from raising all these questions. I find it strange that the Torah calls the water in question מי המרים, why are they called "bitter?" Sifri claims that these waters were not bitter originally but turned bitter at the time they were used to perform the function described in our paragraph Another explanation is that they were called "bitter" because of the effect they had on the life of a Sotah who was guilty of what her husband suspected and was brazen enough to drink these waters instead of confessing her guilt. On folio 20 of the tractate <i>Sotah</i> the father of the famous teacher Samuel claims that some bitter material had to be added to the water in question. The reason was that since the waters were already called "bitter waters" something really bitter had to be added. This seems quite astounding. Why did the Torah fail to mention this detail?
  We may be able to explain the whole subject of the Sotah in light of what we explained in <i>Parshat Bereshit</i> on the inner structure of the Torah in connection with Genesis 2,1 on the line ויכלו השמים והארץ. We explained there that it is axiomatic that every creature harbours a desire to be re-united with the living G'd, its Creator. This feeling ,- in varying degree-is also present in all things G'd created which possess a spiritual element, something we called a two-tiered intelligence, be it pronounced or almost dormant. G'd equipped each of His creations with sufficient intelligence to ensure its continued existence and to enable it to praise its Creator. This is the true meaning of Proverbs 16,9 that whatever G'd created He made for a purpose that suited Him, (or "for its own good"). We also find that the sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 5,4 explain the reason the waters are always perceived as "weeping" is that when G'd separated the upper waters from the lower waters this caused them to weep over their separation, some being confined to an area beneath the earth. The waters which wound up beneath the earth weep and groan seeing that they did not merit to come close to G'd as do the waters in the upper half of the world, something all creatures desire as part of their nature.
  Furthermore, G'd has demonstrated to us that He desires to have a residence on earth including areas of the waters allocated to man. Due to Adam's sin the earth was cursed and the throne of G'd was removed to higher spheres which meant the simultaneous removal of the source of our blessings to regions farther away from our domain (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 19). This situation continued until the revelation at Mount Sinai when G'd once more agreed to take up residence on earth. The signal for this was G'd giving instructions to the Israelites to build a Sanctuary for Him even before they had conquered the land of Canaan. This demonstrated how eager G'd was to have a residence on earth. Had it not been for the sin of the spies and the resultant delay of Israel's conquest of the land of Canaan by almost 40 years, completion of the Tabernacle and Israel's conquering the land of Canaan would have occurred almost simultaneously. When the Jewish people became guilty of abominations even after G'd had resided amongst them for many years, He again had to withdraw His presence and He returned to His former residence in Heaven. If it were not for the sins committed by the Jewish people G'd's residence would remain permanently on earth. When this will occur eventually, it will wipe out the weeping of the "lower" waters and the "shame" of the earth which suffered from G'd's curse. It will cause them to become joyous ushering in a period when these "lovers" will be reunited. If, for some reason, sin will again prevail on earth, G'd will again withdraw from earth causing the waters to express their feelings by weeping. We must remain aware that Israel's exemplary behaviour at Mount Sinai was in itself sufficient to cause G'd's presence to reside on earth and to fill the earth with the knowledge of G'd so that G'd's residing on earth would not be considered as G'd "lowering" Himself from a holier region. On the contrary, earth would be elevated to rank as equal in sanctity to Heaven.
  You will find that our sages said in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 41,7 that the meaning of true freedom, i.e. חרות, is freedom from the angel of death, i.e. the evil urge. The sin of the golden calf was responsible for the angel of death again asserting himself in our lives. Israel's subsequent repentance was not enough to banish the activities of the angel of death other than within certain parts of the confines of the encampment of the Jewish people. In the rest of the world the angel of death operated as it had prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The era envisaged by the prophet in Zachariah 13 is one when death will have ceased on earth permanently. Earth will then be known as ארץ החיים, living earth, seeing that the angel of death will have been banned.
  In order to understand the subject of Sotah we must keep all the foregoing in mind. The objective of the whole Sotah legislation is for the husband (priest) to examine his wife in a place where G'd resides. I have already explained elsewhere that this place is called ארץ העליונה, the "higher" earth, on account of G'd having His residence there. It is not included in the part of the earth which had been subjected to G'd's curse as a result of man's sin. Also any of the waters in that area are not subject to "tears," i.e. have not been afflicted by said curse. This is why G'd commanded that "holy waters" be taken for this procedure. Waters which are found in the sacred precincts of the Temple are sacred by definition. This does not contradict the halachah that these waters be taken from the copper basin which serves the priests to wash their hands and feet.
  The Torah also commanded the priest to use earth from the floor of the Holy Temple precisely because it is the closest to G'd's residence. The reason that this earth should not now be dug up is also because if it were already at hand it is closer to the site where G'd resides. The closer the earth is to the place where the <i>Shechinah</i> resides, the more its awareness of its proximity to its Creator. Earth from outside the precincts of the Temple would not be as aware of the nearness of G'd. The earth is better able to fulfil what the Creator demands of it once it has "tasted" the proximity of the Lawgiver.
  The reason that G'd commanded for the earth to be added to the water and not vice versa is based on the waters having been created before the earth during the process of creation. When our sages decided that if the earth had been in the vessel before the water the whole procedure is null and void, they did not nullify the procedure in the event that both water and earth had been poured into the vessel simultaneously. The reason is that such a procedure still resembles the order of creation when water and solid particles were thoroughly mixed up before G'd created the light. We do not find that earth is ever at the bottom of the source of springwater (מים חיים), however. Rabbi Shimon (<i>Sotah</i> 16) held that it does not matter whether the earth had been placed in the vesel first as long as the water is holy water. He obviously felt that this suffices for both the waters and the earth to be imbued with the appropriate awareness for both elements to perform the task G'd allocated to them as part of the whole procedure.
  The Torah commanded to write the portion of the Sotah including the holy name of G'd where it appears in it and to allow the bitter waters to erase these holy names of G'd due to the nature of the water and the earth it contains. The residue of the names of G'd provided the water with the power to produce the desired effect in the woman who drank this water.
  The Torah also commanded for the meal-offering of the woman in question to consist primarily of barley, i.e. a reminder of the offering Cain had brought, who had offered something of inferior value. This inferior offering was also an indirect result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. This it what the Torah means when it speaks of מזכרת עון, "a reminder of sin," i.e. the original sin. It was this original sin which had led to the weeping of the waters and the curse which rests on Earth. When the Sotah drinks this mixture of water, earth and the residue of the holy name of G'd which dissolved in that water, the name of the meal-offering as "reminder of sin" is most appropriate if she has indeed been guilty of marital infidelity. It will recall also earlier sins. When the waters become aware of this they will turn bitter reflecting on their own sorry fate, as we described earlier. These waters will then take their revenge on this woman who has caused them all these tears and they will ruin the woman's intestines. All of this will be accomplished by the power of the holy name of G'd which has been dissolved in these waters. Whoever is familiar with the sin of Eve who had been contaminated by sexual intercourse with the original serpent, and who had thus been disloyal to her husband, will realise that the sin the Sotah is guilty of is indeed the original sin committed by man, i.e. woman. This sin had caused the original light G'd had bestowed on this world to withdraw to the celestial regions. The action of these waters (as well as the earth although the earth has not been mentioned by the Torah as also causing the death of the woman) may be viewed as an attempt to forestall an attack on them. We have a principle that when someone is about to kill you you are to forestall him and kill the attacker first. The kind of sin committed by a Sotah is one which drives G'd from our midst, and it is therefore logical that the water and the earth would react in the manner described by the Torah.
  
  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
  
   לא נטמאה האשה וטהורה היא ואם, And if the woman had not been defiled and remained pure, etc. The reason the Torah repeats that the woman had remained pure is that the Torah wishes to tell us that not only has she become exonerated so that the waters will not harm her, but she shall even conceive seed. The additional word וטהורה also indicates that not only had the woman in question not been guilty of intercourse with someone other than her husband, but she had not indulged in any of the caressing and fondling which usually precedes sexual intimacy. When both these conditions exist she will be blessed by becoming pregnant in accordance with what the Torah writes. If, on the other hand, לא נטמאה, she had not become defiled through actual intercourse but could not claim to be "pure" by not having indulged in foreplay, she will not be blessed with child although she will escape punishment for her conduct.
  You will note that the priest who made her take the oath (verse 19-20) employed somewhat peculiar language. What did the Torah mean with the words כי שטית? If it means becoming defiled why does the Torah write וכי נטמאת, "and you have become defiled with the conjunctive letter ו? Clearly the word refers to something which precedes the actual defilement of a woman through intimacy. The priest cautioned: "if you have actually become defiled, then you qualify for the punishment provided by the Torah." When speaking about the reverse situation, i.e. אם לא שכב איש אתך, "if no man other than your husband has slept with you, etc.," then there are two possibilities. 1) You are exempt from the damaging effect of these bitter waters; 2) you may be totally exonerated and benefit by the blessing of becoming pregnant as promised by the Torah. The third possibility ("she is pure" as distinct from "she has not been defiled") can be understood as our sages say in <i>Sotah</i> 18 וטהורה היא מאיש אחר, that she is pure "as far as having slept with another man" (not the one her husband suspected her of) is concerned. According to our approach, "the other man" is already included in the statement that she has not been defiled which includes the man with whom her husband suspected her as well as any other man who is not her husband.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם, "speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc." Our verse repeated the form of address Moses was to use by calling it both the harsh דבר "speak" as well as the softer ואמרת, "and say." Why is that? Furthermore, why did the Torah switch to indirect speech when discussing the laws pertaining to a Nazirite? Perhaps the Torah wanted to address two kinds of Nazirite, the one kind being superior to the other. We learned in <i>Nedarim</i> 9 that Shimon the Just said that in all his years as High Priest he had only once eaten the guilt-offering of a Nazirite who had become ritually unclean during the term of his Naziriteship whose motivation for becoming a Nazirite he approved of. The Nazirite in question had described to him that he became a Nazirite as a means to fight off his evil urge. Concerning the Naziriteship of people similarly motivated the Torah used the term ואמרת, whereas concerning a Nazir who was motivated by less noble considerations the Torah used the term דבר when detailing the rules he had to observe. This is also why the Torah speaks of נזיר להזיר instead of merely saying להזיר לה׳. The Torah wanted to hint it speaks of two kinds of נזירות. The word נזיר refers to most kinds of Nazir, whereas the expression להזיר לה׳ refers to the Nazirite who is highly motivated such as the Nazirite mentioned by Shimon the Just.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וטמא ראש נורו, and he defile his consecrated head, etc. Both the letter ו in the word וטמא as well as the word ראש appear superfluous in our verse. The meaning may be that even if the ritual impurity contracted by the Nazirite was unintentional, not only does his body become ritually impure but also the hair on his head, as the Torah refers to his hair as "the crown of G'd which is on his head."
  Another detail which is revealed by this wording is that not only does the Nazirite have to make up the days following his becoming ritually impure, but even the days which he counted in purity are not accounted for him and he has to go back to square one. This is confirmed by the words והזיר לה׳ את ימי נזרו in verse 12 where the Torah specifically states that the days he observed prior to becoming defiled become void. The reason the Torah says once more כי טמא נזרו, that he defiled his Naziriteship, is intended to prevent us from making the error of thinking that he loses only the day on which he became ritually impure, i.e. the beginning of Naziriteship. The words והימים הראשונים reveal that when such a person has contracted impurity lasting not only one day but a minimum of two days he loses not only these two days but all the days he had already counted. It is what is known as גזרת הכתוב, i.e. the Torah did not bother to explain its reason for this ruling.
  
  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
  
   דבר אל אהרון ואל בניו, "speak to Aaron and his sons, etc." Why did the Torah repeat the word לאמור in this verse? Perhaps the Torah was afraid that the blessing described here was something that the priests could pronounce but were not obligated to pronounce. The Torah wanted to make sure that although the word כה at the beginning might be construed as something to be performed voluntarily, i.e. "if you bless you shall keep to this formula," the priests should know it is a positive commandment to bless the Israelites. The repeated use of the word לאמור may also mean that the commandment did not only apply to Aaron and his sons but to the priests in all subsequent generations. There is also an implied compliment to the priests here, i.e. the priests are privileged by G'd to transmit His blessing to the people by pronouncing G'd's wording.
  
  Verse 24
  
   יברכך וישמרך. "May the Lord bless you and preserve you." The order of 1) the blessing, 2) preserving the people who received the blessing, means that the degree of שמירה, protection, will be commensurate with the extent of the blessing previously received. Moreover, there is an implication here that the blessing will be so comprehensive that G'd has to make a special effort that all of it will be preserved. The wording יברכך may also imply that there should be no negative side effects to this blessing such as is referred to in Deuteronomy 8,12: "lest you eat, become sated etc…. and become haughty, forgetting the Lord your G'd."
  
  Verse 25
  
   יאר ה׳ פניו, "May the Lord make His face shine upon you." This means that there should not be a "curtain" dividing between Israel and their Father in Heaven.
  ויחנך, "and be gracious unto you." Please refer to what I have explained on the meaning of the word חן in my commentary on Genesis 39,21, "G'd was with Joseph and he caused him to enjoy grace, etc."
  
  Verse 26
  
   ישא ה׳ פניו אליך, "May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, etc." This means that in the event the deeds (sins) of the Israelites have erected some kind of barrier between them and G'd that G'd should lift this barrier and remove it. וישם לך שלום, "and may He grant you peace." The meaning of the word "peace" or "harmony" is the reverse of every kind of separation and fragmentation. Anyone examining the word carefully realises that the concept it represents is the foundation our world is built upon, the force which ensures that the "higher" world and our "lower" world can co-exist successfully. This is the mystical dimension of the words: "and they shall put My name upon the children of Israel," and the concluding words "and I will bless them."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ביום כלות משה, on the day Moses completed, etc. Rabbi Levi in <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> on our verse claims that the word כלות is written without the letter ו. In our editions of the Torah it is spelled with the letter ו. How is it possible that scribes could take liberties with the spelling of the Torah? Such a situation would lead to apostasy and a denigration of the respect in which the scholars are held! You should know that the text of our sacred Torah, including every vowel has been carefully counted. Every letter or even crown is sacred enabling us to derive meanings from it. Let me give you a small example of how important an even minute departure from the accepted spelling would be. There are letters which are noticed only by the way they are pronounced, letters which do not even appear in the written text. An example of such a letter is the letter ו before the final ע in the word יהושע. When pronounced properly, we hear that there is a vowel <i>shuruk</i> which does not appear in the written text. On the other hand, such a vowel does appear in the written text in the same word between the letter ה and ש although it cannot be heard when we read the word aloud. This little example ought to alert the intelligent student to the fact that there can never be a question of altering the spelling in the written Torah such as adding a letter ו in the word כלות in our verse, even if only to ensure that the word would be pronounced correctly. If the Torah decided to write a letter ו in a place where we would not have expected it it serves to alert us to hidden meanings in the text. It may have been the intention of the Torah to include three letters of the holy name of G'd in the name of the righteous יהושע. If the Torah had written the letter ו before the letter ע and had omitted the letter ו after the letter ה, we would not have noticed that the Torah had intended to include the first three letters of the tetragram in the name of Joshua. When our sages speak about the word כלות being written without the letter ו, they mean that the letter ו which does appear in the text is to be viewed there as if it were only "on loan." The intelligent student will appreciate that this was the mystical dimension of Moses on whom was fulfilled the verse in Jeremiah 31,21 that נקבה תסובב גבר, that "the female will enclose the male." Moses' exclusive preoccupation with putting together the Tabernacle is alluded to in the word כלות a reference to the "groom-bride" relationship between him and the Tabernacle. When the <i>Midrash</i> says that the word כלות is spelled כלת, the author merely wishes to draw our attention to this relationship of bride and groom. The physical presence of the letter ו in the written text is an allusion to Moses, the גבר, i.e. the male. Inserting the ו into the word כלת is a clear indication of the male-female relationship between the two. No human being has the right to make up such an explanation out of his own mind. Such interpretations are traditional and reflect inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   קח מאתם, "accept it from them!" The reason the Torah wrote the word מאתם (instead of מהם) is that as of that moment the gifts were still the property of the princes and had not as yet been transferred to Moses. The reason that Moses had not as yet accepted the gifts was that he had not been commanded that the Tabernacle be transported on wagons and did not know what else to do with them. The princes had reasoned that seeing the boards and the sockets of the Tabernacle were large and heavy respectively, they would need to be transported on wagons. As it turned out, G'd agreed with their reasoning.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויקריבו הנשאים את חנוכת המזבח, The princes brought the dedication-offering for the altar. It appears that all the princes wanted to offer their gifts on the first day on which the altar was being inaugurated, as they all wanted to be part of this inauguration together. G'd, however, said that only one prince per day could offer his respective offering. This is why the Torah added that the period of inauguration extended for the entire twelve days during which the princes offered their gifts (compare wording in verse 11 where the word לחנוכת המזבח appears once more). In this instance G'd did not have to tell Moses "accept it from them!." This means that Moses did not need to obtain G'd's permission to accept these gifts. He had no doubt about G'd's willingness to accept the princes' offerings including the gold and the silver vessels. The only reason that G'd had to involve Himself was that all the princes wanted to bring all their gifts on the same day. I have seen the following comment by <i>Sifri</i> on our verse: "The verse reveals that just as the princes had made free-willed contributions to the materials from which the Tabernacle was constructed so they now contributed for the inauguration of the altar; Moses did not want to accept this from them until he had been instructed to do so by G'd Himself, and that is why the Torah wrote: 'they shall offer their offerings for the inauguration of the altar.'" The author of the <i>Sifri</i> derived this from the apparently superfluous words יקריבו את קרבנם, which he interpreted as permission for Moses to accept the offerings. We must examine why Moses refused to accept these offerings until G'd had given permission for them to be accepted. Perhaps Moses was not sure whether the inauguration of the altar was the province of Aaron and himself or that of the princes. This was especially so seeing the list of princes did not include a representative of the tribe of Levi. Please read what we have written in this connection at the beginning of <i>Parshat Beha-alotcha.</i>
  ויקריבו הנשאים, the princes offered, etc. The reason the Torah repeats this expression once more is to tell us that the princes went to the trouble to bring the entire gift up to the entrance of the Tabernacle personally, although this might have been considered below their dignity seeing they were "princes." Another reason why the Torah repeated this expression is that instead of handing their sacrifice over to the priest who was to present (part of) it on the altar, they themselves placed it at the entrance of the Tabernacle close to the altar. They hinted by their action that they wished their respective offerings to be the first to be presented on the altar on that day. When the Torah writes in a similar vein in verse 3 that the princes brought the wagons to the Tabernacle, this also means that they wished their gifts to be the first ones to be accepted by the Temple -treasury on that day.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   המקריב ביום הראשון, the one who presented (his gift) on the first day, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the words את קרבנו, (what else did he offer)? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasize that the princes each paid for these sacrifices (gifts) out of their own pockets. It was not paid for by the respective tribe's treasury. <i>Sifri</i> item 48 derive this from the repetition of the words: "this was the offering of so and so," after each report of the prince who offered his sacrifice. The reason the Torah also wrote קרבנו, "his offering," before listing the nature of the offering is because the offering consisted of two aspects. 1) acknowledgment of the exceptional merits of the prince bringing the offering; 2) the offering itself. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 13,10 extols Nachshon's merits for instance, telling us details of his accomplishments. The words הקריב את קרבנו mean that in addition to the visible aspect of the offering there was an invisible aspect, i.e. the devotion to G'd of the person offering the gift. It is well to remember that whenever a person offers an offering to G'd as a gift, such an offering is accompanied by the forces of sanctity which surround such a person. Moreover, it is the nature of the offering to activate various "branches" of sanctity. Our verse testifies that Nachshon succeeded in "offering his sacrifice," i.e. to imbue it with the "sparks" of sanctity and to thereby accomplish all that it is possible to accomplish by means of such a gift-offering.
  למטה יהודה, of the tribe of Yehudah. The Torah omitted the word נשיא prince, although this title is used in connection with all the other princes when they are introduced as offering their respective gifts. The reason for this is that Nachshon was on a spiritually sufficiently high level to have qualified as the first one to bring this offering even if he had not been the prince of his tribe. The status of most of the other princes was due only to their having been elected as princes of their respective tribes. The Torah also wanted us to know that Nachshon did not think of himself in terms of his title, his position, but considered himself as "one of the people." Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua in <i>Tanchuma</i> on verse 48 make an attempt to interpret the respective names of the princes as describing each prince's special accomplishments. According to their reasoning Nachshon's name reflects that he was the only one willing to risk his life by marching into the sea of reeds before Moses was given instructions to split the sea. The letter נ in his name can be exchanged for the letter ל seeing he confronted the spirit of the waves נחשול when he precipitously entered the sea and became the catalyst which led to the splitting of the sea of reeds (the following letters are sometimes used interchangeably ד,ל,נ,ת for the letter נ).
  
  Verse 13
  
   וקרבנו, and his offering, etc. The justification for the letter ו in this word is found in what we wrote about every offering consisting of two aspects in our commentary on the word המקריב. It is a reference to the hidden spiritual aspect of the sacrifice which preceded the Torah's revelation of the material aspect. One may also simply understand the letter as alerting us to the many qualities Nachshon possessed in addition to initiating the kind of offering the princes brought at this time.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ביום השני, On the second day, etc. The reason the tribe of Issachar was accorded the honour of offering this sacrifice on the second day was that their prince represented a tribe which would become renowned for its command of Torah. This is why he preceded Reuben although the latter was the senior member of the tribes. Not only this, but also the prince of Zevulun was placed ahead of Reuben seeing that it was the generosity of that tribe which would allow the members of the tribe of Issachar to study Torah without worrying about where their livelihood would come from (compare Deut. 33,18 where Moses even blessed Zevulun ahead of Issachar).
  הקריב נתנאל בן צוער, Netanel the son of Tzuar offered his gift. In this instance the Torah mentioned the name of the prince before telling us that Netanel was one of the princes. This was also intended to demonstrate that his merit was such that he could have claimed the right to be number two in the lineup even if he had not been a prince. We do not find this again amongst all the other ten princes which follow. Netanel's name is a reminder of the Torah and the means by which it was acquired. Solomon refers to the Torah in Proverbs 4,2 as כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, i.e. that what G'd has given (the Torah) is a good instruction. The means by which we acquired the Torah is reflected in Netanel's father's name בן צוער, an allusion to pain, צער. The message is that Torah can only be truly acquired through one's undergoing a process of afflictions. We are taught in <i>Gittin</i> 57 that the line אדם כי ימות באהל (Numbers 19,14) is a reminder that in order to truly acquire Torah one must "kill oneself" in the tent of Torah, i.e. in the hall of study by deeply immersing oneself in the mysteries of the Torah. Perhaps this is another reason why Netanel's name precedes his title, to hint that his tribe's immersion in Torah is already reflected in his very name. The first time the Bible mentions that the members of this tribe were outstanding Torah scholars is in Chronicles I 12,33 where the small number of delegates sent by this tribe to David's coronation is explained by the fact that these delegates were יודעי בינה לעתים, "aware of the need of the times." The manner in which their prince "killed" himself in order to study Torah may have contributed to the members of his tribe emulating him and becoming יודעי בינה לעתים.
  
  Verse 19
  
   הקריב את קרבנו, brought his offering, etc. These words are superfluous, seeing the Torah already wrote in verse 18 that Netanel brought an offering. The Torah may have intended to stress its regard for Nachshon's offering. The Torah did this by mentioning the fact that Nachshon brought his offering three times. It mentions Netanel as having brought his offering twice, and mentions all the other princes only once as having brought their respective offerings. They were not on the spiritual levels of either the kings of Yehudah or the tribe of Issachar [in the future Ed.].
  The reason the word <i>hikriv</i> is spelled here without the customary letter י is to enable us to use the exegetical approach of the sages of the Messorah who understood the word as an imperative. Traditionally, (<i>Sifri</i> item 52 on our verse) the tribe of Reuben had protested when informed that Issachar would be in line after Yehudah. G'd therefore gave specific instructions i.e. <i>hakrev</i> that Issachar was to be next. This is alluded to by the absence of the letter י in the written text, though the word is read in the past tense, i.e. <i>hikriv.</i>
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אליאב בן חלון. He was called so seeing he, or his tribe, enabled Issachar to devote themselves to the uninterrupted study of Torah. Similar considerations prompted Moses in Deut. 33,18 to mention the tribe of Zevulun ahead of the tribe of Issachar in his blessings although Issachar was senior to Zevulun by birth. The most appropriate way of translating his name would be "it behooves me to be called father (in relation to Issachar)." The word חלון emphasises that although, biologically speaking, he is only the descendant of <i>chulin</i>, someone secular, occupied with trading instead of Torah study, he nevertheless has attained the rank of seniority to Issachar being the one who provides the wherewithal for Issachar to study Torah.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   אליצור בן שדיאור, Perhaps there is an allusion in this name that G'd had forgiven the sin of Reuben which the Torah recorded (Genesis 35,22). He may have put balsam or balm, i.e. צרי, on his wound. The letters אלי mean אלקי, my G'd; the letters צור are to be understood as similar to Jeremiah 8,22: הצרי אין בגלעד, "is there no more balm in Gilead?" The word בן שדיאור is to be broken up into בן שדי and אור, i.e. a hint that he was a son of G'd who is also known as שדי. The combined name then is reminiscent of the story in the Torah that Reuben slept with Bilhah. The Torah reported immediately afterwards that the sons of Jacob numbered 12 which shows that any damage inflicted by Reuben had been healed. This prompted our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 55 to say that if someone were to accuse Reuben of having committed a sin he is in error.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   שלמיאל בן צורישדי. The name of the prince of Shimon alludes to the original Shimon whom G'd paid back for what he had done to Joseph by having Joseph incarcerate him in Egypt. It also includes a reference to G'd repaying that tribe for the conduct of Zimri [its prince 40 years later Ed.]. He is understood as exclaiming צורי שדי, "enough (punishment) my G'd." Once Zimri had been slain the plague stopped as we know from Numbers 25,8.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   אליסף בן דעואל. The name of the prince of the tribe of Gad includes a hint that this was the first tribe of the Israelites which was settled in their permanent home. Only the able-bodied men of that tribe crossed the Jordan to form the vanguard of the Israeli army at the time of the conquest. Furthermore, according to <i>Sifri</i> volume two item 299 the lands formerly owned by Sichon and Og were not part of the lands promised by G'd to Abraham. We also find in the rules pertaining to the laws of the land of Israel that the land is divided into three different districts, Transjordan being one of those districts (compare <i>Sheviit</i> 9,2). Please refer to my comments in <i>Parshat Mattot</i> on 32,3-4 where I have explained this in greater detail. Inasmuch as these lands had been "grabbed" by the Jewish people, the letters יסף in the name of its prince are an allusion to that tribe inheriting land which was not part of the heritage promised to the patriarchs. The word בן דעואל is a hint that that tribe as well as all the other tribes are fully loyal to G'd and His Torah, i.e. "know the Lord," compare Joshua 22,27 and 22,34.
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   אלשמע בן עמיהוד. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah are quoted in <i>Tanchuma</i> on our verse as saying that the name Elishama suggests that whereas "Joseph listened to the commands of G'd, he did not listen to the command of his mistress to sleep with her. He did not make common cause with the wicked." Joseph did not desist from sinning because he was not tempted but because he was obedient to G'd's imperatives as he pointed out to the wife of Potiphar when he described giving in to his urge as a sin against G'd (Genesis 39,9). This is what is meant by Elishama, i.e אלי שמע, "he listened to Me." Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 36 explained that at the crucial moment he had a vision of the face of his father. Clearly, this is a reference to a divine image which resembled the face of Jacob. After all, his father was in Canaan and had no inkling of what temptation his son faced at the time not even knowing that Joseph was still alive. What Joseph beheld in the vision was what is known as אביר יעקב אלוקי ישראל. When the sages in the <i>Midrash</i> spoke of the wicked in the plural, they may have referred to many similar temptations that Joseph withstood successfully. The reason the same idea occurs a second time in the name of the father of Elyasaph, i.e. עמיהוד is to hint what the Torah told us in that verse in Genesis that he did not listen to Mrs Potiphar who requested that Joseph agree to be physically close to her. Joseph preferred to remain close to G'd, i.e. עמי הודו.
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   גמליאל בן פדהצור. Our sages interpret the word גמליאל as "He did favours for me." They also interpret the word פדהצור as "He liberated me from prison." One may also see the following allusion in this name: Joseph gave thanks to G'd who not only had shown him kindness by freeing him from prison but who showed him his father's image at a crucial time to save him from committing a sin." In other words: פדה צור, G'd liberated him from sin.
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
   אבידן בן גדעוני. This is an allusion to King Saul who was referred to by David as אבי, "my father" (compare Samuel I 24,11) when David had cut off Saul's mantle instead of killing him. Saul had deserved to be killed seeing that G'd had already judged him, דן, and told him he had forfeited his crown (Samuel I 15). There is also an allusion in this name to Mordechai who destroyed the seed of Amalek. The word בן גדעוני means that he (David) was the one on whose account Saul's kingdom had been taken from him.
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
   אחיעזד בן עמישדי. Perhaps there is an allusion here to Samson. The letters אחי in this name refer to the spirit of the Lord which overcame Samson (compare Judges 14,6). The reason that spirit is described as אחי may be related to Psalms 122,8 "למען אחי ורעי" which is understood by Rabbi Moshe Alshich as a reply by the Holy Spirit. The words בן עמישדי allude to what happened to Samson after the Philistines had gouged out his eyes and he called out to G'd to avenge what they had done to him. G'd answered him and he killed thousands of them.
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
   פגעיאל בן עכרן. <i>Sifri</i> volume 2 item 355 claims it was Asher who had told his brothers of what Reuben had done, whereupon the brothers rebuked him. When Reuben confessed that he had done what Asher had reported, the brothers included Asher again in their circle. This is the meaning of the word פגעי אל, his brothers met him again after first having ostracised him.
  Another meaning of the name may be related to the blessing of Asher (Deut. 33,23) "Asher is blessed more than the other sons." Our sages comment on this that "none of the other tribes received as generous a blessing as did Asher." We find that the blessing of the sons was conditioned by their proximity to a holy site, to sanctity. In order to determine this you may assume that the Holy Ark was the centre of sanctity. When this ark was hosted by Oved Edom Hagitti (compare <i>Berachot</i> 63) the host was blessed exceedingly as outlined in the Talmud and the Book of Chronicles. The word פגעי אל means that "G'd has granted me many children." The second part of his name, בן עכרן may be an allusion to a tradition (<i>Tanna be bey Eliyahu</i> 9) that even if the daughters of Asher had sinned, i.e. that they had lost their virginity prior to marriage (figuratively speaking), something עכור, shameful, G'd treated them as if their hymen were intact, i.e. as if they had not sinned at all. [The tradition seems based on those daughters not bleeding when their hymen was ruptured. Ed.]
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
   אחירע בן עינן. This name appears to contain an allusion to the statement of the <i>Sifri</i> on Deut. 33,23 that Naftali was satisfied with favour, i.e. that he did not strive for more than had been granted to him. He enjoyed the fruits of Ginnosaur, the fish of the lake of Kinneret, etc. The word אחי רע suggests that in Naftali's eyes his brothers had received a share inferior to his. His "eye," i.e. his aspirations had been fully met by the blessing he received at the hands of Moses.
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
   ביום המשח אותו, on the day it was anointed. This verse is proof that our contention that all the princes had come to offer their gifts simultaneously on the first of Nissan is correct, but that G'd arranged that only one prince should offer his gift on any single day.
  מאת נשיאי ישראל, from the princes of Israel, etc. Why did the Torah have to write these words? Perhaps the Torah wanted to praise the princes for having acted spontaneously in order to inaugurate the altar. The word מאת is as if the Torah had written מאתם, i.e. that the idea originated with the princes and they had not been prompted. Our sages in <i>Sifri</i> volume 1 item 53 state that they all had an equal share in the single מצוה. What the sages meant was the offerings themselves were accounted as if they were a single offering. Different princes acquired different amounts of merit for their part in the offering, however. Nachshon's merit was the greatest of them all.
  
  Verse 85
  
  
  
  Verse 86
  
  
  
  Verse 87
  
   כל הבקר לעולה, All the oxen used for the total-offering, etc. The word בקר is in the singular as each one formed part of the same collective offering. This is also the reason the Torah used the word זבח השלמים in verse 88 describing the sacrifice as one.
  
  Verse 88
  
  
  
  Verse 89
  
   הקול מדבר אליו, the Voice speaking to him, etc. We have already explained on Exodus 20,1 that when G'd speaks an angel is created as a result of such speech and it is the voice of that angel which man (prophet) hears. I have explained all the instances in which the word לאמור appears as unnecessary such as when G'd's message to Moses or Aaron is introduced. This is what is meant here when the Torah speaks of "the Voice" speaking to Moses. The Torah underlines that in this instance G'd's voice spoke to Moses directly, not the voice of an angel. Although there is a <i>dagesh</i> in the letter ד to tell us that the meaning is מתדבר, i.e. the voice itself was doing the talking, it was not the projection of someone else "behind" the voice. This form is grammatically admissible; the intelligent reader will understand what I mean.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר…ואמרת. speak…and say! We need to understand why the Torah wrote both "speak" and "say!" Also, why did the Torah choose two different expressions when referring to how Moses was to communicate with Aaron? <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> 8 and others on our verse query the reason why the instructions about lighting the candlestick are written here instead of where the construction of the candlesticks is described. The <i>Midrash</i> answers that when Aaron observed that the princes of all 12 tribes had offered inaugural offerings for the altar, all except the tribe of Levi, he became despondent over the fact that neither he nor his tribe had been allowed to participate in this inauguration. Thereupon G'd assured him that his share in the inauguration would be greater than that of the princes who had just concluded bringing their respective offerings. G'd told him that he, Aaron, would light the candlestick in the Sanctuary on a daily basis and would prepare the oil and wicks both mornings and evenings. Thus far the words of the <i>Midrash.</i> These words themselves beg for an explanation. In what way did G'd console Aaron about not having participated in the inaugration of the altar when He told him he could perform duties relating to the candlestick? How is the candlestick and its function related to the altar and its function? Besides, why didn't G'd put Aaron's mind at rest by referring to all the public offerings he would offer on the altar on an ongoing basis as opposed to the princes who performed a one-time inaugural offering? He could offer the daily תמידים, the additional offerings on the festivals, as well as the twice daily portion of incense which would be offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. He even performed the rites when the bulls of the princes were placed on the altar and their blood sprinkled thereon. So why did G'd choose the matter of the candlestick as the vehicle which would appease Aaron?
  This matter can best be understood in connection with <i>Menachot</i> 88. The Talmud there discusses the cleaning of the lamps on the candlestick and the filling up of the bowls (lamps) with half a log of oil each. The Talmud describes the removal of the bowls (lights) with their wicks, the bowl being deposited on the floor before being cleaned with a sponge and filled with oil and new wicks being inserted. According to the view that these bowls (lamps) were not detachable, the priest had to bend the candlestick in order to perform the cleaning of these bowls and the wicks (compare Rashi on the same folio).
  Had I been present when the scholars discussed if the lamps were fixtures that could not be detached from their respective arms of the candlestick, I would have proven that they were most certainly detachable. Firstly, there is the fact that although the Torah gives us details of all the various parts and decorations of the candlestick, it did not mention anything about the lamps being part of the "cast candlestick." Only the parts which formed part of the single chunk of gold were mentioned in the Torah. Had the lamps been part of that chunk, the Torah would have had to report it. Another proof that these lamps were removable can be gleaned from Numbers 4,9 where the Torah described how the candlestick was to be wrapped up prior to transportation. The Torah there specifies a number of separate components. 1) the candlestick of the light, 2) and its lamps, 3) and its tongs, 4) and its snuff-dishes, 5) and all the oil vessels thereof. This is a clear indication that just as the tongs were separate from the main shaft so the lamps were separate components. If the lamps had been an integral part of the shafts the Torah had no business to mention them separately as they could not have been packed separately.
  In Chronicles II 4,20 where the candlesticks for Solomon's Temple are described we read: "and the candlesticks and their lamps." This means that the lamps are not included when one speaks of the candlesticks. Rashi comments as follows on that verse: "This is stated in order to disabuse the commentators of the belief that the lamps were part of the cast part of the candlestick. This is why the verse mentions the נרות, lamps, separately. Rashi continues at some length on the whole subject of the candlestick. At any rate, the plain meaning of the verse indicates that the lamps were detachable.
  Let us now examine the answer G'd gave to Aaron according to the <i>Midrash.</i> G'd wanted Aaron to know that the task of taking the candlestick apart daily when he would clean the lamps and then reassemble them constituted a daily inaugural. In effect, Aaron put the candlestick together every single day. Every time he would light the candlestick would be like inaugurating the candlestick anew. According to the <i>Midrash</i> G'd told Aaron that he would light and clean the lamps evenings and mornings whereas in actual fact we find that he lit the lamps only in the evenings. We are told in <i>Tamid</i> 6,9 that the נר מערבי the lamp in the middle shaft of the candlestick, had to burn both night and day, i.e. it was cleaned only in the evening and immediately relit. [This is not actually spelled out there. Ed]. <i>Torat Kohanim</i> on Leviticus 24,2 comments as follows: "The words להעלות נר refer to the lighting of the נר תמיד, the eternal flame, the lamp which is to keep burning around the clock. In the event that it became extinguished, Aaron would clean it and rekindle it at once using the fire from the copper altar." Thus far <i>Torat Kohanim.</i> This means that the נר מערבי burned around the clock. At any rate, we see that Aaron inaugurated the candlestick daily whereas the princes performed only a single inauguration of the altar. The expression דבר introduced the commandment which was the necessary introduction to any commandment G'd conveyed to the people or to a specific person. The expression ואמרת describes that Moses should talk so softly when instructing Aaron that he would put his mind at ease concerning the inauguration service of the altar he had not been a part of. Moses did this by pointing out that Aaron's privileges were far greater than those of the princes. We could also interpret the word ואמרת as similar to the word והאמרת in Deut. 26,17, where it implies the spiritually elevated status of the people addressed.
  According to the view that the lamps were an integral part of the candlestick, one must assume that the tubes which contained the oil were very narrow and that the whole candlestick had to be bent until it was almost horizontal in order to perform the daily cleaning of the lamps and the wicks. This too could be understood as a daily renewal, i.e. inaugural process.
  בהעלותך את הנרות. "when you 'raise' the lamps," etc. Why did the Torah use the term "raise" when it could have used the normal term for lighting, i.e. בהדליקך? Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15 as well as in the <i>Sifri</i> offer a variety of explanations about this, such as that the lamps were to be raised. Another problem with our verse is why G'd did not issue the instructions to kindle the candlestick on the first day when the first of the princes offered his offering, seeing that the kindling of the candlestick was part and parcel of the regular service in the Tabernacle? Moreover, the very commandment we have here has been recorded already in Exodus 25,37, i.e. והעלה את נרותיה והאיר על עבר פניה? "He who kindles its lamps will cause its light to shine towards its 'face' (centre)." Furthermore, why does the Torah speak about יאירו, they will cause it to give light, instead of תאיר, you shall cause it to give light? After all, the verse commenced in direct speech? When you compare the verse we quoted from Exodus you will find that the entire verse is in the third person, i.e. והעלה,…והאיר.
  When you take into consideration our introduction to this subject from the Talmud in <i>Menachot</i> you will find that the wording makes perfect sense. The reason the verse commenced with the word בהעלותך is because seeing that the lamps were not an integral part of the candlestick G'd had to give a commandment that whenever the lamps would be removed for cleaning purposes this should be done in a prescribed sequence, i.e. in the order in which the lamps shone towards the centre shaft, the eternal light. The entire commandment was not an instruction to light the candlestick but to arrange its lights in a certain order. This explains why it would have been inappropriate to use the direct תאיר, "you shall let them give light."
  This also explains why the Torah had to repeat what appeared at first glance to be a repetition of the instructions given in Exodus 25,37. Up until now Moses had performed these tasks during the seven days of the inauguration of the Tabernacle from the first to the seventh of Nissan. G'd was concerned that Aaron would think that it did not matter in which order the various lamps would be cleaned and filled with oil for the following day. In fact, Aaron would have reasoned that logic dictated that the various lamps be cleaned in a sequential order either from the left to the right, or from the right to the left and not as described in the Talmud that five lamps on one side were cleaned followed by two lamps on the other side. G'd had decided that this was the appropriate moment to instruct Aaron in these details and to impress on him that the correct order for this procedure was an essential part of the whole service. By not informing Aaron of these details when he was informed about other details of the sacrificial service, G'd wanted to demonstrate that He held Aaron in such high esteem that He had accorded him tasks that were more important than those performed by the princes.
  אל מול פני המנורה, towards the front of the candlestick, etc. The reason for this line may be understood when we consider the Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> 22 where the words "outside the dividing curtain" are discussed. The Talmud asks if G'd needed the light of the candlestick? Was it not a fact that the Israelites marched through the desert for forty years receiving their light from G'd and not vice versa? The light of the candlestick therefore was merely testimony to the nations of the world that G'd's Presence resided amongst Israel. The Talmud goes on to ask "what kind of testimony was this?" Rav answered that the middle one of the lamps which did not receive any more oil than any of the other six lamps of the candlestick and which was used to kindle the other lamps nonetheless kept on burning even though all the other lamps went out in the morning. It was the last lamp to be cleaned and replaced on the following evening. Accordingly, the Torah gave instructions to light the lamps so that they faced the lamp in the middle to draw attention to the fact that everyone should point to the miraculous nature of that lamp in the centre called נר המערבי.
  Tossaphot query why the Talmud speaks only of the 40 years the Israelites were in the desert when they enjoyed G'd's light. They say that all of mankind needs G'd's light at all times throughout the ages? They amend the text of the Talmud somewhat. Our author does not feel that Tossaphot's question was justified so that it needed to be answered. A look at the Talmud in <i>Menachot</i> 86 would take care of Tossaphot's question.
  In view of the fact that the function of the candlestick was only to demonstrate the miracle of the נר המערבי burning longer than the lamps on either side, why did the Torah require a candlestick with seven lamps? Three lamps, one on either side of the נר המערבי would have sufficed! We may say that the other lamps were there for aesthetic reasons. It would not do to furnish the Tabernacle with a candlestick containing fewer than the accepted number of lamps.
  If we were to use a symbolic approach we could see in the seven lamps a hint at the seventy nations, each lamp representing 10 nations. The idea would be that the miraculous nature of the lamp in the centre represents the Jewish nation; the other lamps all focus on the Jewish people, who in turn represent the concept of מערב, West, a concept familiar to students of kabbalah. The fact that all the other lamps burn out symbolises the eventual disappearance of all the other nations, only Israel surviving. The fact that the lamps burned only at night are a reminder of our exile, which is called לילה. The time of redemption is referred to by our prophets as בקר, morning, compare Isaiah 21,12. At that time the lights of the nations will go out only Israel's light remaining. When kindling the candlestick, the priest doing so should also think that its light should face the front of the candlestick, i.e. he should think of the needs of the Jewish people and that G'd should turn His face towards them.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויעש כן אהרון, Aaron did so, etc. Why did the Torah have to write again אל מול פני המנורה, seeing this was already implied in the words: "Aaron did so?" The words: as G'd had commanded," are also superfluous as they are part of the line "Aaron did so." Perhaps we can explain this as follows: The words ויעש כן refer to the dismantling of the candlestick, i.e. the removal of its lamps. The Torah added the words כאשר צוה ה׳, to tell us that he cleaned the lamps so that the whole candlestick should be as new. This would justify what the <i>Midrash</i> had called the inaugural aspect of the cleaning of the candlestick. The reason the Torah adds the words אל מול פני המנורה is to tell us that Aaron kept to the sequence as he had been instructed, i.e. that the cleaning proceeded towards the centre lamp and not from right to left or from left to right. [Compare <i>Yuma</i> 33 for a full discussion of that procedure. Ed.] The reason the Torah wrote כאשר צוה, was to inform us that contrary to the fact that Aaron had received G'd's command during the daylight hours so that I might have expected him to carry it out during daylight hours, he did so at the time concerning which G'd commanded it, i.e. in the evening. Although we have said that the נר מערבי was lit by day, on occasion, this occurred rarely and always signified that Israel was out of favour, else that light would not have gone out prematurely. As long as Aaron was alive this never happened. The words also imply a compliment for Aaron. Whatever Aaron did he did not do in order to be viewed as distinguished but he did so purely in order to fulfil G'd's command.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וזה מעשה המנורה, And this is how the candlestick was made; The reason this verse is repeated here a third time after we have read it in <i>Parshat Terumah</i> as well as in <i>Parshat Vayakhel</i>, can be explained both according to those who hold that the lamps were detachable as well as according to the scholars who hold that the lamps were an integral part of the cast candlestick. We have explained that the word בהעלותך as distinct from בהדליקך meant that the candlestick had to be taken apart in order for the lamps to be prepared. This in turn might have led one to believe that the remainder of the candlestick did not have to be cast from one piece seeing the lamps were included in the description of the "candlestick." We could therefore have applied an exegetical method of דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא (compare Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael, introduction to Sifra on Leviticus) according to which other parts of the candlestick would also qualify even if they were detachable. The fact that the verse specifically mentions the word מקשה, cast, would only have referred to the initial construction of the candlestick. Once it had been made according to G'd's instructions it would have been permissible to detach sections in a manner that allowed them to be re-assembled. The Torah had to repeat the manner in which the מנורה was to be made to ensure that we would not arrive at such a faulty conclusion. The repetition means that the candlestick was to remain exactly as it had been cast originally. The scholars who hold that the candlestick was cast including the lamps can accept this interpretation also.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   קח את הלוים, "Take the Levites! etc." Rashi explains that the word "take!" means by means of words. Apparently Rashi means that Moses was to separate the Levites from the camps of the Israelites and make a separate camp for them seeing the Levites had to guard their ritual purity more than ordinary Israelites. The proof is to be found in the words וטהרת אותם, "and purify them!" Clearly what concerns the Torah at this point is the need for the Levites to maintain a state of ritual purity.
  
  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
  
   ואתנה את הלוים נתנים לאהרון ולבניו, "and I have given the Levites,-they are given to Aaron and his sons, etc;" why did the Torah repeat the word נתנים, "they are given?" This may be intended to obligate the recipient of a gift to accept that gift and not to refuse it. Although in matters of inter-personal relationships it is perfectly in order for a person to decline to accept a gift as long as it has not come into his possession (his hands) and he has thereby acquired it, in this instance the Torah obligates the priests to accept this gift although acceptance involves negative aspects. By accepting the new status of the Levites -even though they were subordinate to the priests- the kind of duties performed by the priests became forbidden to the priests on pain of death. This is the view of <i>Sifri</i> on Numbers 18,3. The wording there is: "both they and you will be subject to the death penalty; you when you interfere in matters allocated to them and they when they interfere in matters allocated to you." This contrasts somewhat with what Maimonides wrote in chapter 3 of <i>Hilchot Kley Hamikdosh</i> where he describes Levites who performed service in the Temple, i.e. the domain of the priests, as guilty of death at the hands of Heaven. However, he describes priests who perform tasks allocated to the Levites as guilty of transgressing only an ordinary negative commandment, and not guilty of death. At any rate, Maimonides also agrees that such a transgression on the part of the priests qualifies for some retribution. Considering this we could understand why the priests would decline the gift of the Levites. The Torah therefore had good reason to repeat the word נתנים to deny the priests the option to decline this gift.
  מתוך בני ישראל, from among the children of Israel, etc. Our verse repeats the expression בני ישראל five times, apparently without reason. Our sages in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 2,1 consider mention of that word an expression of G'd's fondness for the Jewish people. The five-fold mention corresponds to the five books of the Torah. This is all homiletics, of course. According to the plain meaning of the verse the number of times the children of Israel are mentioned appears absolutely justified. When the Torah writes מתוך בני ישראל, it refers to the Jewish people as long as these included the tribe of Levi on an equal footing. When it referred to the עבודת בני ישראל this is a reference to the firstborn of the Israelites who had performed the priestly functions up until then. The Levites had now taken over their functions. The Torah had to refer to these firstborns as בני ישראל instead of merely writing עבודתם, "their service," seeing it was no longer "their service." When our verse continues with the expression לכפר על בני ישראל, it refers to a description of the entire Jewish people. The reason the Torah did not choose the shorter לכפר עליהם is that this would have sounded as if it referred to the people mentioned or rather referred to last, i.e. the firstborn. When the Torah continues with ולא יהיה בבני ישראל נגף instead of ולא יהיה בהם נגף, it does so in order that we should not understand that the absence of such a plague is merely the result of the atonement mentioned previously. The Torah speaks of two separate benefits devolving on the Israelites as a result of the Levites performing their tasks. 1) There will be no mental illness due to sins perpetrated for which the Levites attain atonement. 2) There will be no physical plague which would result through the unauthorised entry of the Israelites into the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle. It makes eminent sense that this is what the Torah has in mind here as the message is not related to what had been discussed previously. When the Torah continues with בגשת בני ישראל, it means that even though only individuals might become guilty of violating these sacred precincts, the ramifications of the sin of these individuals would involve the whole people. G'd's anger would be vented at the people as a whole. We know from the uprising of Korach which involved only a few people, that Moses had to remonstrate with G'd when he noticed that G'd held the entire nation responsible (compare Numbers 16,21-22).
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויעש משה…וכל עדת בני ישראל..כן עשו להם בני ישראל. And Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation of Israel did….so the children of Israel did to them (the Levites). Why did the Torah have to repeat the line: "so they did?" Why did the Torah speak about the "whole community of the children of Israel" at the beginning of the verse, whereas at its conclusion it only speaks of "the children of Israel?" It appears that the line כן עשו בני ישראל is repeated as it is a reference to the firstborn who are being complimented for agreeing to their new status seeing they were the ones who lost many privileges due to this change. This is also the reason that at the end of the verse the Torah did not speak of "the whole community of Israel," since only the firstborn of the Israelites were meant.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בשנה השנית, in the second year, etc. Why did the Torah change its style in this instance by mentioning first the year and then the month of this event? When you look at the beginning of the Book of Numbers you will find that the Torah first mentions the month before mentioning the year. Not only this, but in our verse here the Torah does not even mention the month at all until after it referred to the Exodus. It would not have been necessary to interrupt mention of the date if the month in which G'd issued this command had been mentioned first. Another peculiarity in this paragraph is the absence of the customary instruction to Moses to "speak to the children of Israel!" The letter ו in the word ויעשו also needs explaining. To which previous instruction does that letter ו refer? Why was it altogether necessary to issue instructions to the Israelites to observe the Passover when this had already been commanded in Exodus 12,43? Apparently, the Torah was afraid that the Israelites had understood the previous commandment to apply only in Egypt and in the land of Israel so that the Torah had to make plain that it was a commandment which applied also during their stay in the desert.
  It appears that the repetition has to do with the prohibition of a בן נכר to eat of the Passover. According to the <i>Mechilta</i> on Exodus 12,43 that expression meant that anyone who was either a Gentile or a Jew who deliberately flouted G'd's laws was "estranged" and was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice. Seeing that in the interval since the Exodus the Israelites had become guilty of making the golden calf and worshiping it they had reason to believe that the injunction in Exodus 12,43 applied to them. This is especially so seeing that we are taught in <i>Chulin</i> 5 that anyone who acknowledges any deity other than G'd is considered as if he had denied all of Judaism. While it is true that G'd had accepted the repentance of the Jewish people after Moses had stayed on Mount Sinai three times for 40 days to beg for forgiveness, the people had not yet been told that that sin had been atoned for and there remained a lingering doubt concerning that forgiveness. The people therefore needed special permission in order to proceed and to offer the Passover on the anniversary of the Exodus. This is also why the Torah proceeds without the customary "speak to the children of Israel" to introduce this command simply as a corollary to the original Passover, and it uses the conjunctive letter ו when writing "and they shall perform the Passover." The word ויעשו tells the Israelites that not only had G'd reconsidered His original intent of destroying them but He had even consented to let them bring the Passover.
  Now we can also better understand why the Torah began this chapter by first mentioning the year in which this command was issued. Seeing that the whole paragraph only intended to sanction the fact that the Israelites would offer the Passover, the Torah speaks of the second year so that we would appreciate that this was after the episode of the golden calf. Had the Torah commenced by first mentioning the month we would not have been struck by the fact that the command was issued after the episode of the golden calf. G'd did not tell Moses: "speak to the children of Israel," as He did not want to command them to do this; rather He wanted to permit them to offer the Passover. Seeing that the Talmud (<i>Pessachim</i> 6) claims that this communication occurred on the first of Nissan, it may have occurred before the שכינה descended onto the Tabernacle on that day, and it was G'd's way of informing the people that they had been found worthy to offer the Passover. Subsequent to this communication the Presence of G'd descended and this is why we find the Torah continue in verse 15 with: וביום הקים את המשכן כסה הענן.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  And there were (literally, was) men, etc.: One needs to know why it used the singular form for the many. And also why was it necessary to say, and they could not make the Pesach offering, since it informed us that they were impure. And maybe it is from the angle of that which God commanded on Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the month) about the Pesach offering, as they explained in Pesachim 6a, that the statement (Numbers 9:2), "And the Jews shall make the Pesach offering," was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. And it would have been proper to guard against impurity [to reach the day of the offering, the fourteenth of Nissan, in a state of purity]. And one might attribute a defect to them that they did not keep the commandment of God and that they became impure and did not concern themselves with the commandment of the Pesach. Hence the verse teaches to say, And there was in the singular form, to say that there was only one matter of impurity by which [all of these] people became impure. And that matter of impurity was not in their power to guard from and they became impure against their will, as per their statement, may their memory be blessed (Sukkah 25a-b). Whether according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean who said that they were the carriers of Yosef's coffin, whether according to Rabbi Akiva or whether according to Rabbi Yitzchak who said they were impure from involvement with a corpse that required burial (<i>met mitsvah</i>), they needed to become impure - even if they knew that their impurity would last through the fourteenth. And this is to what the statement, and they could not make the Pesach offering hints to, saying that they could not guard themselves from impurity to make the Pesach offering. And about its stating, on that day, the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, already made a precise inference (Pesachim 90b) - for one master according to his opinion and for [the other] master according to his opinion. It also wanted to say by using the singular form that it was from the angle of their being individuals that that the could not do the Pesach offering, but if they had been the community, they could have done the Pesach offering, as it can come in impurity [in such circumstances]. Later I saw in the Sifrei of the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that they made such a precise inference. 
  לנפש אדם, by the dead body of a man; the reason the Torah defines the nature of these people's ritual impurity is to tell us that if their ritual impurity had been of a less severe nature such as due to contact with certain dead animals such as mice, etc., this would not have prevented them from eating of the Passover as their impurity would have ceased at sundown if they had immersed themselves in a ritual bath at some time during the fourteenth of Nissan (<i>Pessachim</i> 90). If a person had been ritually impure due to contact with a dead body he would not have been able to eat the Passover even if the last day of his purification rites (the seventh day) had occurred on the 14th of Nissan. The reason is that others would not have been allowed to slaughter it on his behalf on the fourteenth (the day it had to be slaughtered). We derive this restriction from the words ביום ההוא, on that day, which are interpreted to mean that he could only have been fit to eat it on the morrow of the fourteenth. Even if we were to understand the word ביום ההוא as referring to the actual impurity having occurred on the fourteenth, i.e. contact with a dead mouse on that day, the additional restrictive words לנפש אדם would still imply that others could slaughter the Passover for a person who had incurred only this minor kind of impurity.
  ויקרבו לפני משה, They approached Moses, etc. The reason they wanted Aaron present when they approached Moses was that in the event Moses would give a ruling that they could proceed with their part in the Passover, Aaron would receive immediate instructions to slaughter the lamb on their behalf. Our sages in <i>Baba Batra</i> 119 phrased their amazement as follows: "Is it conceivable that they stood in front of Moses and turned to Aaron when Moses did not know? Whence would Aaron know if Moses did not know?" Rabbi Yoshiah answers that we must view this verse as having been truncated (not presented in the proper sequence) and interpret it in this light. Abba Chanan, quoting Rabbi Eliezer felt that the people in question did indeed stand facing both Moses, Aaron, as well as the elders simultaneously having encountered all of them in the hall of study where they had come to enquire from Moses about their status. Thus far the Talmud. What precisely was the difference of opinion of the scholars quoted there? According to the Talmud the problem that faced the scholars was whether one accords respect to subordinates in the presence of their superiors, i.e. should the enquirers display respect for Aaron and the elders in the presence of Moses, etc.? The decision arrived at by the Talmud is that one does not accord respect to the subordinates when their superiors are present. At the same time, the Talmud says that the decision is that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors. How do we reconcile these conflicting statements? The Talmud resolves this quandary by saying that whenever the superior is himself perceived as according honour to his subordinates we too must honour the subordinates even when we are in the presence of their superiors. However, when the superiors are not seen according honour to their subordinates we must not do so either whilst their superiors are present. This proves that Rabbi Yoshiah on the one hand and Abba Chanan on the other are wide apart in their views on the subject. The former holds that even in a situation where the superior is seen to accord honour to his subordinates one is not allowed to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors, (and this is why the verse has to be understood that after having enquired from the elders and then from Aaron and not having received a ruling, these Levites finally went to Moses himself to get a ruling). Abba Chanan holds that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors even when their superior is not seen as according honour to them.
  We need to examine why the Talmud describes the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan as so wide. This is contrary to an accepted principle in the Talmud to try and present any divergence of opinions by different scholars as minimal rather than as maximal. If we were unaware whether the discussion between these two Rabbis took place in an instance where the superior did accord honour to his subordinate or not, why does the Talmud arrive at the conclusion that these two scholars argued across the board when it would have been easier to present their conflicting views as pertaining to two different situations and thus narrow them? The Talmud should have told us the final decision only after having presented the views of the two scholars without mentioning the context in which they disagreed and explaining that they addressed themselves to different circumstances.
  I believe the reason that the Talmud was forced to present the disagreement between these scholars as wide-ranging was because of the examples in whose context their opinions were expressed. If these scholars disagreed about whether to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of how the superiors related to the subordinates the argument quoted in the Talmud makes sense. If, however, they disagreed only in one of the two situations where the subordinates were in the presence of their superiors when a query was addressed to the latter, why did the Talmud not say that in the alternative situation the two scholars do not disagree? It is clear that the reason the Talmud was forced to present the argument covering both situations in which the subordinates are present when their superiors are being asked for a ruling is the fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself compelled to reverse the apparent meaning of our verse. He would not have read it as if the words "in the presence of Moses" had appeared at the end of the verse rather than at the beginning except for the fact that he held that even when the superior accords honour to the subordinate in his presence, others are not allowed to do so. 
  Surely Rabbi Yoshiah would have preferred not to have done violence to the sequence of the wording in our verse if he had been able to reconcile the wording as it stands with his view regarding whether one accords honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors at least when the superior himself is seen to do so! Had Rabbi Yoshiah held that when the superior is seen according honour to his subordinate when in his presence we too must accord such honour to the subordinates, he would not have needed to reverse the position of Moses in our verse, but would have explained simply that Moses was in the habit of according honour to his subordinates when they were in his presence. In view of the fact that Moses was the most humble man that ever lived, it would have sounded perfectly reasonable to argue that he did indeed accord honour to his subordinates in his presence. This would have been even more reasonable in view of the fact that his brother Aaron was his senior! Moreover, we find (<i>Mechilta Parshat Bo</i> 12,1) that when Moses and Aaron both stood in front of Pharaoh that Moses accorded honour to Aaron by letting him speak first.
  When Rabbi Yoshiah insisted that our verse does not describe matters in the order in which they occurred, he made it plain that he holds that one does not accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of whether the superior accords honour to them or not. We find a similar argument between these scholars in the paragraph dealing with the daughters of Tzelotchod where the Torah describes them as standing in the presence of Moses and Eleazar (Numbers 27,2). The <i>Sifri</i> on that verse asks how it was possible that the daughters of Tzelofchod expected Eleazar to know something that Moses himself did not know? The answer given in the name of Rabbi Yoshiah is that we must read the verse in a reverse order, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod only approached Moses after the High Priest Eleazar had been unable to give them a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, Abba Chanan gives the same answer that he gave in connection with our verse, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod went looking for Moses and they found both Moses and Eleazar as well as the elders and the community at the entrance of the Tabernacle where they were engaged in studying Torah. The fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself forced to rearrange the sequence of the words in Numbers also clearly shows that he held that the princes were not in the habit of showing honour to the people at large while they were in the presence of Moses. It is even less likely that Rabbi Yoshiah could conceive of Moses, the king of Israel, going out of his way to accord honour to the entire congregation. Nonetheless Abba Chanan held that even when the superior, i.e. Moses, did not accord special honour to his subordinates, outsiders must accord honour to their superiors even in the presence of a king who himself had not accorded honour to such people who were at one and the same time superior to the multitude but subordinate to Moses. The reason the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan is reported on two different occasions in connection with two separate events is that the two scholars were so far apart in their viewpoints.
  
  Verse 7
  
  Why should we be diminished, etc.: One needs to know the claim of the people in their statement, "why should we be diminished." Is the reason not answered by their own mouths - "we are impure"? And what do they want given to them - a new Torah? And maybe it is from the angle that they became impure with His consent, may He be blessed. Whether according to the opinion that they became impure from a corpse requiring burial or whether according to the opinion that they carried the coffin of Yosef, they thought that God would judge them as if they were pure, and in the same way that we find (Pesachim 77a) that God accepts the Pesach offering of the community when it is impure. And for this [reason], they claimed, "why should we be diminished" - and just because they preformed a commandment, they should be diminished from the Pesach offering? Or they meant to say that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering, like with the festive (<i>chagigah</i>) offering, about which they said (Chagigah 9a), "celebrate (<i>chagog</i>) the holiday through the whole festival." So too, God should command them that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering the next day, and that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time, which is the time of the Pesach offering.          And maybe for this [reason], the [previous] verse was exact to say on that day: According   to the  opinion that says that it was the seventh (last) day of their impurity, the explanation is that for this reason did they come on that day - so that he would say to them to make it up on the next day.         And in this way, we gain the explanation [of something else]: God said this commandment of Pesach Sheni (the second Passover) after these men asked - to say that even if they will be pure during the days of Pesach, like in our case; nonetheless, he does not make it up during the seven days of Pesach like the festive offering, but rather on the second (next) month. It also means by saying, why should we be diminished, etc.: that since it was the seventh day of their impurity, that they were claiming that their Pesach offerings could be slaughtered for them; in the [same] way as we slaughter, and sprinkle [from, the offering] of one impurified by creeping animals (<i>sherets</i>) - since they will become pure at night and they only have [remaining] impurity on that day. And that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time. And the rabbis, of blessed memory, said other matters - 'and these and those are the words of the living God.' 
  Perhaps this is why the Torah stressed the words ביום ההוא, on that day, telling us that their inability to offer the Passover was only on that day (the 14th of Nissan) They would be ritually pure already on the 15th of that month. They would be able to make up for time lost already on the morrow.
  This may also account for the fact that G'd did not legislate the "second Passover" on the 14th of Iyar until after the Levites had approached Moses concerning תשלומים, an alternate date to enable them to offer their Passover. G'd did not want this to be similar to the legislation of the חגיגה, when one may arbitrarily choose to delay the offering. Inasmuch as the Passover was an offering of a different class it could only be offered on the fourteenth of the second month by those people whose inability to offer it on the 14th of Nissan had not been due to their own negligence.
  Another meaning of the words למה נגרע, may be that they argued that seeing their impurity ended that evening, why could not others slaughter the Passover on their behalf and they would be able to eat it on that night at the same time as all the other Israelites. After all, the same is permissible if a person had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a dead mouse, for instance? When the Levites emphasised the words ביום ההוא, this was a reference to such impurities which come to an end on the evening of the day they have been contracted. Some of our sages offer still other explanations for the words למה נגרע. All of these explanations reflect true Torah exegesis.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   והאיש אשד הוא טהור, As to the man who is ritually pure, etc. Why did the Torah delay informing us about the penalty for people who deliberately fail to observe the Passover legislation until now? Why has this not been spelled out in <i>Parshat Bo</i> where the legislation was spelled out? We find a debate in <i>Pessachim</i> 93 between Rabbi and Rabbi Natan concerning whether a person who has failed to observe the Passover both on the 14th of Nissan and the 14th of Iyar incurs the prescribed penalty or whether the <i>Karet</i> penalty applies only if one has deliberately failed to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. Rabbi holds that deliberate failure to observe either Passover results in that penalty, whereas Rabbi Natan holds that there is no <i>Karet</i> penalty for failure to observe the second Passover seeing that the Torah does not mention this penalty in that context. Rabbi Chanina son of Akiva holds that one is not even guilty of the <i>karet</i> penalty for failure to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan unless one had also failed to observe it on the 14th of Iyar. All three scholars cite the same verse to support their respective opinions. If the Torah had informed us about the penalty for deliberate non-observance in <i>Parshat Bo,</i> it would not have been possible for the three scholars to hold three different views on the subject.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וכי יגור אתכם גר, And if a proselyte dwells amongst you, etc. The reason that this paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו is to warn the Israelites to ensure that these proselytes do not make light of the Torah's commandments. Just as the previous paragraph addressed itself to the Israelites so this paragraph also addresses itself to the Israelites.
  ועשה פסח לשם, and he prepares the Passover for the Lord, etc. Why did the Torah uses the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה? Furthermore, why did the Torah have to write וכן יעשה, "and so he shall do" at the end? One tends to believe that the Torah wanted to make certain that we understand that this legislation does not apply to a resident stranger, i.e. a stranger who has only accepted to observe the seven Noachide laws, but that only a Jew, i.e. a גר צדק, a true convert, is allowed to partake in the Passover observance. This is not a totally satisfactory explanation as we would not have assumed that anyone who is not Jewish would be included in that legislation.
  Perhaps we should look at what the <i>Sifri</i> has to say on the subject. Here is the quotation from <i>Sifri.</i> "Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says that I could have thought that the legislation applies to someone who converted between the dates of the first Passover and that of the second Passover. By writing ולגר ולאזרח הארץ, the Torah makes clear that the legislation applies equally to the convert and to the natural-born Jew. The Torah makes it plain that just as the second Passover can be observed only by someone who should have observed the first Passover but did not, so the recent convert who did not yet have an obligation to observe the Passover in the month of Nissan cannot observe it in the month of Iyar following his conversion. He has to wait until Nissan in the year following his conversion. This is the reason." This then accounts for the letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה, i.e. if the convert in question would have been obliged to observe the first Passover he is now obliged to observe the second Passover if for some reason beyond his control he could not observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. The word ועשה represents a condition then. The words כחקת הפסח mean that just as the first Passover could be made up for by a second Passover by natural-born Israelites under certain conditions, the same conditions apply to the recent convert to Judaism.
  We need to ask ourselves why the Torah singled out the Passover legislation for detailing the convert's obligation to fulfil the commandments similar to the natural-born Israelite. Why did the Torah not mention this in some other context? I believe the reason is simply that logic dictated that the convert should not observe this commandment at all as it recalls an event which occurred to the forefathers of the natural-born Jews and for which the recent convert has hardly any obligation to observe any remembrance, seeing neither he nor his ancestors had been part of the enslavement and the Exodus. G'd had not "passed over" the houses of the ancestors of that convert, after all. The matter could have been viewed as similar to the legislation of the bringing of the first ripe fruit to the Temple when the farmer bringing the gift recites his gratitude to G'd who took him (his ancestors) out of Egypt and gave him the land of Israel as a heritage (Deut. 26,3-10). The <i>Mishnah in Bikkurim</i> chapter 1 states that whereas a convert is obliged to bring this offering he does not read the passage detailed in the chapter we quoted. We could have assumed that similar restrictions would apply to a convert's observance of the Passover rites. This is why the Torah chose to mention the convert's obligation in connection with Passover rather than with any of the other 612 commandments.
  The Torah was particular to write the word אתכם, "with you," to tell us that although we might view the convert as a most recent addition to Judaism, a "Johnny come lately," G'd wants us to relate to him as if he had always been Jewish. Our Exodus from Egypt also brought potential freedom to the soul of the person who has now converted to Judaism. This is so despite the fact that he was neither physically nor spiritually present at the time. Everything that is holy emanates from the same root. When our ancestors were in Egypt the whole concept of holiness was on the point of "drowning" with them in the moral abyss called Egypt. Had Israel succumbed to the influence of that centre of impurity, G'd forbid, the person who now converted to Judaism could not have done so as holiness had already "drowned" while our forefathers were slaves in Egypt. Every little spark of holiness strives to merge with the seat of holiness, its base. Once the centre of holiness was saved from "drowning," this enabled the scattered sparks of holiness throughout the universe to search for their roots and to eventually rejoin the mainstream of sanctity, the Jewish people.
  When the Torah writes כחקת הפסח, this suggests that there is something lacking rationale in this legislation. The Torah was afraid that whereas we would accept that the convert is to observe the Passover laws in principle, he is nevertheless not to recite words which are outright lies. We refer to such recitals as: "we have been slaves in the land of Egypt when G'd took us out from there, etc." The Torah therefore writes כחקת הפסח to teach us that the convert may even recite such paragraphs from the Bible without making a liar of himself. The roots of sanctity which he now embraces had been in Egypt, i.e. he had his roots in Egypt. Please refer to what I have explained on Exodus 23,9 "for you know the soul of the stranger."
  The reason the Torah adds the words כן יעשה, "he shall do so," is to make clear that the convert is not only allowed to participate fully in the Passover rites but he is commanded to do so. The words חקה אחת teach that the whole Torah is to be viewed as something indivisible.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ולפי העלות הענן, and whenever the cloud would lift, etc. The reason this paragraph begins with the conjunctive letter ו is to remind us that the cloud served two different purposes. 1) Its function was to serve as a cover for the Holy Tabernacle and all its furnishings. As such its function was decorative, a compliment for the Jewish people who had become carriers of the שכינה. This is the meaning of the words in verse 15 that כסה הענן את המשכן לאהל העדות, "it covered the Tabernacle the Tent of Testimony." The Torah adds a second function of the cloud in our verse when it describes the motion of the cloud indicating that the Israelites were to break camp and to start marching on their way to the Holy Land. The cloud signalled both when it was time to move and when it was time to make camp.
  ואחרי כן יסעו, following this the Israelites journeyed. The expression ואחרי כן seems somewhat misplaced. We would have expected something parallel to ובמקום אשר ישכון שם יחנו without the words ואחרי כן. Why did the Torah write the words כן ואחרי? Had the Torah simply written ולפי העלות הענן יסעו בני ישראל, I would have concluded that the signal for the Israelites to move was the motion or lack of motion of the cloud. In order to make certain we understand that the Israelites journeyed at the direct command of G'd the Torah inserts the words ואחרי כן to direct our attention to verse 18 where the Torah spells out that the journeys were על פי השם. Our verse therefore deserves to be understood thus: "And in accordance with the cloud lifting from above the Tabernacle, shortly thereafter G'd would give the command for the Israelites to start journeying" so that they were actually journeying at the command of G'd. [The letter ו before the words אחרי כן means that the expression is not one describing a time frame, though it does describe a certain sequence of events. Ed.]
  Another meaning of these words could be that the Torah wanted to inform us that the Israelites did not ever journey before the cloud lifted but only after it had already removed itself from above the Tabernacle. This did not imply however, that they automatically journeyed as soon as the cloud lifted, rather they awaited specific instructions from G'd to do so. Had the Torah used the alternative wording we mentioned earlier the impression would have been created that the lifting of the cloud was equivalent to a command for the Israelites to break camp and to start journeying.
  
  Verse 18
  
   על פי ה׳ יסעו בני ישראל, the children of Israel journeyed at the command of G'd. The cloud was the means by which G'd made His wishes in the matter known.
  כל ימי אשר ישכון, all the days that the cloud would remain stationary, etc. Our verse details the various ways in which the cloud behaved. It also pays a compliment to the Israelites who made their own wishes correspond to G'd's wishes. The verse first tells about instances when the cloud remained stationary for a long period by stating that whenever the cloud remained in place for a long time the Israelites "were willing to remain encamped in that location during the entire length of time that the cloud showed no sign of moving." The proof for this is that the Torah speaks of יחנו in the future tense instead of reporting חנו, "they did remain in camp" in the past tense. The Torah continues by saying ובהאריך הענן, "and when the cloud tarried, etc." (verse 19), to tell us that even if the cloud remained stationary for an inordinately long period of time the Israelites did not demur but were content to stay where they were. The verse goes on to say: ושמרו בני ישראל את משמרת ה׳ ולא יסעו, "the children of Israel observed the orders of G'd and would not journey." This shows that even though there may have been times when the Israelites- had it been up to their own volition alone-would have liked to move on, they resisted such a temptation and voluntarily abided by G'd's wishes in the matter. This is why the Torah wrote ולא יסעו, "and they would not journey" instead of writing ולא נסעו, "and they did not journey," to make certain we would not interpret their remaining in a place for a long time as their first choice.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויש אשר יהיה הענן ימים מספר, Sometimes the cloud would remain over the Tabernacle only for a few days, etc. This too reflects credit on the Israelites. It tells us that although the Israelites had only just made camp they did not demur when they had to move again so shortly thereafter. The verse goes on to repeat that they camped at the command of G'd and that they moved at the command of G'd. The two statements are not to be understood sequentially. All the Torah wants to tell us is that just as the making of camp occurred at the command of G'd so the act of breaking camp occurred at the command of G'd. In either case the Israelites were in full accord with G'd's wishes in the matter, no matter that they had only had a few days' rest between journeys.
  I have noted that <i>Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel</i> translates the words ימים מספר to mean "seven days." If we accept his words we cannot say, as we did, that our verse meant to compliment the Israelites as they had seven days to recover from the effects of their journey. According to <i>Yonatan ben Uzziel</i> we must explain our verse as follows: the Israelites did not demur during encampment or when the time came to break camp although they would have chosen a different time-table for their journeys had they been consulted. They did what G'd said without protest. This is why the Torah emphasised the words על פי ה׳ יחנו ועל פי ה יסעו׳.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויש אשר יהיה הענן מערב עד בקר, Sometimes the cloud remained stationary only from evening to the following morning, etc. From this point on the Torah tells us only about the different periods the Israelites stayed in one place. It commences with telling us about their making camp in the evening, i.e. מערב עד בקר, from evening till morning. Following this we are told that the cloud remained stationary for a day and a night; this is followed by a description of the cloud remaining in one place for 2 days, i.e. יומים. The next longer period was a month, i.e. חדש, followed by ימים, a period of a whole year when the cloud did not move and the Israelites remained in the same spot. This paragraph cannot be meant to convey something similar to the previous verses as there would have been no logical reason to first describe the cloud as remaining stationary for ימים מספר, "a number of days, etc." Such a description should have been mentioned after מערב עד בקר and not before. The expression ימים מספר is to be understood like a general heading for the subject matter, the details following in verse 21-22. There can be no doubt that the first two verses were meant to compliment the conduct of the Israelites throughout most of their long journey through the desert, whereas the last 3 verses described the various lengths of time the Israelites stayed in one place during those journeys. According to the Kabbalists the reason why the Israelites did not break camp at regular intervals was that the purpose of traversing these various areas was to locate and rescue stray sparks of sanctity which had been "captured" by forces resident in this unfriendly desert environment. Only G'd Himself was able to determine which time frame was sufficient for this task to be accomplished in the various locations.
  
  Verse 22
  
   בהאריך הענן, when the cloud tarried, etc. The Torah mentions that even when the cloud tarried for a whole year, meaning that during that year the Israelites did not come any nearer to their ultimate goal, they did not demur but were content to remain encamped in that location. ובהעלתו, and when it rose, even when the cloud remained in place only overnight, יסעו they would (willingly) move on. The Torah describes the Israelites' will to make camp as equal to their desire to move on. Moreover, even when their journey commenced after a sojourn in the same location for a whole year and would be followed by a renewed encampment after a journey as brief as a day, they still did not demur but displayed the same willingness to encamp again as they had displayed when bidden to move after not having moved for a whole year. The Torah concludes its report by providing us with the reason why the Israelites displayed such equanimity, namely על פי ה׳, they had trained themselves to recognise that G'd acted in their own best interests when He gave the signal to rest or to move on respectively. The words את משמרת ה׳ שמרו, "they observed G'd's charges," mean that the Israelites' patience matched whatever timetable G'd had worked out for them.
  You may well ask that if these last verses were full of compliments for the conduct of the Israelites, as we have demonstrated, why did the Torah have to pay them similar compliments in verse 17 and 18 already? Surely their display of patience and obdedience is more impressive when it is based on recurring experiences, i.e. at the end of the passage than at the very beginning of a trek the length of which no one knew at that time? The reason is that unless we had explained the earlier verses in the manner we did we could not have explained the last verse in this vein. We would then have explained those verses as telling us that the Israelites were anxiously awaiting instructions to move whenever the cloud appeared to make an extended stop and they started moving as soon as they received the signal, whereas they would have anxiously awaited a signal to make camp if only the cloud would stop travelling. As soon as that occurred they would have hurried to make camp. This would not have allowed us to form the impression that they had completely assimilated themselves to what appeared to them to be G'd's wishes in the matter. It is only after we knew from the earlier verses that the Israelites did not pre-empt G'd's instructions when it came to making or breaking camp that we were able to see in the later verses proof that the Israelites were totally on the same wavelength as G'd in all matters pertaining to their journeys. When verse 23 concludes with the statement על פי השם ביד משה, <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> on our verse states that the cloud would not start moving or arresting its motion until Moses had bidden it to either arise or come to rest.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   עשה לך שתי חצצורות "make two trumpets for yourself." Why did Moses require trumpets to announce the journeys when all the Israelites could see the cloud move and this was their signal to commence packing and journeying? Perhaps the reason is that not all the tribes began their journey at the same time. The tribe of Yehudah was the first to break camp followed by the members of the clan of Gershon who carried the Tabernacle, followed by the camp of the tribe of Reuven, etc. The trumpets were required so that each group knew exactly when to start moving. When we questioned the need for the trumpets we could have also questioned why the trumpets were described as לך, "for yourself" i.e. for Moses. The fact is that just as G'd had paid Moses the compliment not to let the clouds move or come to rest without Moses telling it to, so G'd paid him the compliment of allowing him to give the signal to break camp by means of the trumpets. In that sense then the trumpets were Moses'. The word לך means that these trumpets would be at the exclusive disposition of Moses. <i>Sifri</i> on our verse understands the word to mean that Moses had to pay for these trumpets out of his own funds. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15,15 suggests that only Moses was allowed to blow these trumpets. As there are 70 different ways to explain the Torah, all of these explanations are legitimate.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ותקעתם תרועה שנית, "and you will blow a second Teruah, (alarm) etc." One blast of the trumpets did not suffice to cause all the tribes to start moving. <i>Sifri</i> 2,73 states that the members of the clan of Gershon were occupied in dismantling the Tabernacle and had started moving before the tribe of Reuven. This made it necessary to blow the trumpets again to give a signal to the tribe of Reuven, situated in the South, to start moving following the clan of Gershon behind the components of the Tabernacle.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   בשנה השנית בחדש השני, in the second year in the second month, etc. In this instance the reason the Torah mentions the year before mentioning the month of the year was in order to establish a linkage between the paragraph describing the cloud lifting to the exact date on which this event occurred, i.e. on the twentieth of the month. [According to our author this is the preferred manner in which such matters are to be described. 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
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   נסעים אנחנו, "we are about to commence our journey, etc." Why did Moses use this introduction? Yitro knew that the Israelites were about to journey towards the land of Canaan! The <i>Sifri</i> on our verse, apparently aware of this question, says that Moses meant to emphasise that a single journey would suffice to bring the Israelites to their ultimate destination. We may see confirmation of this in Moses using the word אותו, "it," when referring to the place the journey would lead to. This word was quite unnecessary. Moses clearly referred only to to the land of Canaan seeing that G'd had never promised the patriarchs that the Israelites would inherit the lands of Sichon and Og. He meant to stress that there would be only that one journey. Another meaning of what Moses might have referred to was that the words אתן לכם referred to the lands of Sichon and Og which G'd would give to the Israelites of the present generation without having already allocated it to the patriarchs (compare what we wrote on Numbers 7,42). Seeing that at that time the Israelites were on the way to Canaan via the lands of Sichon and Og, Moses did not mention the land of Canaan by name but spoke vaguely about the land that G'd said He would give to the Israelites although he had not promised this to their forefathers. He had prophetic knowledge of this although G'd had not yet mentioned any of this to the people. This in spite of <i>Sifri</i> 2,289 describing those lands as having been appropriated by the Israelites themselves. The fact is that G'd approved of that conquest as a land the Israelites settled in after the event. 
  Still another thought that Moses may have had in mind when he said the words אותו אתן לכם is that they were a hint that Moses personally would capture those lands and allow the two and a half tribes to inherit them. The singular אותו was an allusion to the fact that Moses would not conquer the land of Canaan on the West bank of the Jordan, but that G'd would give it to Joshua.
  לכה אתנו והטבנו לך. "come with us and we will treat you well." According to <i>Sifri</i> 1,132 Moses indicated that the land of Canaan would only be shared out amongst the ancestral tribes, excluding proselytes. A a result he could not promise his father-in-law a share in that distribution except as a gift rather than as an ancestral possession for all times. This is the reason Moses phrased his promise carefully, saying והטבנו לך, "we will do good for you." The implication was that the Israelites would donate some of their land to Yitro. Moses was afraid that there were five kinds of objections Yitro could raise, all of which would cause him to decline Moses' offer. As a result of Moses' concern for his father-in-law's sensitivities he tried to anticipate them when he made his offer. The five considerations Yitro could have were the following: 1) A recipient of a gift feels embarassed vis-a-vis the donor as we know from the Jerusalem Talmud <i>Orlah</i> 1,3 where this principle is applied to people eating food which is not their own. 2) The recipient feels that if he were to accept the gift his image would henceforth be reduced in the eyes of the donor. 3) Seeing that people of stature feel they demean themselves by accepting relatively small gifts, Yitro might prefer to do without the gift rather than to lose "face" by accepting something not commensurate with his image of himself as an important personage. The remaining 2 reservations Yitro might have had to do with the nature of the promise. Moses might reconsider his promise at some future date prior to it having been fulfilled. This could be due either to 4) Moses changing his mind due to envy or due to miserliness or because the fondness he entertained for Yitro at this time might undergo a change. 5) A time would come when Moses would simply not be able to make good on his promise. Considering all these reservations Yitro might entertain Moses addressed all of them in the way he phrased his offer.
  When Moses invited Yitro to journey with the Israelites as a prelude to his receiving the gift of part of the land of Canaan, he wanted to make him feel that as a result of his travelling with the Israelites he would have some kind of claim on being compensated. He did not need to look at the gift as something undeserved. There was no call for him to feel in the least embarassed about accepting a piece of land in the land of Canaan. He would also not have to feel that he would lose face in the eyes of the donor as he would receive only what he deserved. Neither would he have to worry about the promise being reneged on seeing that he was not abandoning his country and travelling with the Jewish people except on condition that they would keep their promise to him. When Moses chose the expression והטבנו לך, he stressed that the size of the gift would be commensurate with a personage of his eminence and accepting it would in no way demean him or his children. In fact the piece of land Moses had in mind to grant to Yitro and his family would be qualitatively superior to that of the tribes. Our sages say that the Israelites gave Yitro and family the most fertile land around Jericho (compare <i>Sifri</i> on our verse).
  When Moses added: "for G'd has spoken good concerning Israel," he addressed the two remaining concerns Yitro might have entertained. He implied that since the promise was made with the consent of G'd, Yitro did not have to fear that G'd would be unable to keep His promise. Moreover, he did not have to fear that the value of the gift would be such that the recipient's dignity would suffer for having accepted a gift not worthy of his stature. Seeing that G'd was not in the habit of reneging on a promise, he did not have to worry on that score either. In the few instances where G'd is reported as having changed His mind (Exodus 32,14), He only reconsidered something evil He had considered doing to people. He never went back on a promise to do good for people.
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי אם אל ארצי…אלך, "but I will rather go to my own country." Why did Yitro have to say אלך, seeing he had already said that he would not go with the Israelites? Perhaps this can be explained on the basis of <i>Mechilta</i> in Exodus 18,27 where Moses let his father-in-law depart. Rabbi Joshua said that Moses allowed Yitro to depart from the most honoured place in the world [from the Presence of the Lord as displayed in the Tabernacle. Ed]. Rabbi Eliezer the Modai claimed that before he departed Yitro said to Moses: "light is effective only in a place of darkness." He meant that amongst the Israelites he was not needed to provide enlightenment seeing Israel basked in the light of G'd. In his own country, however, his new found enlightenment could be of benefit to his countrymen. There he might succeed in converting his countrymen to monotheism and then he would bring them to study Torah. In the event we might think that Yitro went home and did not convert his countrymen, look at what is written in the Book of Judges 1,16, where the members of the Kenite (Yitro's clan) are reported as haying come from the city of Jericho to join the tribe of Yehudah to live in the neighbourhood of Arad, part of the desert of Yehudah. It appears from the wording of the <i>Mechilta</i> that Rabbi Joshua was of the opinion that Yitro did not convert and that this was the reason Moses consented that he would leave the כבודו של עולם, the environment in which G'd's Presence predominated. On the other hand, Rabbi Eliezer the Modai believed that Yitro did indeed convert to Judaism. The extraneous word אלך can be explained satisfactorily according to either of these two views. According to Rabbi Joshua Yitro told Moses: "I will not go but I will go to my country; should you think this is only because I prefer my country over the land of Canaan, this is not so; even granted that what you have to offer me is attractive, nonetheless I will go (back to my country)." According to Rabbi Eliezer we must read Yitro's remark as follows: "I will not go (at this stage) but will return to my country (in order to convert my countrymen). At a later stage אלך, I will go (and join you) as per the report in the Book of Judges." The reason that Yitro mentioned both "my country and my birthplace" is that he implied that if he failed to convert all his countrymen to Judaism at least he was certain he could convert all the people in his hometown. [Our version has a different text entirely, such as that Moses showered his father-in-law with gifts. Ed.]
  
  Verse 31
  
   אל נא תעזב אותנו, "please do not abandon us, etc." According to Rabbi Eliezer Hamodai we must understand this verse as Moses asking Yitro not even to leave the Jewish people's camp temporarily. He alluded to this with the word נא. Regarding Yitro's argument that a light is quite superfluous during the time the sun shines, Moses did not accept that argument. He pointed out that Yitro's contribution to the Jewish people had already demonstrated that his presence was invaluable to them, i.e. ידעת חנותנו במדבר, i.e. when he told Moses to select heads of tens, etc. to help him judge the people he had proven that he had analysed the Israelites' problems in the desert correctly. Moses had demonstrated at that time that he accepted Yitro's advice thereby proving that Yitro's "light" could shine even while the moon or the sun were shining, i.e. while they enjoyed the Presence of the שכינה in their midst (Exodus 18,13-27).
  According to the view of Rabbi Joshua we must explain this verse as follows: The words אל נא תעזב mean that at this stage it was not appropriate for Yitro to depart. The reason it was inappropriate was that inasmuch as he was already familiar with the Jewish people's camp seeing their encampment was protected by G'd's cloud-and no one else knew their precise whereabouts-his knowledge was a security risk (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,20 in connection with Numbers 20,29 that Aaron had died). If he had never come to visit and had familiarised himself with the camp of the Israelites, Moses would not have minded his return to his homeland. According to the <i>Midrash</i> we referred to the whereabouts of the location of the camp of the Israelites remained a secret until the death of Aaron when the cloud enveloping the entire camp disappeared. Now that Yitro had been taken into G'd's confidence disappeared. Now that Yitro had been taken into G'd's confidence by knowing the whereabouts of the camp he should not depart. Another reason he should not leave was the fact that G'd had approved of the advice he had given to Moses and it had become part of the jurisprudence of the people. This is what he meant by describing Yitro as having become "the eyes of the Jewish people." If Yitro were to leave the Israelites after all this, this would be a desecration of the name of G'd. The Israelites would say that if a man who had participated in all their supernatural experiences and whom they had considered as on a high spiritual level could leave this could only prove that he had not been worthy to experience these miracles in the first place. Seeing that Yitro refused to remain, Moses expelled him from the proximity of the שכינה.
  
  Verse 32
  
   והיה כי תלך עמנו, "It will be when you come with us, etc." Why did the Torah repeat the word והיה before coming to the principal message in the verse? Besides, the entire verse seems superfluous as it contains essentially what Moses had offered Yitro already in verse 29? We will try and explain the verse both according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer Hamadoi and the view of Rabbi Joshua. According to the view of Rabbi Eliezer we must look at the word והיה as being simply a continuation of Moses' offer in verse 29 as follows: "Seeing that you have already become "our eyes," you will continue to be so when you decide to remain with us. You will most certainly not be viewed as a proselyte whose new-found enlightenment can hardly be expected to illuminate at a time when the sun of enlightenment shines all around, etc." According to the view of Rabbi Joshua, Moses merely urged Yitro to retain the stature he had acquired while on visit with the Jewish people.
  According to Rabbi Eliezer the words והיה הטוב ההוא אשר ייטיב השם "the good G'd will perform with the Jewish people, etc." mean that Moses urged Yitro not to leave and to return at a later date seeing that Moses was interested that Yitro should share in the land at the time Israel would reach the land of Canaan. If he were present at that time it would be easy to grant him some of the most fertile land of that region. This could not be guaranteed if he would not be present at the time of the distribution. Actually, Yitro was persuaded by Moses argument and agreed to remain. When he found out later that the Israelites' entry into the Holy land had been postponed for 40 years, he decided to sit out this waiting period in his own country rather than in the desert. He used the interval to convert his countrymen and eventually returned to join the Jewish people and took them up on their offer. According to Rabbi Joshua our verse is also meant to tell Yitro not to view himself as inferior because he was "only" a proselyte. This is why Moses assured him that he would receive a full share of all the good G'd had in store for the Jewish people when the time came. Not only that, but he would receive of the most fertile soil that the land of Canaan had to offer.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויהי בנסע הארון, And it came to pass when the Holy Ark would journey, etc. This entire paragraph requires analysis. It may best be explained in connection with a kabbalistic concept (<i>Eitz Chayim</i> 332, chapter 1) I have mentioned repeatedly, i.e. that the reason the Israelites had to trek through the desert was to locate and rescue "sparks" of sanctity which were held captive by the spiritually negative forces whose domain is the desert and other inhospitable parts of the earth. We must appreciate that all these spiritually negative forces may be divided into two categories. One category is essentially a seducer who endeavours to bring his adversary to heel by luring him into immoral and unethical behaviour against man and G'd. The other category consists of various types of destructive forces which simply attack the body of a person trying to kill or to maim him. It is not the nature of this second category of spiritually negative force to engage in seduction of its victim. The words ויהי בנסע הארון refer to the Ark journeying while all kinds of these captive sparks of sanctity cleave to it. As a result of these "sparks" of sanctity establishing contact with the Holy Ark, their captors exploded. This is what is meant by the Torah writing קומה ה׳ ויפוצו אויביך, "Rise up O Lord and let Your enemies be scattered." The "enemies" the Torah refers to are the קליפות, the spiritually negative forces which up until then had held the sparks of sanctity in their grip. Now they would lose that grip. The word ויהי which usually introduces a paragraph containing a painful element refers to the pain experienced by these קליפות. As to the other category of spiritually negative forces, the seductive ones, the Torah writes וינוסו משנאיך מפניך, "let them that hate You flee before You." Here the Torah referrred to those forces who display their hatred of G'd indirectly by seducing G'd's servants into becoming disloyal to Him. The Torah describes these "enemies" of G'd in the plural as there are many such forces as we have learned in <i>Yuma</i> 69 that there are separate evil urges, one luring us to serve idols, another luring us to engage in illicit sexual relations, etc. All of this occurred בנסוע, while the Holy Ark was in motion. Whenever the Holy Ark was stationary the Torah used a different wording to describe how the Holy Ark reacted to such spiritually negative forces. When the Presence of G'd is limited to a specific site, i.e. when the Holy Ark is stationary inside the Holy of Holies, this is equivalent to a declaration by G'd that there are no such "sparks" of sanctity nearby which the Ark would have to search out by moving in their direction and passing such a location.
  When the Ark stopped moving and came to "rest," this was equivalent to a declaration that such sparks of sanctity had been located and that the Ark now had to come to "rest" on account of those "sparks." This is what Moses had in mind when he said: ובנחה יאמר שובה השם רבבות אלפי ישראל, "may G'd (the Ark) bring back all these scattered sparks of sanctity in their tens of thousands." The reason is that they are all called "Israel" just as the name Israel is equivalent to the term sanctity. Perhaps Moses alluded to this by using the word אלפי, a word which symbolises something exalted, superior [<i>Aluf,</i> a general, for instance. Ed.] You will find that Samael gave up a great many such sparks of sanctity. Just consider the background Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, came from. Moses intended to strengthen the power of the sanctity of the Jewish people to overcome the power of the spiritually negative forces in that environment and to "rescue" all the "sparks" of sanctity which still abounded in these desert regions with his prayer.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויחר אף ה׳ מאד. G'd's anger was kindled very much. The reason why the Torah describes G'd's anger as מאד, "very much," is that people who fall victim to seduction by Satan have been victimised, in a sense. The same could not be said of the people described in our paragraph who had actually provoked the evil urge within themselves. There is no category of sin which is greater than that.
  ובעיני משה רע, and it was wicked in the eyes of Moses. Man is upset if something he considers his own creation does not live up to his expectations. You may find an illustration of this when the prophet Samuel is reported as having aged prematurely and died as a result of the anguish of seeing King Saul whom he had crowned not having met the challenge of wiping out Amalek. In order to save Samuel from experiencing Saul's death at the hands of the Philistines (compare <i>Taanit</i> 5) G'd had him die prematurely. Moses too was upset at Israel acting in a manner not befitting them. Alternatively, we may understand the words ובעיני משה רע as referring to G'd's anger. It displeased Moses that G'd had become so angry at the Israelites on this account. According to <i>Sifri</i> 1,95 G'd gave Moses a preview of the punishment He was going to exact from Israel on account of this misdemeanour. Moses reacted by asking G'd whether He really considered it fair to feed the Israelites meat only to let them die as a result of their eating the meat.
  
  Verse 11
  
   למה הרעת לעבדך…ולמה לא מצאתי חן, "Why have You dealt ill with Your servant,…and why have I not found grace?" It is somewhat difficult to understand why Moses first complained about the damage he felt that he had suffered and only afterwards about the lack of some positive achievement, i.e. not finding grace? Logic would have dictated that these two elements be cited in an ascending order! We must understand what Moses said in light of what our sages said in connection with Exodus 32,34 where G'd told Moses: "go and lead the people, etc." <i>Sifri</i> 1,91 there describes G'd telling Moses that the Israelites were obstinate pestering people who cursed their leaders and threatened to stone them, etc. Thus far the <i>Sifri</i> on the subject. We may understand Moses' reaction here in light of what G'd had told him at the time when the sin had been the golden calf. When he used the expression הרעת, Moses meant: "why did You G'd make me experience this misconduct of Your children?" After I have accepted that burden at least You should have helped me to carry this great burden which You have imposed upon me. When Moses asked: "why have l not found grace," the word מצתי, "I have found," is spelled without the customary letter א. Moses hinted that he had not even found a minimal amount of grace.
  An alternate way of looking at our verse assumes that Moses did not want G'd to give the Israelites meat so as to prevent their death after eating the meat. Moses asked G'd why He had placed such a heavy burden upon him instead of granting him grace. The letter ל in the word לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי, is to be understood as giving a reason. Moses complained that if G'd refused to accede to his request not to grant the Israelites' wish to eat meat, why would he have to watch the debacle that would occur as a result of G'd granting the Israelites' request to be fed meat? He also foresaw that the improper behaviour of the Israelites would eventually lead to his own death in the desert. He felt that these results were not the proper reward he could have expected for all his toil on behalf of the Jewish people. Moses' second complaint then may be seen as even greater than his original request. This disposes of the question we raised regarding the sequence of Moses' complaints.
  
  Verse 12
  
   האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה, "Did I conceive this whole people?" The reason that Moses made such an apparently inappropriate comparison is based on <i>Sanhedrin</i> 19 where we are told that whoever teaches the son of his friend Torah is considered as if he had given birth to him. There is also a comment in <i>Tikkuney Hazohar</i> 70 that all the souls of the people who marched through the desert were "branches" of Moses' own soul and that he was considered the father of all those souls. 
  Moses may have alluded to two periods in the life of a son when the father is responsible for his deeds. The first period is an obligation of a biblical nature such as before the son reaches the age of five or six when he commences to study Torah. The second period is a rabbinic decree. According to the rabbis the father is responsible for misdemeanours committed by his son until the son reaches the age of 13 (compare <i>Ketuvot</i> 49 and 68 respectively). Although at the time Moses asked this question the Talmud had not yet added the additional years that a father is responsible for his son, it is something most people will accept readily, especially Moses who was a prophet. In view of the fact that Abraham is reputed to have observed all the rabbinic ordinances already in his time (<i>Yuma</i> 28) although they had not yet been instituted, Moses, with his prophetic insight certainly was aware of all these ordinances. Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by biblical injunction Moses asked האנכי הריתי, "did I conceive them?" Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by rabbinic ordinance he asked אם אנכי ילדתיהו "did I give birth to them?"
  The meaning of the letter ה in the word האנכי is one that expresses confirmation, i.e. willingness to accept the premise implied in both G'd's legislation and rabbinic ordinances. Had the children of Israel been minors, Moses would gladly have shouldered the responsibility that Jewish law imposes upon him. He complained that he should not be expected to shoulder that responsibility for people who had long since become adults and were responsible for their own actions. Even if the Israelites had been his own biological children he would long since have been free of the burden of being saddled with their mistakes. He added -by inference- that if he would have been asked to provide something minor for the Israelites, he would gladly have provided it providing it would be in his power to do so; however, how could he be expected to supply a whole nation with meat in the middle of the desert? By asking מאין לי בשר, Moses also implied that the request did not even constitute something necessary for the wellbeing of the people, it was merely a luxury!
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא אוכל אנכי לבדי לשאת, I cannot carry (this burden) all by myself." Here Moses revealed his own wishes in the matter. He told G'd that his refusal to carry the load all by himself was not due to lack of good will to carry out G'd's assignment but to his conviction that it was beyond his ability to do so.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואם ככה את עשה לי, "but if You will deal thus with me, etc." Moses was afraid that G'd would say to him that he must continue to carry this burden even against his will as it is the fate of a servant of G'd that he continue to serve his G'd until he dies, as we know from Deut 6,5 where we are commanded to love G'd with our entire soul, i.e. even if we have to die in the process. This is why Moses said: "if that is my fate then please let me die now." He added that the reason he asked to die now was so that he would not be a witness to his own failure as a leader. Moses was afraid that if instead of G'd letting him die the people would kill him for not providing meat, he would become the cause of their becoming guilty of murder. Their punishment would be that they would be wiped out by G'd. He, Moses, would much rather die now than for Israel to become guilty of such a crime. Solomon expressed such a thought in <i>Proverbs</i> 17,27 when he said: "it is not good for the righteous to become the cause of retribution."
  The reason Moses repeated the words הרגני נא הרוג, was that he was certain he would meet with death either at the hands of G'd or at the hands of Israel. If G'd were to kill him now, therefore, He would only be taking the life of a person who was already dead for all practical purposes. In order to interpret the verse in this way the word <i>harog</i> must be read as <i>harug. Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 735 on our verse expresses it thus: "If I do not give them meat they will kill me; on the other hand, if I oppose You (by speaking against You) You will be forced to kill me." The wording of our verse can tolerate all these various interpretations.
  
  Verse 16
  
   אספה לי שבעים איש, "gather for Me seventy men, etc." G'd did not say: "gather the seventy elders for Me." This is proof of what <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15,21 stated that the elders who had accompanied Moses on the way from Egypt had all been killed at the same time as Chur the son of Miriam. This is why G'd instructed Moses to appoint others in their place from amongst the elders of Israel. G'd added the word לי "for Me," to tell Moses that he must have in mind that these elders would perform a task for G'd so that he would not be misled by Satan to appoint someone not qualified. Once Moses had the right intention in appointing them he would be protected by the principle that people in the process of performing a good deed will not be thwarted in their intention.
  Another meaning of the word לי is that G'd would confirm the appointments and the authority of these elders would be derived directly from G'd rather than merely from Moses. G'd also used this word to encourage people to accept this position as they might have been afraid remembering the fate that had befallen the first set of elders who had been murdered by the mob. By describing the appointment of these elders with the word אסיפה, a term used for death, G'd made clear that He considered the elders who had been killed as having died in the service of the Lord. Compare Psalms 44,23 כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, "for it is for Your sake that we are getting killed all day long."
  זקני העם ושוטריו, the elders of the people and its officers." They should be people who could command the respect and obedience of the people. All this is implied in the word ושוטריו.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואצלתי מן הרוח, "and I will hold back from the spirit, etc." The manner in which the Torah describes the transfer of part of Moses' Holy Spirit to the elders was meant to emphasise that Moses had possessed sufficient Holy Spirit to cope with the task allocated to Him by G'd. G'd did not need to increase the total amount of Holy Spirit available for that task. He simply reduced the amount of Holy Spirit which Moses had enjoyed up until that time.
  ולא תשא אתה לבדך, "so that you will not bear it alone." In this verse G'd precluded Moses from retracting on his complaint and expressing willingness to carry on as before. The words לא תשא are equivalent to G'd saying: "you will no longer carry the burden alone under any circumstances." The verse also hints that henceforth Moses' exalted position of authority would no longer be exclusive, and that he would have to share his authority. This is a secondary meaning of the word תשא, i.e. "you will no longer be the only one who has been elevated to high stature." I have come across the following remarks in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15: "G'd said to Moses I have equipped you with sufficient insight and knowledge to be a provider for My children and you have been the only one equipped with such stature. From now on they will take from what is yours." According to the scholars who have said in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 17 that the words ולא יספו (11,25) mean that Eldod and Medod did not stop prophesying the words לא תשא may refer to a prophecy such as the word משא in Maleachi 1,1. Accordingly G'd told Moses that henceforth he would no longer be the only prophet in Israel but would have to share that distinction with the elders.
  
  Verse 18
  
   התקדשו למחר, "sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, etc." According to <i>Sifri</i> on our verse the reason why G'd did not provide the meat until the following day was that they saw in the word התקדשו a warning of approaching disaster. This is how the <i>Sifri</i> words this. G'd said: "prepare yourselves for disaster." G'd wanted to issue a warning that the very fact that He granted their request for meat was some kind of disaster. He gave them a period of time to desist from their urge to eat meat. If they would repent G'd would relent from His intention to bring disaster upon them.
  ואכלתם בשר, "and you will eat meat." The additional letter ו at the beginning of the word ואכלתם refers to the period of preparation which had preceded the Israelites' eating of the meat (<i>Sifri</i>.) The verse would then have two messages, 1) prepare yourselves for disaster, 2) you will eat (meat).
  כי בכיתם, "for you have wept." This reveals that G'd pays (angry) attention to weeping. We need to understand why G'd considers the very act of weeping as something ugly, detestable. Weeping may be perceived as a manifestation of someone having totally abandoned any hope of achieving a certain important objective. Were this not so they should have at least asked G'd, much as a son asks his father for his heart's desire. When one weeps instead of asking G'd to grant one's wish, this reflects one's belief in G'd's inability to grant one's wish. The very words מי יאכילנו בשר, "who could possibly give us meat to eat?" indicate the lack of faith of Israel at that time. <i>Sifri</i> on our verse says that Israel said: "G'd is unable to provide our request."
  באזני השם. "in the ears of G'd." The Torah emphasises that the Israelites spoke thus (verse 5) although they must have been aware that G'd heard everything they said to Moses seeing He dwelt amongst them. It is a special חוצפה, effrontery, to utter such words when one knows G'd hears them. What they said in verse 6 was even worse, especially since G'd quotes them in our verse as having said that they were better off in Egypt than at present.
  כי טוב לנו במצרים, "for we were better off in Egypt." We have to analyse why the Torah uses the word כי in כי בכיתם in our verse. Was the fact that they cried a reason to provide meat? It appears exaggerated to polarize one's craving for meat to the point where one prefers slavery under sub-human conditions in Egypt. Perhaps, at that moment, their desire to eat meat was really so great that they were willing to return to Egypt [not necessarily as slaves, Ed.] in order to indulge their craving. Alternatively, we may understand that G'd understood the deeper meaning of the weeping as only superficially connected with their craving for meat. The truth of the matter was that G'd understood that they craved to return to Egypt, and that the non-availability of meat was only an excuse to hide the people's real complaint. In essence the Israelites preferred a sojourn in Egypt to having G'd in their midst. This is why G'd told them to prepare themselves for disaster. The Torah expresses this explicitly in verse 20: "because you have despised the Lord Who is in your midst, etc." The use by the Torah of the word את underlines the odious comparison of the people choosing between dwelling את השם, "with G'd" or in Egypt.
  ונתן ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם, "and the Lord will give you meat and you will eat." Why did the Torah repeat this for a second time in the same verse? Besides, the word "you will eat" is basically superfluous; why would G'd give them the meat if not to eat? I believe that although G'd had told them to sanctify themselves only in anticipation of the following day, so as to give them time to do <i>Teshuvah,</i> the Torah says that the repentance had to occur before they actually received the meat. Once they received the meat, ואכלתם, "you have to eat it." The second expression ונתן ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם is an order then, whereas the first time it could be understood as a promise or as a threat. On a moral/ethical plane one may even understand that if their attitude would undergo a change then, although they would eat the meat given to them, it would not prove harmful. Of course, the people either did not understand this hint, or they understood it but did not take it to heart.
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא יום אחד, "not one day, etc." We must understand the reason why the Torah describes the time the Israelites would eat meat in such detail when the gist of it could have been written in far fewer words. I believe the key to understanding this lies in our previous commentary on the second ואכלתם being a command rather than a promise. Some people can satisfy their craving for meat after having eaten meat one day, whereas others may require a far longer period on a meat diet before they have satisfied their craving. The Torah warns that even people who normally can satisfy their craving after a single day will not be allowed to do so; similarly, people who would normally require say ten days to satisfy their craving would not be allowed to do so. The respective introduction: "not one day," "not two days," etc., are to tell us that the normal manner in which these people satisfy their cravings would not apply in this instance. The limit the Torah prescribes is 30 days, at which time the meat would become repulsive. This teaches that if someone stopped eating meat before these thirty days were complete he would have violated the positive commandment of ואכלתם.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויאמר משה….הצאן ובקר ישחט, Moses said:…."Will flocks and herds be slaughtered, etc?" I find it incredible that Moses could have questioned G'd in such a manner, something that even a person of far lesser stature than Moses would not have dared. Some of our sages quoted in <i>Sifri</i> consider Moses' question as sinful, others understand Moses' question as querying why 600.000 Israelites should die eating meat. There are all kinds of homiletical answers. We must address the plain meaning of the words. Moreover, we must also understand why Moses repeated the words ואתה אמרת בשר אתן, "and You have said 'I will give meat;'" Besides, what did Moses mean about the flocks and herds? Surely the Israelites had sufficient flocks and herds with them to provide meat for thirty days! Did the Torah not make a point of saying in Exodus 12,38 that they took with them a large number of flocks and herds? Furthermore, why did Moses exaggerate so much when referring to: "all the fish in the ocean?" How could he speak about all the fish in the ocean being required to feed 600,000 people for thirty days when the entire population of the world is in the habit of eating fish all year round and the supply of fish is not exhausted?
  There may be two different approaches to explaining our verses according to the פשט, the plain meaning of the text. When G'd told Moses first that He would give the children of Israel meat to eat without specifying how much and for how long, Moses assumed that G'd spoke about one single category of meat. This is why he pointed out that there were 600,000 and that it was likely that in order to satisfy the people's craving there had to be more than one species of meat seeing each one of the Israelites craved for something different such as fowl, venison, fish, etc. Moses therefore queried: "and You have said: 'I will give meat,' i.e. only one category of meat?" He queried what kind of meat G'd planned to provide, if flocks, herds or fish? When Moses referred to fish, he did not refer to the total number of fish in the ocean but to all the varieties of fish in the ocean. The words ומצא להם, mean "could enough varieties be found to satisfy all the different tastes the Israelites craved to experience. He suggested that if G'd were to provide flocks and herds, they would claim they wanted gazelles and deer. If G'd were to provide those, they would claim that they wanted fowl. Moses mentioned only the two extremes, i.e. flocks and herds, and he spoke of fish to symbolise the various kinds of meat between herds and flocks. The words "all the fish in the sea" refer to the total number of varieties of fish. Basically, Moses certainly did not question G'd's ability but he mentioned the enormous effort G'd would have to make to satisfy these people's cravings. Had G'd been more specific saying He would provide the various kinds of meat there are, Moses would not have wondered about anything at all. We may assume that Moses' main purpose in raising objections was to prevent the Israelites' wish being granted so that they would not die as a result of having their wish granted.
  The second approach is based on <i>Berachot</i> 58 where we are told that G'd does not perform a miracle in order to deceive the "beneficiaries" of that miracle. [I have my doubt that this is a correct interpretation of that statement in the Talmud. Ed.] Seeing that G'd had said that the meat would become זרא, loathsome to the Israelites, Rashi explains that the word means also חרב, sword, in some language, i.e. that the reference is not to the meat that G'd would provide but to meat the Israelites had in their possession at that time. In that event we can understand Moses wondering if the Israelites had a sufficient supply of animals to provide a continuous meat diet for thirty days. G'd replied that בשר אתן להם, that He Himself would give them permission to eat the herds they had brought out of Egypt. Apparently, up until that moment the Israelites had not been allowed to slaughter their animals for anything other than sacrificial meat. When Moses spoke about the fish of the ocean, he referred to the fish in the brook which was the באר של מרים, the well which travelled with the people. Moses calculated that the amount of fish in that brook was not even sufficient to provide the nation with fish for a single day, much less for thirty days. We have already mentioned that Moses did not think that G'd would perform a miracle in order to deceive people and to have them perish as a result of that miracle, so that he did not think G'd would miraculously increase the number of fish. Considering all this, Moses' surprise was certainly legitimate and does not constitute a lack of faith in G'd's ability to provide.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   היד ה׳ תקצר,….היקרך דברי, "Is the hand of G'd inadequate?….if My word is precious, etc." This verse also lends itself to interpretations in line with the two approaches we have described. According to our first approach any category of meat would not be sufficient to satisfy the various tastes of the Israelites. As a result they would still continue to complain. G'd answered that He was able to supply a category of meat which would satisfy the cravings of all the Israelites. This is what G'd meant when He said היד ה׳ תקצר. G'd added that Moses was about to see that G'd would perform a single act, i.e. issue a directive which would meet all the demands of the Jewish people. He would provide a kind of meat which comprised the combined advantages of all the other existing categories. The meaning of the word יקרך is that Moses was going to experience how precious such a command of G'd would be. He would appreciate the value of G'd's directive. Another meaning of that word could be that G'd told Moses that his own stature as a prophet would be enhanced among the people when they experienced what G'd would provide.
  According to the second approach we suggested, Moses' surprise was based on his assumption that when G'd was talking about the meat the Israelites would eat, He meant that this meat would be supplied from the existing flocks and herds of the Israelites; he was quite unwilling to believe that G'd would perform a miracle to satisfy an unjustified craving by the Israelites to eat meat. This is why He, G'd, stressed that Moses would see if G'd's hand would be inadequate, i.e. He would perform a miracle. G'd meant that He had to perform the miracle so that He would not be perceived amongst the Israelites as unable to perform such a miracle. In other words, though the Israelites did not deserve a miracle, He, G'd must not be the cause of His name being desecrated by their belief that He was powerless to meet their cravings. When G'd said עתה תראה, "now you will see," He told Moses that he would now receive a lesson in G'd's preparedness to <i>perform</i> miracles לשקר, to prevent the Israelites to lie about His abilities. This caused our sages in <i>Kidushin</i> 40 to say that when it comes to desecration of His Holy Name, i.e. His image, G'd is extremely punctilious. [The story in the Talmud there illustrates how G'd performed miracles to save great scholars from having to either martyr themselves or engage in sexual relations with prominent Gentiles to save themselves from death. Ed.]
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויצא משה וידבר אל העם, Moses went out and spoke to the people, etc. He first spoke to the people alone, and then he summoned the newly appointed elders. This did not correspond to the order G'd had commanded him in verse 16. There he was told to first assemble the prospective elders at the entrance of the Tabernacle and to speak to the people only after these elders had been granted a measure of Holy Spirit from G'd (compare verses 17-18). Moses assumed that it was G'd's intention that he should inform the people about what was to take place. If G'd had intended to appoint the elders first, why would He have told him in verse 18 to address the people?
  The reason G'd wanted the people informed before the prospective elders were assembled was that this formed G'd's answer to Moses' complaint that he could not carry the burden of leadership of the people single-handedly. First G'd replied to Moses' complaint; afterwards he told him to address the people. G'd knew that Moses was intelligent enough to read His mind concerning the sequence, as indeed he did.
  It is also possible that the words: "Moses spoke to the people the words of G'd," referred only to the instruction to gather the elders. Moses thought he would deal with that subject first. He would then speak to the people again telling them to prepare for the morrow when G'd would provide meat. The latter explanation appears to be in line with <i>Midrash Tanchuma.</i>
  
  Verse 25
  
   וירד ה׳ בענן וידבר אליו, G'd descended within the cloud and spoke to him, etc. What did G'd say to Moses? Besides, what was the neeed for this whole procedure? Why did G'd not simply let these people prophesy? We may understand what happened when we consider a statement of the <i>Zohar</i> on <i>Pinchas</i> 220 on Numbers 25,12: "Behold I give unto him My covenant, peace." G'd commanded Moses to bestow this covenant of peace on Pinchas. The reason was that Moses had already acquired that gift so that it was considered his possession. Seeing that G'd does not take away a gift He had given to someone in order to give it to someone else, Moses had to be the one to bestow it on Pinchas. Similarly, here. Moses had been given the gift of prophecy, exclusively. When G'd wanted to give the elders the gift of prophecy He had to do so via Moses. This is why Moses is known as אדון הנביאים, the "master" of the prophets. When Moses assembled the elders he remained with them and G'd descended within the cloud. The word <i>vayedaber</i> may be read as <i>vayadber,</i> "He made subordinate" (compare Psalms 47,4). G'd took permission from Moses to transfer some of his Holy Spirit.
  ויאצל מן הרוח, He took from the spirit, etc. The word ויאצל may have been intended as a clue to the source of this prophetic spirit, i.e. the עולם האצילות, a domain very close to the throne of G'd. מן הרוח אשר עליו, "from the spirit which was upon him;" this may describe the quality of that spirit. The source of the spirit which was bestowed on the elders emanated not from Moses but from higher regions. Alternatively, it may mean that after the spirit which imbued Moses was given to the elders, עליו, Moses' own spirit remained fully intact. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 15 states that when Moses evaluated the level of prophecy the elders attained, it turned out that the 2 elders Eldod and Medod (numbers 71 and 72 respectively) had received a higher degree of prophetic spirit because their portion came from G'd directly, whereas the other seventy elders received their prophetic spirit only from Moses. This was why the seventy elders prophesied only briefly.
  ויהי כנוח עליהם הרוח, it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc. We know that the word ויהי usually introduces a paragraph containing a regrettable event. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19 claim that the elders prophesied the message in verse 18, i.e. that there would be quail on the following day. How can there be something more painful than to commence a career as a prophet by predicting that one's peers should prepare for disaster?
  The reason the Torah wrote the word ויתנבאו, "they prophesied" with the letter ו at the beginning is to tell us that not only were these 70 people worthy of receiving the gift of Holy Spirit, they were even worthy of attaining prophetic insights. The Torah informs us that they prophesied immediately after having been granted some of Moses' Holy Spirit. Another saddening experience which justifies the word ויהי is that the seventy elders prophesied only so briefly and did not retain their prophetic spirit [presumably because they joined the people who wept when the spies returned, something which occurred shortly thereafter. Ed.]
  
  Verse 26
  
   וישארו שני אנשים במחנה, Two men remained within the camp, etc. Firstly, what is the meaning of "they remained?" Relative to whom and to what did they remain? Secondly, why did the Torah have to mention the names of these two men when none of the seventy elders have been named though they were selected and these men were not? Why does the Torah say that the spirit rested on them? If the men were part of the seventy elders selected, what did the Torah add that we did not know before? If they were not part of the seventy elders the Torah had spoken about, why would they be granted Holy Spirit seeing G'd told Moses to select only seventy men? Besides, what is the meaning of the words והמה בכתובים? Why did the Torah say ולא יצאו, they did not go out? If they have been reported as "remaining," they obviously had not "gone out to the Tabernacle?" Why did the Torah write at the end of the verse: "they prophesied inside the camp?" The Torah should have written the verse in the following order: "Two men who were amongst those whose names had been suggested as prospective elders did not go out to the Tabernacle; the spirit came to rest on them and they prophesied." Why did the Torah see fit to completely jumble this verse?
  Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> were of two minds as to who these men were who were "left behind." Some say they were left behind out of the total of 72 (12 times 6 from each tribe) whom Moses had invited (in writing) to take part in the draw for the selection of a total of 70 elders. Moses prepared 72 slips of paper (invitations); afterwards he drew lots 70 of which had the name "elder" inscribed on them. The other two slips of paper were blank. Our verse speaks about the two men who had drawn blanks and thus had not been appointed as elders. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, claims two of the seventy men selected were so humble that they did not want to enter the Tabernacle and preferred to stay behind in the general camp of the Israelites. If we accept the latter explanation we must explain the verse as follows: "Two men remained behind in the camp as they considered themselves superfluous. The Torah gives their names to tell us that these people were renowned for their modesty. Had they not been renowned for their modesty the people would have upraided them for refusing Moses' invitation to high office which included G'd granting them Holy Spirit. Their refusal would have been a public desecration of the name of G'd. However, their very names protected them against their conduct being interpreted negatively. As a result they were granted Holy Spirit even though they had remained in the general camp as confirmation that their motives in remaining within the camp had been above-board. The Torah chose the expession ותנח to indicate that whereas the other seventy elders experienced only a brief elevation to prophetic insights, these two men retained the spirit of prophecy granted to them. Before mentioning the substance of their prophetic insights, the Torah mentions matters which caused the people to judge these men's behaviour in a favourable light, i.e. that their prophecy proved true. In order that we should not think that the words והמה בכתובים refer to the slips of paper making up the lottery, the Torah says that לא יצאו האוהלה, they did not leave their abode to go to the Tabernacle, i.e. although they had been entitled to do so. When they were nonetheless able to prophesy all of a sudden, this convinced their peers that they had been found worthy and had not insulted G'd by declining Moses' invitation.
  According to the view that Eldod and Medod were part of the 72 elders concerning whom no decision had as yet been made which two would not be chosen, the word וישארו means that although two people whose names were Eldod and Medod were surplus and had to remain in the מחנה, the general camp, the spirit of prophecy came to rest on them although they had not been allowed to proceed to the Tabernacle. This was in addition to the 70 people who had had Holy Spirit bestowed upon them as described in verse 25. Seeing that these people had not been mentioned in the previous verse as amongst the 70 men Moses had assembled at the Tabernacle, they did have to be mentioned separately. The words והמה בכתובים serve to provide the justification why these two were granted Holy Spirit. Their names had appeared amongst the list of the original 72 names Moses had made as possible candidates to become elders. This fact had made them fit to receive prophetic spirit no less than the other 70. In order that we should not think that the words והמה בכתובים meant that they were part of the 70 out of the original 72, the Torah added that they never left their respective tents to go to the Tabernacle to receive some of Moses' spirit.
  A homiletical approach to this paragraph is that the two candidates who drew blank pieces of paper in the lottery were initially upset about not having been chosen. As a result of their rejection they had to return to the general camp after having first assembled at the Tabernacle. They were so embarassed that they went into hiding. When G'd saw that they were terribly ashamed at having been rejected, He granted them prophetic powers. The words והמה בכתובים mean that the reason they would not come out of hiding was that their names had originally appeared on the list of candidates. G'd compensated them for their disappointing experience.
  
  Verse 27
  
   וירץ הנער ויגד למשה, The lad ran and told Moses; Why was the lad so upset that he told Moses that Eldod and Medod prophesied? Even allowing for the fact that he had adequate reason to tell Moses about it, why did he demand that they be locked up? Since when had prophecy become a punishable crime? According to those who believe that these two men were those who had been rejected out of the original 72 candidates we can understand Joshua very well. Moses had told the Israelites that seventy people would be endowed with prophetic spirit by G'd. All of a sudden Joshua saw that seventy-two people had become prophets. This could have one of two possible reasons. 1) Moses had not spoken the truth; 2) these people prophesied falsely. According to the opinion that these two prophets had indeed been part of the seventy elders who had been chosen, Joshua told Moses of the misdemeanour of people who had been bidden to come to the Tabernacle and who had failed to do so now prophesying inside the regular camp. According to Joshua these two, i.e. Eldod and Medod, committed two wrongs. 1) They ignored Moses' order. 2) They refused to become recipients of Moses' Holy Spirit but wanted to receive their Holy Spirit from a still higher source as a result of which they practiced their prophecy within the general camp.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויען יהושע ויאמר…אדני משה כלאם, Joshua reacted and said: "my lord Moses arrest them!" What gave Joshua the right to make a halachic decision in the presence of his teacher? Our sages in <i>Eyruvin</i> 63 have said that anyone who makes a halachic pronouncement in the presence of his teacher will die without leaving behind children. The Talmud quotes our verse as its source. Perhaps we can explain what Joshua did with the help of the <i>Sifri</i> on verse 26 where the <i>Sifri</i> claims that Eldod and Medod kept prophesying that Moses would die and Joshua would lead the Israelites into the Holy Land. When Joshua heard these words he resolved to take a stand in the presence of his teacher in order to demonstrate his displeasure with this prophecy. He believed that Eldod and Medod were not fit to prophesy and indeed spoke falsely. By taking a stand he showed that he was not interested in assuming the leadership role prophesied by Eldod and Medod. He may have meant either one of two things with his suggestion that Moses lock these people up. The confinement could be temporary until the matter came to trial, or he meant that they be banished from this world. Either possibility is in accord with the two views we have quoted as to whether Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders who had been chosen or whether they were the two men who had drawn blanks.
  The wording אדני משה, "my lord Moses," suggests that Joshua expressed his desire for Moses to remain his lord, i.e. that he harboured no secret desire to supplant Moses. The apparently unnecessary word ויען means that he replied to the words (the content) that Eldod and Medod had prophesied. At any rate, Joshua was punished for having spoken out in this manner at that time, as, after all is said and done he violated the rule of giving a halachic opinion in the presence of his teacher. [There is no evidence in the Bible that Joshua left children behind when he died; compare Chronicles I 7,27. Ed.]
  
  Verse 29
  
   המקנא אתה לי? "are you jealous on my behalf?" According to the view that Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders chosen, we must explain the verse as follows: "Is your jealousy based on the fact that these men were unwilling to receive their share of prophetic insights from me rather than from G'd directly? I wish all the Jewish people had been endowed directly by G'd with prophetic insights instead of having to receive it from me as their intermediary." This is shown clearly by Moses using the words מי יתן כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם. In this manner Moses demonstrated his utter humility and total lack of a desire for personal honour. According to the view that Eldod and Medod were the two men who had drawn blanks during the lottery among the 72 prospective candidates, Moses asked Joshua whether it bothered him that instead of 70 people having been endowed with Holy Spirit he now found that actually 72 people had received prophetic insights. Moses told Joshua that he, personally, wished that G'd would grant every Israelite prophetic insights. The reason Moses said: "may G'd grant His spirit, etc," is that Moses viewed the 70 people who had received prophetic insights with him as the intermediary as being only the beginning. Now that G'd had shown that He had granted prophetic insights directly to two more Israelites, he could only hope that G'd would grant such prophetic insights to everybody. None of such additional prophetic insights would be a denial or diminution of Moses' own stature as a prophet.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותדבר מרים במשה, Miriam uttered criticism of Moses, etc. It is possible that Miriam and Aaron spoke in Moses' presence. Logic would dictate that this was indeed the case. Had they only been talking amongst each other, what difference would it have made to Moses? We must assume therefore that they said what they did as a rebuke to Moses. I believe <i>Sifri</i> confirms my opinion as the author quotes the words: וישמע ה׳ והאיש משה as belonging together, i.e. Moses too heard what Miriam said.
  
  Verse 2
  
   הרק אך במשה דבר ה׳?? "Did G'd speak to Moses exclusively?" Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 1,14 and Jerusalem Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 9,7 have said that every time the words אך or רק appear they are restrictive in character. In this instance we can also detect that both words are meant as some kind of restrictive clause. Miriam and Aaron felt that the fact that Moses had abandoned normal family relations with his wife was a silent accusation against them who continued to maintain regular marital relations with their respective spouses. <i>Sifri</i> takes the same line expanding Miriam's complaint by accusing Moses of criticising the patriarchs by his refusal to maintain family relations with his wife. Miriam and Aaron felt it also was an act of arrogance vis-a-vis our patriarchs all of whom G'd had communicated with, and who had not stopped living normal married lives with their spouses because G'd had addressed them from time to time. Did Moses pretend to be more pious than the patriarchs? On the other hand, it is possible that Miriam and Aaron alluded to two deficiencies in Moses as a prophet. 1) Moses never began his career as a prophet until he attained the age of 80 as we know from Exodus 7,7, whereas she, Miriam, as well as Aaron had already been given prophetic powers at the age of 3, prior to Moses' birth. 2) Moses' second deficiency conisted in the fact that on the very day he was appointed as a prophet he contracted the dread disease of <i>Tzoraat</i> indicating he had been found wanting in the eyes of G'd (Exodus 4,6). Neither Miriam nor Aaron had ever been afflicted with that disease. The words אך and רק in our verse refer to these two deficiencies Miriam and Aaron perceived in Moses.
  וישמע השם. G'd heard. The Torah had to write these words [although we know that G'd hears every word spoken by anyone Ed.] to tell us that Miriam and Aaron did not say what they said within earshot of any other creature [a third party which was not involved. Ed.]. Another reason the Torah wrote these words is to tell us that G'd heard this directly from Miriam and Aaron and not as a complaint from Moses. Moses did not complain to G'd about having been slighted.
  
  Verse 3
  
   והאיש משה ענו, The man Moses was a humble man, etc. The reason the Torah chose this point to inform us about Moses' extreme humility is that it is best demonstrated here where Moses was under extreme provocation and did not even complain to G'd. Had he responded, he would have revealed himself as not quite so humble. This, in spite of the fact that he could have given a convincing explanation for his conduct. The Torah goes out of its way to describe Moses' level of humility as "greater than that of any other human being on earth." The reason is that one could have argued that it is impossible for a person who considers himself as inferior to everybody else to at one and the same time be the greatest prophet. This is why G'd Himself had to answer Miriam and Aaron. פתאם, without prior warning. The sudden appearance of G'd was due to the אונאה, insult, seeing that Miriam's words were an insult to Moses. We find a similar instance of G'd appearing suddenly in <i>Amos</i> 7,6: והנה ה׳ נצב על חומת אנך. [I confess that I have not been able to follow the author in this. Perhaps he considered the last three letters in the word פ־תאם "properly aligned like twins" as similar to the plumb line which properly aligns the stones in a wall and this is the meaning of the comparison with the verse in Amos. Ed.] Our sages in <i>Yalkut?</i> understood the word פתאם to mean that it was "close to a spark." [Maybe the meaning is "as suddenly as a spark of lightning." I have not found that quote. Perhaps "spark-like" in its effect? Ed.].
  
  Verse 4
  
  אל משה, to Moses, etc. The reason that G'd called to Moses when it was Aaron and Miriam He wanted to speak to is that the latter were ritually impure at the time and first had to purify themselves. He called to Moses in order to give recognition to the fact that Moses kept himself pure at all times by the very fact that he did not indulge in marital relations with his wife. This is why he was able to be called upon by G'd without having to undergo any preparation. This fact contrasted with the state of Miriam and Aaron (compare Yalkut). According to the plain meaning of the verse G'd called Moses so that he would be able to offer a prayer on behalf of Miriam when the latter would be afflicted with <i>Tzoraat.</i> Another reason G'd called Moses also was that G'd wanted to use the opportunity to demonstrate Moses' superiority as a prophet immediately. He did this by calling to Moses before He called to Aaron and Miriam. When they would hear that G'd called Moses first, they would realise immediately that this was in contrast with their perception that they equalled him in prophetic stature.
  
  Verse 5
  
   וירד ה׳ בעמוד הענן, G'd descended within a pillar of cloud. We need to know why G'd did not first descend prior to His calling upon Moses, Aaron and Miriam. At least it appears from the order of our text that He waited with descending until after He had called to them. The fact that G'd told the three to leave their tents and come to the Tabernacle also suggests that He had not yet descended, otherwise he would have had to assign a certain place for them as they would have observed the place where the cloud had taken up position. According to the scholars who hold that both Aaron and Miriam were ritually impure at the time, we can well understand why G'd waited before He descended in His cloud. He did not want to descend and then have to wait until Aaron and Miriam had undergone their purification rites. It might also make those who had been called and had not responded promptly subject to posssible punishment. As it is not. G'd's wish to do something which results in people being punished, He decided to wait until both Aaron and Miriam were able to respond to His call. The reason G'd descended at all and did not address them by His voice emanating from higher regions as He had done when He first called out to them was in order to lend publicity to the event. When they would see the cloud take up position at the entrance of the Tabernacle all of Israel would become aware that G'd had been greatly concerned that someone had imputed base motives to His trusted servant Moses and that He had punished that someone.
  
  Verse 6
  
   שמעו נא דברי, "please listen to My word, etc." Why did G'd have to preface His words with this introduction? Was it not a foregone conclusion that the people addressed would listen carefully to what G'd had to say? Furthermore, why did G'd have to add the word נא, "please?" Since when does the master address the servant by imploring him to listen to what he has to say?
  G'd wanted to make clear that when He had spoken to them in very friendly tones, i.e. ויאמר, previously, they had not been worthy to be addressed at all seeing they were still ritually impure. It was only now, after they had purified themselves, that they had become fit to be spoken to by G'd. The whole episode is a lesson to a servant to hold himself in readiness at times when his master is apt to require his services. All of this taught them why Moses had been duty bound to separate from his wife. How else was he able to keep himself in constant readiness when G'd would want to speak to him? This also provides us with an answer to the basic question why G'd did not spell out to Aaron and Miriam the reason why Moses had separated from his wife.
  We may also explain the words שמעו נא to mean that G'd announced that now they were about to be castigated and to be disciplined. In this instance G'd addressed them personally rather than that He gave them the message through Moses for two reasons. 1) Since Moses was personally involved in the matter under discussion. 2) It was in the nature of things that G'd wanted to discuss the matter with Aaron and Miriam privately, not in the presence of Moses who would have found it embarassing. G'd also wanted to make clear that Aaron and Miriam qualified for only this part of what G'd had to say, as G'd had no other way of telling them. Anything else that G'd had to say He would say only to Moses. This would show that they had been wrong in claiming that G'd spoke to them also. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 14,19 state that whenever the Torah writes: "G'd spoke to Moses and to Aaron," the meaning is not that G'd addressed both Moses and Aaron simultaneously, but that Moses was to communicate to Aaron what He had said to him. This is what is hinted at here when the Torah wrote the word נא.
  The reason the Torah added the word דברי, "My words," something that appears totally superfluous, is to impress upon Miriam and Aaron that though they had prophesied on previous occasions the communication they were about to receive from G'd now was on a different level from anything they had experienced previously. G'd stresses this immediately when He refers to the nature of their prophetic insights with the words אם יהיה נביאכם השם.
  It is also possible that G'd hinted to them that this would be the last time He would communicate with them directly. The fact that they were about to receive a communication on a more direct level than ever before did not mean that they had suddenly qualified for a higher level of prophecy and that they would continue to receive communications from G'd directly.
  Still another meaning implied by the word נא is that it refers to their impurity. Normally, when one has suffered ritual impurity through contact with semen and has purified oneself, one is not fit to eat <i>Terumah</i> until nightfall (Leviticus 22,6). A prophet who is the recipient of Holy Spirit most certainly is not fit to receive same until after he has waited until sunset after his ritual immersion. The reason is that G'd's Holy Spirit should not be perceived as on a lower level of sanctity than the <i>Terumah</i> which the priest may eat. G'd said: שמעו נא דברי, "listen to My words nonetheless already now," i.e. this is an exception, an emergency; this is why I have decided to let you hear My words even though the sun has not set yet since your immersion in a ritual bath. G'd hinted that His loving concern for Moses was such that He would not wait until the morrow to rectify the mistaken impression Miriam and Aaron had of their level as prophets compared to Moses. When we find in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 55,11 that אהבה מקלקלת השורה, this means that a loving relationship between two people is apt to interfere with accepted rules. G'd applied this principle here. He addressed Miriam and Aaron "prematurely."
  אם יהיה נביאכם, "if there be a prophet amongst you, etc;" G'd refrained from addressing Miriam and Aaron directly by saying אם תהיו נביאים, "if indeed you are prophets, etc." Seeing that Miriam and Aaron themselves had implied that there were other prophets apart from themselves (as we mentioned earlier they referred to the patriarchs) G'd was careful to include also those prophets in His remarks. Perhaps the reason G'd used the singular יהיה instead of the plural יהיו was to emphasise still further the uniqueness of Moses as a prophet.
  השם במראה אליו אתודע, "I, the Lord, make Myself known to him through a vision." G'd spells out to us the difference between other prophets' perceptive powers and the perceptive powers of Moses. There are three elements to prophecy. 1) the attainment of a vision. 2) The time when the prophet is granted any vision, i.e. is he able to receive transmission of G'd's word by means of a vision at any time, i.e. whenever the prophet feels the need to communicate with G'd, or is he dependent on certain times, i.e. only when G'd takes the initiative in communicating with the prophet. 3) Can the prophet attain a verbal communication from G'd at his request? (I will explain this in detail).
  G'd first speaks about the kind of communications which certain prophets receive by describing them as מראה, vision. There are three levels of recognising G'd. The highest level is one that does not require prophetic insight. It is that which Moses requested in Exodus 33,18 when He asked: "please show me Your ways." At that time the word נא meant that Moses wanted to become privy to the kind of information about G'd that is normally only granted to the soul after it has departed from the body. Moses was quite familiar with the insights which the righteous would be granted after death. G'd denied this request saying that it is impossible for a living human being to gain those insights. That level of insight is equivalent to the recipient experiencing Divine light directly. Moses' level of prophecy was restricted to aural perception, i.e. G'd spoke to him and his ears heard. His (physical) eyes did not see a communication. A second (next lower) level of communication from G'd is one in which G'd radiates some light resulting in the recipient "receiving" a picture, תמונה. This "picture" has nothing in common with the way we normally understand the term "picture." It is the kind of "picture" which no living being other than Moses can perceive with his mind's eye. This is why Moses is described as ותמונת השם יביט, "he can view a picture from G'd." A third level is one in which the recipient perceives a light which emanates from G'd and the source of which seems to be very distant. It appears to a person like a candle which seems able to provide light over a great distance. This is what the Torah referred to here as the מראה. It is this which prophets other than Moses perceived. The Torah calls this "מאמר ה׳ במראה" "a word of G'd by means of a vision seen with the eye." By contrast, Moses is described as "looking at a picture from G'd."
  Concerning the time when G'd would manifest Himself to different kinds of prophets, the Torah says אליו אתודע, that these "minor" prophets are not able to attain a vision whenever they want; they have to wait patiently until G'd is ready to reveal a communication to them." Moses, on the other hand, could receive communications at all times as described in Numbers 9,8 where he told the people that he would receive instructions from G'd as soon as he asked. Moses did not display the slightest doubt that G'd would respond to him as soon as he asked. Other prophets with whom G'd communicated on a lower level, could not even be certain that G'd would respond to them when they wanted on that lower level. Moses, on the other hand, though he expected a communication on a higher level, could be certain of receiving same whenever he desired. This is what G'd meant when He said בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, "he is trusted in all My house." Moses was at home in the celestial domain and had the run of that "house."
  Concerning the matter of a verbal communication from G'd to a prophet, G'd told Miriam and Aaron that whereas all prophets other than Moses received such communications only in a dream, not so Moses. He was fully awake, his mind was clear when he received such verbal communications from G'd. He did not have to reassure himself if he had correctly understood what he heard while dreaming. Secondly, whatever G'd relates to a prophet in a dream is not to be understood literally, but is in the nature of a parable, or image. The Torah has told us of numerous dreams which were prophetic communications to the person dreaming them and all of which required an expert to interpret them. [Jacob needed G'd to tell him over 20 years after the event that what he had dreamt about the ladder had been a prophecy and not merely a dream (compare Rabbi Yitzchak Arama on the subject). Ed.] The prophets other than Moses were mentally overwhelmed when they experienced such prophetic dreams. When G'd speaks about appearing to prophets בחלום, this does not mean that they actually dream; rather, it describes the impact of G'd's communications to such prophets being similar to that of people who experience a dream while asleep. G'd always communicated with His prophets while the latter were awake. Only Moses was able to maintain his regular posture when G'd communicated with him; he did not prostrate himself or go into convulsions as did other prophets. Neither did he receive such communications in the form of a riddle or parable. Every communication Moses received from G'd was crystal clear, requiring no further elaboration. This is what the Torah means when it describes such communication as פה אל פה אדבר בו, "I speak with him mouth to mouth." All the Israelites saw that all the 53 times the Torah reports G'd as speaking to Moses (and to communicate what He said to them) the message was crystal clear and could be understood by anyone with a command of the Hebrew language. The same applies to all the wealth of wisdom contained in the written Torah. Anyone who immerses himself in that part of the Torah will find that he can understand it. This contrasts with the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah many of which are extremely obscure, full of parables and enigmas. What did Ezekiel mean by the "great eagle" in chapter 17, for instance? The prophecies of the so-called minor prophets such as Zachariah are even harder to unravel so that none of us can be certain of the events to which these prophecies relate.
  We need to examine why the prophecies given to Moses were all so clear whereas those granted to the afore-mentioned prophets appear so confused. Kabbalists explain that the phenomenon of man being a composite of body and spirit is bound to prevent him from being able to receive undiluted spiritual input. Any attempt to subject man to such additional spiritual input upsets the fragile equilibrium between the forces of body and spirit which constitute a human being. After all, we observe in nature that such opposites as fire and water cannot coexist peacefully except in heaven seeing that the Creator Himself has arranged it so in His domain. It is only natural, therefore, that when a human being is called upon by G'd his body will tremble, be subject to convulsions, etc. The only human being able to retain his composure when thus addressed by G'd is one who has succeeded in transforming the material part of himself into a צורה, into the perfect state G'd has created it in, as we have described on numerous occasions. Once man has achieved this, his body is no longer a hindrance to his receiving communications from G'd and he will be able to do so as a matter of course. When there are no people around who meet these specifications and G'd has found Israel worthy to receive prophetic communications, He has no choice but to choose someone to whom He transmits His word in a manner which upsets the body and mind of the recipient. As a result the world abounded with prophets who had to receive their messages in the form of parables and riddles so that the equilibrium of their bodies and minds would not be permanently upset. The reason that we find that Zachariah's prophecies were even more enigmatic than those of his predecessors is that he was the last of the prophets. Subsequent generations did not create an environment in which G'd saw fit to communicate His word to prophets anymore.
  When G'd spoke about His communications to Moses being "mouth to mouth," He meant that His word did not have to travel through the airwaves or some other part of the atmosphere which diluted it (and therefore made it unclear) in order to make it accessible to less than perfect man. When G'd emphasises that His word did appear to Moses as a מראה, a clear vision, this means that Moses did not have to go into convulsions, etc., when he received communications from G'd. He, G'd, could show Moses a clear vision and Moses could behold it and understand it without it being distorted.
  When the Torah adds: ולא בחידות, "not by means of riddles," this is an elaboration of how G'd's word reached Moses. The Torah is careful not to say פה אל אזן, that G'd's word travelled from G'd's mouth to Moses' ear, but פה אל פה, "mouth to mouth." Solomon (Kings I 3,9) asked G'd to grant him לב שומע, "a listening heart" to enable him to divine the truth behind the claims of litigants, etc. He aspired to the highest level of prophecy. The Torah speaks of G'd communicating with Moses as אדבר בו, "I speak within him" instead of the customary אדבר אתו, "I speak with him." This formulation also means that no one else was privy to the fact that G'd spoke to Moses. [This is in contrast to our tradition that all prophets who lived at a particular time received the same communication at the same time as the prophet whom G'd commanded to transmit the prophecy to the people or to the king. Ed.]
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר, "why were you not afraid to speak?, etc" G'd repeats once more that they themselves should have been able to figure out that since Moses was constantly performing commands of G'd and was used by G'd as His instrument, surely He would not have chosen him for such a function if he had been guilty of neglecting such a basic commandment as family life which Miriam and Aaron accused him of. G'd stressed not only the word עבדי, i.e. that He described Moses as His servant, but He added Moses' name to indicate that this man had been destined for greatness. How could they have suspected him! It is also possible that the word במשה indicates that Miriam and Aaron did say what they said in Moses' presence, adding insult to injury. We discussed this in connection with verse 1 in this chapter.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויחר אף השם, G'd's anger was kindled, etc. He was irritated at them and snorted at them, i.e. a description of a nasal reaction. וילך, "He went;" G'd went away in order to give vent to His irritation. Although we find a different formulation in Exodus 4,14 where the Torah reports ויחר אף ה׳ במשה, "G'd's anger was kindled at Moses," followed by a verbal retort from G'd, the situation was different then. At that time G'd wanted to activate His anger against Moses by depriving him of a spiritual power, i.e. the fitness to become the High Priest; He gave that distinction to Aaron instead as pointed out in <i>Zevachim</i> 102. The Talmud discusses whether mention of G'd becoming angry necessarily has an immediate noticeable consequence. In our instance, G'd imposed a severe penalty as a person afflicted with <i>Tzoraat</i> is considered as no better than dead (verse 11). The Torah writes בם, that G'd was angry at both Miriam and Aaron, to tell us that both were afflicted with <i>Tzoraat.</i> The difference was only that Aaron was cured immediately, whereas Miriam was not cured immediately, so that no one but Miriam and Moses had been aware that Aaron too had been afflicted with <i>Tzoraat</i> if ever so briefly.
  
  Verse 10
  
   והנה מצרעת, and here she was afflicted with <i>Tzoraat.</i> There was no need to repeat this seeing the Torah had already mentioned it in the first half of our verse. According to <i>Sifri</i> who claims that Aaron too had been afflicted the repetition could mean that whereas Aaron had already been cured Miriam continued to be afflicted. According to <i>Sifri</i> Aaron's affliction disappeared as soon as he turned towards Miriam. Accordingly, we would have to assume that Moses had not been looking at Miriam at all. Why else would he have to be informed by Aaron of her affliction before he would pray for her?
  
  Verse 11
  
   בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו תטאת, "please my lord, do not lay a sin upon us, etc." It is clear from Aaron's words that he believed Moses had felt slighted by their comments. This is why he pleaded with him to forgive them their sin. It appears that Aaron reasoned that Moses would view himself as a חכם, merely a wise man who is legally entitled to waive his honour so that those who slighted it could be forgiven. Aaron presumed that forgiveness by Moses would result in the <i>Tzoraat</i> being cured. Accordingly, Aaron said: "though you have been offended by our words so much that we have been punished on their account, now that we have suffered the punishment please forgive us so that we will no longer be guilty of this sin." The truth of the matter was that Moses had not felt offended at all. The Torah demonstrated this by writing how humble a person Moses was specifically at this juncture. This was to show that Aaron had been wrong in his whole assumption.
  The reason why Miriam and Aaron were punished is twofold. 1) Moses could not be treated merely as a חכם, a sage, but had to be accorded the status of a king. (This is based on Deut. 33,5 that Moses was king amongst the people called Yeshurun). A king is not allowed to waive the honour due him; therefore Moses could not have forgiven the insult even if he had felt like doing so. Moreover, this may even have been what G'd alluded to when He described Moses as His servant in verse 8. According to the Talmud in <i>Shavuot</i> 47 the king's servant is to be accorded a status similar to that of the king himself. Seeing that Moses was the servant of the King of Kings, he too was to be accorded Royal status.
  2) I have already explained that G'd was very concerned at the fact that Miriam and Aaron had suspected their brother of serious wrongdoing. If G'd had not rebuked and disciplined them it would have given them the impression that G'd Himself condoned and agreed with their criticism of Moses. This is why G'd had to punish them even though Moses had not even felt offended. Moses was justified in not praying immediately that the <i>Tzoraat</i> be removed seeing he had not been its cause, as he had not even felt slighted by Miriam and Aaron's remarks. Had the matter been up to Moses he would not have had to pray. All he would have had to do would be to forgive (if he had felt insulted) and the <i>Tzoraat</i> would have disappeared. Under the circumstances, his prayer would not become effective until after seven days had elapsed. Clearly the punishment was due to either or both of the reasons we have mentioned. We cannot imagine how much more severe the punishment would have been if Moses had indeed felt offended by Miriam and Aaron's criticism of his conduct vis-a-vis Tzipporah.
  אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו, "for we have acted foolishly and have sinned." Both expressions refer to their error when comparing their level of prophecy to that of Moses. G'd's reaction had made it plain to them that the comparison of their prophetic powers to those of Moses had been foolish; the fact that they accused Moses of not having marital relations with his wife had been sinful.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויצעק משה אל השם, Moses cried out to G'd, etc. The reason the Torah added the word לאמור, was to tell G'd that he had not felt offended at all and that such an assumption should not result in Miriam and Aaron assuming that he harboured some enmity against them although he wanted Miriam to be cured. It had been Aaron's words in verse 12 which had made Moses feel that he had to indicate that he never harboured any resentment against them.
  The word לאמור may also mean that before Moses commenced his prayer he told G'd that as far as he, personally, was concerned he had waived any honour due him so that he did not feel slighted.
  א-ל נא רפא נא לה. "Please O Lord, heal her." Moses addressed the attribute of חסד, similar to Psalms 52,3 where David speaks of חסד קל. [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich the חסד, "kindness" of G'd's anger, is its very brevity. It lasts a second, no more. Ed.] The words רפא נא are a plea to grant the cure immediately.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואביה ירוק ירק, "if HER father had spit in her face, etc." The Torah emphasises Miriam's experience as that of a daughter of G'd, i.e. a צדקת, rather than that of any father spitting at any daughter.
  The repetition of ירוק ירק indicates that had Moses prayed sooner on her behalf, her Father (G'd) would not have spat at her at all, i.e. she would not have been punished at all. The words ואביה ירוק describe a situation which already existed, meaning that Moses had allowed her father to punish her before intervening. All Moses could do now was to prevent further punishment or extension of the punishment, i.e. "spitting" a second time.
  תסגר שבעת ימים, she must remain quarantined for seven days. It appears that as a result of Moses' prayer the <i>Tzoraat</i> disappeared at once. G'd decreed that she had to remain as an outcast. Had this not been so the Torah would have had to add "until she has been cured from her <i>Tzoraat</i>." It is obvious, therefore, that she had already been cured. This is also the reason the Torah did not mention the fact that she had been healed at the time it reports that she rejoined the camp of the Israelites. Acording to <i>Zevachim</i> 102 the reason that Aaron did not inspect Miriam's affliction either at the beginning or at the end [as is the duty of the priest who has to certify such healing having taken place Ed.] is because as her brother he was disqualified from doing so. According to our interpretation we need not even raise the question of who declared Miriam afflicted or healed seeing she had been healed before Aaron or any other priest had a chance to examine her. As a result, the only restriction Miriam would have had to undergo was quarantine, pending an inspection. Alternatively, G'd Himself performed the function of the priest and declared her as liable to quarantine. Her purification also occurred at G'd's inspection and that is the meaning of the words ואחר תאסף, "afterwards she may be brought in."
  
  Verse 15
  
   והעם לא נסע, And the people had not travelled, etc. The Torah makes the people the principals in this decision. This is why the Torah did not write ולא נסע העם, but mentioned the people first. The people had expressed their willingness to delay their departure. Although, normally, the people's breaking camp was determined by the movement of the cloud, the Torah wanted to inform us that the people were willing to inconvenience themselves on account of Miriam's many merits. Had the people been aware that their entire water supply was due to Miriam's merit (compare <i>Taanit</i> 9) they would most certainly have chosen to remain near their source of water.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה׳..אל משה לאמור, G'd spoke to Moses to say: Why was the word לאמור needed here, seeing the instructions were given only to Moses? Perhaps the Torah wrote לאמור to indicate that Moses had permission to tell the people that he had received the instructions to despatch spies from G'd. [The author is always at pains to prove that Moses had no right to relay anything G'd had told him unless especially told to do so; he bases himself on <i>Yuma</i> 4. Ed.] The Torah may also have wanted to prevent the impression being created that Moses initiated the idea of sending out spies and that he was of the same mind as the people in this respect. By telling the people that he had been commanded to select the spies he had made it plain that he would not have done so unless G'd had commanded him. The word לאמור was especially necessary in view of our sages' interpretation of the word לך meaning לדעתך, (verse 2) "in accordance with your understanding but not because you have to." In other words, G'd gave permission for the spies to go but He certainly did not command the expedition. It may have been hoped that when Moses told the people how he had been told by G'd to send the spies that they would reconsider and understand that their request to send spies revealed a lack of faith in G'd.
  
  Verse 2
  
   שלח לך אנשים, "send out men for yourself, etc." We need to analyse why the word לך was written here. I have already quoted that our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 34 understand the word as indicating permission rather than a command. This leaves us with the puzzle why G'd would consent to an initiative which He knew would result in disaster. Before explaining all this let me begin with an introduction to the problem. Whence did the whole terrible disaster originate? If we were to see the fact that spies were sent out as the root cause of the disaster then Joshua certainly should have learned a lesson and should not have sent out spies before capturing Jericho (compare Joshua 2,1). It follows that the idea of sending spies to help in the conquest of the Holy Land was not objectionable in itself. If the reason the mission failed was due to the calibre of the spies, this too is hard to accept seeing that the Torah testifies that Moses sent out righteous men, men of whom G'd had approved.
  We may glean a better understanding of the subject when reading the words of the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 742 that the Israelites came to Moses asking to send spies. Moses said that this was unnecessary seeing G'd had already given His assurance that they would defeat the Canaanites. Thereupon the Israelites countered saying that the local inhabitants were aware of the plans of the Israelites to invade their country and that is why they had hidden all their valuables. As a result the Israelites would be deprived of a great part of what G'd promised them as they would not inherit much more than the mere soil. They convinced Moses that it was in order to make G'd's words come true that they wanted to send out spies. This is why Moses is quoted in Deut. 1,23 as having given his consent to this request. This is also why in Deut. 1,22 the Torah describes the spies' mission as ויחפרו לנו, "that they may dig up for us (hidden treasures)." Moses was trapped by the words of the Israelites. Thus far the <i>Yalkut.</i>
  Spies may have more than one mission then. 1) They have to find out the best approach to invade a country. They also have to determine if the whole army has to be involved in the campaign or if it suffices to send a relatively small number of troops. We find evidence of this in Joshua 7,3 where the spies told Joshua that 2-3000 soldiers would be enough to capture the town of Ai. This kind of spying, or reconnaissance in our language, would be repeated each time a specific target such as a town was to be captured. 2) The other kind of spying involves something of a more comprehensive nature. The spies' mission is to evaluate whether the target is capable of being captured. This is the kind of spying that the Israelites had in mind when they requested from Moses to send out spies. This kind of mission presupposes a lack of faith in G'd's power or willingness to help the Jewish people attain their objectives. Moses perceived this and that is why the <i>Midrash</i> tells us that Moses reacted negatively to their request at first. The Israelites tricked Moses into agreeing to the spy scheme as it made searching all over the land of Canaan a legitimate endeavour. Joshua too sent the spies for a necessary purpose, one that did not denigrate G'd's part in the preparations to conquer each part of the land of Canaan. The only thing about the scheme of sending out spies which was flawed was the purpose, not the scheme itself.
  We may therefore understand G'd's command or consent for Moses to send out spies as G'd agreeing for Moses to send out spies provided their mission was what Moses understood it to be, i.e. to discover the hidden treasures of the Canaanites, but not if the spies' mission were to determine if the land was capable of being captured by the Israelites. I will explain that Moses may have misunderstood G'd's command as to the function of the spies. Or, he may have understood correctly but seeing that G'd had not denied him the sending out of the spies he failed to divine what G'd really had in mind when He granted His consent. G'd had given hints to Moses as He always does to His servants. As to the question why G'd gave His consent seeing that he knew what was going to happen, we must conclude that if G'd had denied the people's request the result would have been even worse.
  Another meaning of the word לך may relate to the definition of אנשים, men of valour, righteous people. G'd told Moses that these men were righteous לך as long as they were in Moses' presence, facing him. As soon as they would turn around and begin their mission the wreath of piety they wore on their heads would begin to crack wide open. <i>Sotah</i> 35 interprets the words וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came" in verse 26 of our chapter as meaning that their departure could be compared to their return. They were wicked when they returned as they had been wicked the moment they set out on their mission. Moses had an uncomfortable feeling about this and this is why he gave Joshua a special blessing praying that he should not follow the advice of the wicked. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 16,1 states: "but the spies whom Moses sent out were wicked. How do we know this? Because the Torah wrote שלח לך אנשים." This <i>Midrash</i> sounds very enigmatic. How do the words שלח לך אנשים prove that the men in question were wicked? We must therefore assume that the author of that <i>Midrash</i> understood the word לך as we have explained it, i.e. "you Moses think that they are אנשים, righteous men, but as soon as they commence their mission they will become wicked on the way out." A simpler way of explaining the word לך is: "in your eyes Moses they may be righteous; but in My eyes they are wicked." This would again raise the problem why G'd approved of sending such men when our sages have said that G'd Himself selected the spy who was to represent each tribe (based on verse 3 על פי השם)? Perhaps the reason they were already called "wicked" at the beginning of their mission was that they shared the view of the Israelites as a whole that they should investigate if the land could be conquered by them at all. This lack of faith in G'd stamped them as "wicked."
  Alternatively, the reason they are referred to as wicked was that they carried out a mission initiated by the people who delegated them and whose intent was wicked. When a messenger allows himself to be used by a wicked person for a wicked mission he himself becomes wicked. On the other hand, when a messenger is sent on a sacred errand, then by accepting the errand he himself shares in the sanctity of the person who has delegated him. This enables us to understand why people who, individually, had been known as righteous people at that time became "wicked" when they became tools of the ones on whose behalf they accepted the mission.
  Still another way of understanding the word לך is that G'd wanted this mission to be known as something Moses had initiated not as something He Himself had initiated.
  Or, the word לך means that the mission ought to be the one Moses perceived it to be as contrasted with what the Israelites wanted it to be. The comment by the Talmud that לך means בדעתך, means "according to what you, Moses, have in mind, not according to what they, the Israelites, have in mind."
  The word לך may also be an allusion to what our sages said in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 5,23 on the words עתה תראה, after Moses had complained about the ways of G'd's conduct when the Israelites' fate worsened after his appointment as their leader (compare Exodus 5,22-6,1). The <i>Midrash</i> says that the word "now" means that whereas Moses would live to experience G'd's war against Pharaoh, he would not live to experience what He would do to the 31 kings of the Canaanites. In order for G'd to fulfil this prophecy without Moses being demoted as king and leader of the Israelites, the entry of the Israelites would be delayed by 40 years as a result of the failure of the mission of the spies whom he sent out. According to this interpretation Moses would benefit by this mission. This is in line with the usual understanding of the word לך when it appears in a context similar to the one here.
  ויתרו את את ארץ כנען, "they shall tour the land of Canaan, etc." why did the Torah write ויתורו instead of לתור, "in order to tour?" The words אשר אני נותן are also difficult. Once G'd had mentioned the name of the place the spies were to tour there was no need to write: "which I am about to give to the children of Israel." Who did not know that this is what G'd was about to do?
  According to our commentary that the whole scheme of sending out the spies was made Moses' project by the Torah's using the word לך, as well as the other alternatives which we suggested as possible explanations, plus the other condition, that the spies be אנשים, men known as righteous people, the Torah added yet another condition to make this mission an acceptable one. It is that the people doing the spying be aware that it was G'd who was about to give them this land. The words mean that the spies were not to evaluate whether the Israelites (by themselves) would be able to conquer the country and to disinherit its inhabitants. There was no question that they would not be able to do that. They would not be able to conquer even a single town in that land by themselves. The only way the Israelites would be able to do that would be if אני נותן להם, "if I give it to them." Seeing that the land was to be a gift to the Israelites from G'd, it was up to the Donor to ensure the recipients would not face difficulties in obtaining their gift. To this end G'd would have to do the fighting on behalf of the Jewish people. It would be one of the objectives of G'd to show the spies during their tour of the country that G'd would subdue even the most powerful people. In order for the people to appreciate the power of G'd, the people He would subdue had to appear as invincible by natural means. This is why G'd showed the spies the strength of the Amalekites and the giants that still lived in that land. He showed them cities which were fortified beyond one's imagination so as to convince them that G'd certainly did not expect the militarily inexperienced Israelites to wage such a war. He wanted to drive home the point that conquest of that country and its people was G'd's task, not theirs.
  This is the reason that the Torah wrote the otherwise unnecessary words אשר אני נותן, "which I am about to give." The spies were quite correct when they reported that the country could not be conquered by the Israelites. We still need to explain why the Torah wrote ויתרו instead of the expected לתור, and why the word ארץ כנען had to be mentioned. I have seen that <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> was aware of this difficulty and explains that the Torah wanted to allude to who the person was through whose merit the Israelites were going to receive this gift. Isaac had been born to Abraham and Sarah when his parents had a combined age of 190 years which is the numerical value of the word כנען. This is, of course, a homiletical comment. I believe that more to the point is the verse in Deut. 9,5 that Israel did not inherit the land of Canaan due to their own merit but due to the wickedness of the people dwelling there and to G'd's desire to keep His promise to the patriarchs. The other reason was that it was ארץ כנען, the land named after Canaan who had been cursed by his grandfather Noach for his behaviour and whose descendants had followed in his footsteps so that now their measure of guilt had overflowed and called for divine retribution.
  תשלחו, "you (pl) shall despatch." In this instance the singular שלח used by the Torah in verse 2 was not adequate. The reason may have been that the Torah wanted the men chosen to be listed in this order, i.e. one man per tribe, not more and not less.
  
  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
  
   אלה שמות האנשים, These are the names of the men, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this seeing it had already written: "and these are their names, etc." in verse 4? We may understand this by reference to <i>Sotah</i> 34. Rabbi Yitzchak said: "we have a tradition that the names of the spies recorded in the Torah reflect their deeds;" The name סתור בן מיכאל describes that the man bearing that name contradicted the words of G'd, etc." So far the Talmud on the subject. We have noted that Moses renamed Joshua so as to protect him against the advice of wicked people and we asked why this was necessary. This means that Joshua's name did not reflect the fact that he was wicked. It was necessary to write: "and these are their names" in order to show us why Moses was concerned about the character of these people, i.e. he did not like their names. Whereas I wrote earlier that Moses had the feeling that these men might be wicked because of the word לך, this was not an absolute as the word לך could have other connotations as I have demonstrated. Moses may have been alerted to the potential wickedness of these people when he reflected on their names. Alternatively, Moses did have his suspicions about the enterprise and any men who would be delegated to act as spies; however, had it not been for their names, Moses could not have justified his suspicions.
  ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, Moses called Hoshea son of Nun Joshua. We already mentioned that our sages said that Moses prayed concerning Joshua. Why did he have to change his name in addition? Perhaps Moses wanted to give Joshua additional power to resist wicked advice seeing that the first three letters of his name now represented the three letters making up the tetragram. The letter י which Moses added to Hoshea's name has a numerical value of 10 and symbolised that he could resist the advice of ten of his colleagues. It would also eventually enable him to inherit the share of ארץ ישראל that the ten wicked spies would forfeit due to their conduct. This is based on a comment in <i>Chagigah</i> 15 according to which each person has a place allocated to him both in גן עדן and in גיהנם. If he merits it he will occupy his place in גן עדן, whereas a wicked person will occupy both his own place in גיהנם as well as the place left vacant by his pious colleague.
  
  Verse 17
  
   וישלח אותם משה, Moses sent them on their way, etc. Why did the Torah need to write the first half of this verse; we have heard about this both in verse 3 and in verse 16? Perhaps the verse was meant to tell us that Moses accompanied them a short distance when they departed as this is a halachic requirement. The Torah speaks about לתור to indicate that Moses warned the spies that they were engaged in a dangerous mission.
  
  Verse 18
  
   וראיתם את הארץ מה היא, "and you will observe the nature of the land." This was a reference to the climate of the land, the topography of the land such as whether it had many natural sources of water, and if such sources of water were pure or contaminated, etc. Moses referred to those aspects of the land which anyone traversing it can determine with ease. When he told the spies to evaluate the people, i.e. ואת העם היושב עליה, he asked them to evaluate if the nature of the people, their health, their strength, etc. reflected that the land they lived on had contributed to these people's being healthy, etc. Moses suggested that the health of its inhabitants was proof of the goodness of the land these people dwelled on. Seeing that it could be argued that if the people were extremely robust this might be due to such factors as healthy living habits, in particular not overindulging in sex, he asked the spies to find out if the people were numerous or relatively few in numbers. If the people were numerous this too would be testimony to the topographical and climatic conditions being favourable.
  Why did the Torah always mention the positive alternative first whereas when describing the size of the population Moses chose to mention the negative aspect, i.e. an underpopulated country first? In view of the manner in which Moses phrased his instructions we must conclude that he considered it a positive factor if the spies would find the land underpopulated, i.e. if its population was מעט.
  Perhaps Moses connected the number of people in the land to the strength of these people. If the people were exceptionally strong this would be proof of the quality of the land as only in very few places on the globe does the land produce such powerful people. If, on the other hand, the population would be found to be numerous, there are many countries which are fully populated. Moses remained consistent in always naming the positive alternative first. This also explains why Moses spoke about "the land" first and about "the people" next only to revert again to "the land."
  
  Verse 19
  
   ומה הארץ אשר הוא יושב בה, "and what is the earth like that the people dwell on." In this verse Moses referred to the infrastructure and standard of living that the spies would find in the land of Canaan. Were the houses the people lived in of sound construction? Were their chattels of good quality, etc? We will find in Deut. 6,10 that Moses describes the towns and houses the Israelites would inherit in the land of Canaan as of good quality. Moses asked the spies also to find out whether the towns were planned defensively, i.e. as fortresses surrounded by walls or whether they were open cities, as these factors had great bearing on the beauty of the respective towns. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 17 claims that Moses gave the spies a sign suggesting that fortified cities were an indication that its inhabitants felt insecure, etc. whereas open cities testified to the people's confidence in their ability to repel any potential intruder. This is pure homiletics. The plain meaning of the words is that the questions all related to the quality of the land and that Moses took it for granted that the people were of exceptionally great physique and included giants. One did not have to send out spies to find out this well known fact. The only reason Moses referred to the physical prowess of the people was to emphasise the miracle G'd would perform in disinheriting these people of their land.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ומה הארץ השמנה היא, and what about the land, is it fat, etc.? Did this land impart its fat to the fruit it produced without becoming impoverished, or was it such that after each harvest it became impoverished, רזה, so that it had to be given a year's rest before being sown again?
  היש בה עץ, is it wooded, etc.? The word עץ refers to the variety of trees to be found there. The words אם אין mean if there is any known kind of tree that cannot be found in that land? This is what Moses had in mind when he said in Deut. 8,9 that the land of Canaan was a land that lacked nothing (good).
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   למקום ההוא קרא נחל אשכול, he called that place: "the valley of the cluster." The subject in the verse is G'd who had named this place in anticipation of its significance in the future. We know this because the Torah described the spies at arriving at נחל אשכול before any mention was made about their having cut off a cluster of grapes. [Besides, the word קרא as opposed to ויקרא shows that the place had already been known by that name. Ed.]
  The Torah writes: אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל, "which the Israelites had cut from there." You may well ask that many people on many occasions have cut clusters of grapes in that valley. Why would the cluster the Israelites had cut there be singled out? The remarkable thing was that though only 12 Israelites had come there at the time, the Torah describes them as if they were the whole Jewish people, i.e. בני ישראל. Seeing that these 12 men were the representatives of the people the Torah describes them as the people, i.e. בני ישראל. We find something parallel in Exodus 12,6 where the Torah writes: ושחטו כל עדת ישראל "and the whole community of Israel will slaughter." As a rule the priest slaughtered the Passover; seeing he was the delegate of the people the act of slaughtering is attributed to the people themselves.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וילכו ויבאו, they went and they came, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us that the spies "went" when we have already been informed of their going on their way in at least three verses? Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 35 say that the Torah wanted to compare their return to their departure. Just as they returned with wicked advice their departure had already been marked by with evil intent." Why was the Torah interested in informing us of this detail? All that mattered was the advice they came back with!
  We may understand the verse better when we keep in mind something we learned in <i>Kidushin</i> 39. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Yaakov as saying that when we find a מצוה written in the Torah and its reward is spelled out, the reward is paid only after the resurrection, i.e. a considerable period of time even after one's death. This explained the famous incident when a father ordered his son to climb a tree and take the young chicks and the son fell off the ladder and was killed. This occurred in spite of the fact that he had been in the process of fulfilling both the commandment of שלוח הקן and the commandment of honouring his father at one and the same time. In both instances the Torah promised long life for the fulfilment of this commandment (Deut. 5,16, Deut. 7,22) To the question of what happened to the fulfilment of the Torah's promise of longevity, Rabbi Yaakov answered that the Torah referred to a life which by itself was long, i.e. that the fulfilment of that commandment assured one that one would be resurrected in due course. The Talmud adds that Rabbi Yaakov was an eye witness to the occurrence mentioned. To the question that perhaps the son who climbed the ladder had sinful intentions at that moment, the answer given is that G'd does not punish someone for mere sinful intentions when these intentions have not yet been translated into practice. The Talmud then questions that idolatrous intentions are punishable even if they had not been carried out. The Talmud answers that Rabbi Yaakov also made the following statement: "should you believe that there is a reward in this life for מצות performed, then why did the fact that the son was involved on a sacred mission not at least protect him against this mishap? Do we not have a rule enunciated by Rabbi Eleazar that people engaged in the execution of a sacred duty do not suffer mishaps either on the way out or on the way home from such a מצוה?" The Talmud answers that the ladder in question was not stable and under conditions of obvious hazard Rabbi Eleazar's dictum does not apply. There is another difficulty here and that is that the Talmud in <i>Sotah</i> 21 comes to the conclusion that being involved in the performance of a מצוה does protect the person involved against a new hazard though it does not save him from an existing hazard which he had been aware of at that time. In view of all this, what proof does Rabbi Yaakov have to offer that the מצוה did not protect the son in the example he witnessed against idolatrous thoughts while he climbed the ladder The Talmud in <i>Sotah</i> quotes the opinion of Rav Yosef that the act of performing a מצוה protects that person against hazards as well as against becoming guilty of a culpable sin. His opinion is refuted by the example of Doeg and Achitofel whose immersion in Torah study did not protect them against the sin of bad-mouthing David so that they both became heretics in the end. Seeing that Rav Yosef's theory has been refuted, how can the Talmud in <i>Kidushin</i> 39 justify refuting the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov? [The author appears to mean: "what other alternative is there to explain the phenomenon Rabbi Yaakov had witnessed?" Ed.]
  Some scholars make distinctions between the performance of different categories of מצות. According to these authorities the example in <i>Sotah</i> where the Talmud said that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect one against the evil urge dealt with someone who did not perform the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of performing G'd's bidding but for an ulterior motive. When the Talmud asks why being engaged in the performance of a מצוה should not protect such a person against committing a sin (inadvertently) the question referred to someone who performs the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of Heaven. This distinction is nonsense. If there were some substance to that distinction the Talmud should have rejected the query arising from the boy who fell off the ladder by merely stating that he did not perform the commandments in question for the sake of Heaven. This would have been a far more plausible scenario than the forced explanation that he might have entertained idolatrous thoughts at that moment. Such an answer would also have forestalled the question why the deed did not at least protect the son against the wiles of the evil urge. Performance of a commandment for ulterior motives certainly could not be presumed to protect such a person against the evil urge.
  I believe that the correct answer to our problem is that the eventual conclusion which the Talmud accepts is the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph that while a person is engaged in the performance of a מצוה it does both protect him against hazards as well as save him from giving in to his evil urge. This is the reason that Rabbi Yaakov raised the whole problem when he witnessed the death of the son who was engaged in the performance of not only one but two מצות at the time. This son was still engaged in the performance of the מצוה when he descended the ladder in order to bring the chicks to his father. Since we find that the Talmud in <i>Sotah</i> rejected the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph based on the fact that neither Doeg nor Achitophel were protected by their immense amount of Torah study against the wiles of the evi urge, this is not a satisfactory refutation of Rav Yoseph's approach to the subject. The Talmud in <i>Chagigah</i> 15 states that the Torah study of both Doeg and Achitophel had never been for the sake of Heaven. They had always entertained ulterior motives so that their Torah study had always been flawed. The fact that they fell victim to Satan's urgings therefore does nothing to undermine the theory that the performance of a מצוה protects the doer against hazards and saves him from the evil urge. According to <i>Tossaphot</i> both Achitophel and Doeg had been guilty of sins before they accumulated the merit of Torah study. Their Torah study was more important to them than their reverence for G'd the Lawgiver. No wonder that their מצות did not protect them against the evil urge.
  Furthermore, even assuming that we would accept at face value the opinion which refutes Rav Yoseph's approach basing itself on the fate of Doeg and Achitophel, all this would prove is that the merit of תורה does not protect such a person at the time when he is not actively engaged in studying Torah. At the time Doeg and Achitophel fell victim to the evil urge they had not been engaged in Torah study. Rav Yoseph had only claimed that the protective powers of מצוה performance are in force at the time the person in danger is actively engaged in the performance of the מצוה. The Talmud never tried to refute this aspect of Rav Yoseph's theory as expounded by Rava. [Anyone studying the text in <i>Sotah</i> 21 will find that Rav Yoseph considers the protective powers of Torah study as superior to the protective powers of the performance of any other category of מצוה. Ed.] Although Rava is forced to reconcile a statement in the <i>Baraitha</i> by explaining that the difference between the protective power of the merit of Torah study-vis-a vis the merit of performing any of the other מצות is like the difference between נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a single מצוה is like a candle and can only protect against forthcoming hazards, whereas the Torah is like the source of light itself, his words are not compelling. We can safely say that an ordinary מצוה has the power both to ward off hazards as well as save one from the evil urge during the period the endangered person is actively engaged in performing the מצוה. When a person is not engaged in the performance of a מצוה, the protective powers of the last מצוה he did perform are non-existent. As far as the merit of Torah study is concerned, however, such merit protects both against hazards as well as against the evil urge while one is engaged in such Torah study. When one is not engaged actively in Torah study the merit of one's previous study provides protection against hazards but not against the evil urge. When the Talmud there discusses what kind of merit protects the wife suspected of infidelity against the lethal effects of the מים המאררים, the cursed waters, the merit of Torah is one such factor though women are under no obligation to study Torah. They are protected by the Torah study of their husbands in accordance with the view expressed in <i>Sotah</i> 21 by Ravina. When we follow this approach Rabbi Yaakov proved from the incident with the ladder that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect the person performing it in this world.
  Furthermore, when we examine the whole subject more profoundly we can even understand the Talmud in <i>Kidushin</i> according to the view expressed by Rava in <i>Sota</i> 21. We had a difficulty, namely that even if the person performing the מצוה had been guilty of harbouring idolatrous thoughts at the time, at least he should have been saved from physical danger even if his merit did not protect him against the evil urge, just as it does protect (for a limited period) the <i>Sotah,</i> the woman suspected of infidelity who drank the cursed waters. In that instance we speak about a woman who most certainly is guilty of a major misdemeanour and yet her merits provide protection for her even according to the viewpoint of Rava. In our instance (Rabbi Yaakov's witnessing the death of the son who was actively engaged in the performance of both honouring his father and sending away the mother bird before taking her young) the merit was immediate and yet it did not help. In order to answer how this could have happened to the son the only answer is that he was engaged in idolatrous thoughts at the time he carried out his father's bidding. Such thoughts made him the equivalent of a total heretic and stripped him of all protective merit he had ever accumulated. He had made himself equivalent to a Gentile in all respects so that no מצוה performed previously could act as a shield for him. Alternatively, we may say that when one is engaged in idolatrous thoughts the מצוה one proceeds to perform in such a state of mind does not confer any kind of protection. Rabbi Yaakov counters all questions by saying that if we would asssume that the promise of reward in the Torah applied to our lifetime, the promise of the Torah of longevity would indeed have protected the son against becoming guilty of a sin which brings disaster in its wake. Even Rava who holds that the merit of the מצוה protects against disaster, accepts that this includes protection against committing the kind of sin which brings disaster in its wake.
  We have established that according to the view of Rav Yoseph a person is protected from the evil urge during the time he performs a מצוה. Rava also agrees that such a person is at least protected against the evil urge leading him into a sin which by itself leads to disaster for him in this life. This is why our verse here has to provide the answer to the question why the מצוה the spies were engaged in did not protect them against falling victim to the evil urge to commit a sin which would lead to immediate disaster? After all, the Torah has written explicitly that they went at the command of G'd through Moses. This fact should have protected them from the disaster that overtook them. In order to explain this the Torah wrote וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came back," i.e. that their departure was not motivated by the desire to perform a מצוה, just as their return was not motivated by a desire to be שלוחי מצוה, men who had been delegated to perform a מצוה. On the contrary, their whole mission was one in which they they were engaged in being sinful. As a result the so-called מצוה the spies were engaged in by carrying out Moses' mission did not protect them against disaster.
  
  Looking ot our verse from a moral/ethical point of view, the words וילכו ויבאו may be understood in connection with something we have learned in <i>Sotah</i> 3. Kabbalists interpret the statement in the Talmud that one does not commit a sin unless a רוח שטות, had taken possession of the prospective sinner first to mean that if an outstanding personality is faced with the temptation to commit a sin he does not fall victim to such temptation until after his soul has left him and has been replaced by an inferior soul called רוח שטות, a sense of folly or madness. Seeing that our verses bear testimony to the fact that the spies had been outstanding personalities, Princes of Israel, the Torah testifies that when they returned to Moses with an evil report הלכו, they had just departed, i.e. their former spirit had departed from them and been replaced by an inferior, foolish one, and it was in this new capacity that they "arrived," i.e. came back.
  The word וילכו also hints that this trip the spies took to the land of Canaan was their only and final one. They would never again come to that land. It was what we call הליכות עולם, something final, absolute. The words ויבאו אל משה explain why they did not already die on the way seeing they had perverted their mission. G'd honoured Moses who had despatched these spies by allowing them to return to their commander-in-chief. Had they died on the way, Moses would have been accused of all kinds of things. Under the circumstances, the fact that the spies had been able to traverse the land for forty days without one of them coming to any harm was in itself proof that they had been under G'd's protection all the time. Their very safe return should have strengthened the people's faith in G'd's ability and willingness to help them defeat the powerful people inhabiting that land. The whole episode is a prime example of Hoseah 14,10: ישרים דרכי ה׳ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם, "the paths of the Lord are smooth; the righteous can walk on them while the sinners will stumble on them."
  אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the desert Paran at Kadesh. Why did the Torah not mention the place קדש at the time when Moses despatched these spies? Perhaps the word קדשה is an allusion to the fact that the Israelites stayed there for a long period due to the negative report of the spies and its acceptance by the people. We are told in Deut. 1,46 that the people stayed at Kadesh a very long time (19 years according Rashi). It took another 19 years for the people to reach the borders of the land of Canaan after their departure from Kadesh. Seeing that we were told that Kadesh was near the border of the land of Canaan, the spies were responsible for the Israelites having to remain in that general area for 38 years.
  וישיבו אותם דבר, and they brought back word to them (to Moses and Aaron). At this juncture the Torah glosses over the evil nature of their report and merely describes it as "a report." The Torah makes it a principle not to divulge the evil people perpetrated unless it became necessary to do so. One of the outstanding examples of that principle is the failure of the Torah to report that Chur was murdered on the day the people made the golden calf. <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 4 claims that even the sin of the golden calf itself was only recorded in detail to teach that if Israel were to sin again collectively, the memory of the sin of the golden calf would serve as proof that repentance would result in atonement of even such a severe sin. [the author's interpretation of that passage. In fact the Talmud says that the sin had only been committed in order to teach this lesson, Ed.] Similarly, in our instance; as long as the Israelites had not voiced a wish to return to Egypt (14,4) and had thereby rebelled against the Lord the Torah did not need to tell us what precisely had been the catalyst that prompted such a reaction by the people. Once the people voiced the wish to return to Egypt, however, the Torah had to reveal that the spies had slandered ארץ ישראל. The Torah had to tell us why the Jewish people had to remain in the desert for forty years.
  ואת כל העדה, and to the whole community, etc. This means that the spies chose to report to Moses and Aaron when the latter were together with the whole community. They did not deliver their report in the privacy of Moses' office as would have been appropriate. Their intent was to embarass Moses in the eyes of the Jewish people.
  Alternatively, the words וישיבו אותם דבר could have been meant to refer to the report the content of which the Torah is about to reveal. The Torah merely tells us that they first reported what they had to say to Moses. Immediately afterwards they told the people directly.
  A third possibility is one which takes into consideration what we explained on verse one i.e. that the Israelites understood the spies' mission as having quite a different objective from what Moses intended the mission to be. The spies reported to Moses and Aaron according to their understanding of the mission; subsequently they reported to the people at large according to their understanding of the purpose of the mission.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויספרו לו, They told him, etc. The Torah specifies: "to him" instead of to them, i.e. Moses and Aaron. The trick the spies played on Moses was that whereas ostensibly they addressed their words to Moses, they ensured that the whole community could hear them at the same time. The Torah teaches us this nuance by adding ויאמרו without the suffix "to him"; in this way we would understand that they made sure the people would hear what they had to say.
  באנו אל הארץ, "we have come to the land, etc." They meant that they arrived there without mishap. They added the words: "to which you have sent us," to make dear that they attributed their safe return from the land of Canaan to the fact that they had carried out Moses' commandment faithfully. Alternatively, they may have referred to the fact that 40 days earlier Moses had accompanied them on the commencement of their mission. They now acknowledged that Moses' merit then had assisted them in traversing the land and returning safely. Perhaps the words ויספרו לו were a reference by the Torah to the spies acknowledging that Moses' merit had assisted them. When the Torah failed to use the word לו after ויאמרו, the reason is that what followed applied to the Israelites as a whole and not to Moses in particular.
  וגם זבת חלב ודבש, "and it does indeed flow with milk and honey." The word וגם, "and also," is justified as it is a continuation of a previous comment the spies made, namely that they experienced G'd's protective hand while traversing the land. The goodness of the land was an additional positive element they were able to comment upon.
  
  Verse 28
  
   אפס כי עז העם, "However the people are tough, etc." Seeing that Moses had specifically asked them to determine if the people who inhabited that land were strong or weak, they now had to report that the people were indeed formidable. Not only that but they dwelled in heavily fortified towns. They concluded that part of their report by mentioning that they had observed giants in the land. They stated this so that the Israelites should not think that the fact that the towns were fortified revealed weakness and lack of self confidence by the inhabitants.
  The words העם היושב עליה also mean that the people do not only dwell in towns but are scattered all over the land, i.e. they are not afraid of being attacked. You will find that <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> on verse 29 interprets the fact that the Amalekites dwelled in the South of the land as proof that they did not live in townships. The words היושב בה are a hint that only people of extraordinary physique are able to live on that land successfully.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויהס כלב את העם, Caleb silenced the people, etc. Seeing that an ordinary individual is not capable of silencing a people numbering hundreds of thousands, the Torah adds the words אל משה, to tell us that he silenced them in order to make them listen to Moses, not to himself. We know from Deut. 33,5 that Moses' rank was equivalent to the rank of a king. Caleb invoked the awe and respect due to a king in order to silence the people. Having invoked Moses' authority, he said: "we most certainly are able to to go up and take possession of the land." He meant that in spite of the other spies' having said: "we cannot overcome this people," he felt that the Israelites would be able to prevail. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  The spies retorted by bad-mouthing the land of Canaan saying that even supposing that the Israelites were able to overcome the local inhabitants, the land was not worth having as it consumed its inhabitants.
  
  Verse 32
  
   וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה, "and all the people we have seen within it, etc." This may either mean that the country devours its people in spite of their outstanding physical prowess, or it may mean that the only people who are able to survive in that country, i.e. בתוכה, are the אנשי מדות, the men of especially great stature.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ונהי בעינינו כחגבים, "we felt in our own estimation as if we were grasshoppers (by comparison to them), and so we appeared in their eyes." The spies revealed by this comment that they felt vastly inferior even to the people in that land that did not fit the description of being men of stature. They knew this when comparing their own physiques to that of the average person whom they had observed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותשא כל העדה…ויבכו העם, And the whole community raised their voice and the people wept. The Torah adds the word "and the people," and did not content itself with reporting those who raised their voices. This is to tell us that it was not the whole community which wept on that night. The entire nation raised their voice (against Caleb, etc.) after the spies had succeeded in inspiring fear in them, but only part of the people actually wept.
  Another method of interpreting this verse is based on <i>Sotah</i> 35 and <i>Taanit</i> 29. According to the Talmud, G'd told the people that seeing they had wept without good reason on that night (the 9th of Av), G'd would give them adequate reason in the future to weep on that date (the annivesary of the destruction of the Holy Temple). The words: "the entire community raised its voice," is an allusion to the unwarranted raising of their collective voice which eventually resulted in the people who lived during the destruction of the Temple weeping over its loss. Had the Torah simply written: "the people wept on that night," we would have understood this as referring to the people who had raised their voice at the beginning of the verse.
  
  Verse 2
  
  וילונו על משה ואהרון, They murmured against Moses and Aaron, etc. The reason why the Torah repeats the fact that the entire people joined in that murmuring, once referring to them as "all the children of Israel," and once as "the entire community," is to make a distinction between the two requests the people voiced. The entire people of Israel were complaining; however the nature of the complaint was voiced against Moses by the people who represented the community. These people told Moses that their first choice of evil would have been to die in Egypt before the Exodus rather than be faced with death now after a futile march through the desert. Seeing that they did not have this choice having already left Egypt, the next worse fate they could wish for was to die a natural death in the desert. This was at least a viable option. They complained why G'd apparently had chosen to let them die an even worse death, i.e. at the hands of the Canaanites when they would attempt to dispossess them. In that event their wives would be taken prisoner, their children would become loot, etc. The words הלא טוב לנו mean: "would we not be better off to die in Egypt peacefully after G'd would bring us back there?" They would be prepared to return to Egypt in order not to die in battle and for their families to become prisoners? After all, it was possible that the Egyptians would not kill them when they returned there. At any rate, they did not mind that G'd would decree that they should die a normal death in the desert rather than that they would fall in battle for an objective they could not hope to achieve.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה מן התרים, and Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Yefuneh who had been part of the team that toured the land, etc. Who did not know that these two had been part of the team? Why did the Torah have to mention this? The reason is that the Torah wanted to justify that these two men rent their garments in grief over what their colleagues had done. Some of the Israelites might have seen such an action as something presumptuous seeing that none of the elders had seen fit to rend their clothing. The Torah therefore had to tell us that the reason that Joshua and Caleb rent their garments was not that they felt superior to the elders, etc., but that they had experienced the beauty of the land of Canaan, something even Moses had not seen with his own eyes. They had greater reason to mourn what they stood to lose than anybody else. They also hoped to lend emphasis to their feeling of disgust that their colleagues had despised the land of Canaan by publicly rending their garments in the sight of all the Israelites. This was the most potent protest against what the ten spies had said that they could think of.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמרו…לאמור. They said…to say: What is the meaning of the word לאמור after the Torah has already told us to whom Joshua and Caleb addressed themselves? Perhaps Caleb and Joshua used this expression referring to the ten spies who had admitted that the land was indeed excellent, flowing with milk and honey. Whereas the ten spies described this excellent land as unattainable in order to justify their report, Joshua and Caleb used the excellence of the land as a reason to extol it. The word לאמור then means "to extol" much as in Deut. 26,27.
  טובה הארץ מאד מאד, "the land is indeed very good." They wanted to contradict the claim that the land consumes its inhabitants. This is why they said twice מאד, to say its fruit was good and it was pleasant to live in that land. Concerning the number of impediments which the other spies had enumerated they said that with G'd's help none of these factors mattered. They interpreted what they had seen to mean that G'd had already given the land to them on a platter.
  
  Verse 8
  
   אם חפץ בנו השם, "If G'd delights in us, etc." They were clever to present G'd's attitude to the Israelites as something still doubtful. They did this in order to have a chance to finish what they had to say without hostile interruptions. They succeeded in this and the people waited with their attempt to stone them until after they had completed their speech. This is where we ought to ask why the Israelites did not try and stone them already at the beginning of their words seeing they said nothing different in the course of their speech than what they had said at the beginning. We must therefore assume that the conditional word אם at the beginning of Joshua's words gave the people hope that he too would come up with something negative before concluding what he had to say.
  
  הוא זבת חלב ודבש, "it flows with milk and honey." They underlined their statement with the word הוא, to show that no other country could claim to match the excellence of the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואתם אל תיראו, "As to you, do not be afraid, etc." They admitted that any other nation would have reason to fear the inhabitants of the land of Canaan but not the Israelites. They added the letter ו before the word אתם, to say that though the people had accepted the majority report, this did not make it too late for them to change their minds and display faith in G'd.
  כי לחמנו הם, "for they are our bread." The reason Joshua and Caleb compared the Canaanites to bread is explained by the Kabbalists. The latter have researched the kind of foods animals exist on and have tried to gain an insight into the significance of the respective animals' food supply. After all, had He but wanted to, G'd could have created the animals in such a way that they did not have to depend on food at all. We know that there are species which feed merely on the spirit (air) which serves such creatures as food. Seeing this is possible, why did G'd not make the Israelites independent of food and all that its preparation entails so that they could devote their entire lives to Torah study and the performance of the commandments? Not only that, but had we been created as independent of a food supply, we would not have been exposed to many of the potential pitfalls different kinds of food represent for us.
  I would have answered that if we had not been created in such a way that we are dependent on food for our existence, we would not have been able to fulfil all the commandments in the Torah which deal with certain foods. Our dependence on certain foods enables us to perfom the various commandments in the Torah which are related to food.
  The Kabbalists (<i>Shaar Hagilgulin</i> chapter 4 by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria) did not answer our question in this vein. They have added an additional dimension which makes us perceive the lives of all creatures as more meaningful. All living creatures are perceived as achieving a higher level of sanctity by means of the food they consume. The very act of consuming the food helps the inherent level of sanctity they possess to become more manifest through being crystallized. This concept applies even to the "unclean" animals. None of the wicked people, not even Satan himself, is totally devoid of a certain degree of sanctity. In fact, the only reason a wicked person or Samael can continue to exist is this element of sanctity which he contains. The moment this element of sanctity is lost, the entire creature is lost, disintegrates. The same Kabbalists say in chapter 18 of the volume quoted above that it is this element of sanctity which is responsible for these creatures being able to perpetuate themselves when they mate with one another. This is explained in chapter 18 of the volume we quoted above. The spark of sanctity inside a creature is to be viewed as similar to a magnet, i.e. אבן שואבת, a stone possessing the power to attract. This concept helps us understand a saying in <i>Shabbat</i> 34 that when Rabbi Simon ben Yochai looked at a certain person, who had leaked matters which had been discussed amongst the scholars, with fatal consequences. As a result, that person (Rabbi Yehudah ben Gerim) turned into a heap of bones. The sanctity within that person was drawn to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, so that as a result the person in question disintegrated as he could not survive without that spark of sanctity. Keeping these concepts in mind, Joshua and Caleb considered the Canaanites as food for the Jewish people seeing that they had already lost whatever spark of sanctity they used to possess. They elaborated on this theme when they said that the Canaanites' shadow had departed from them, i.e. the spark of sanctity which alone had kept them alive thus far was already in the process of leaving them. The fact that השם אתנו, "G'd is with us," makes us like the magnet which draws unto it these sparks of sanctity which were still within the bodies of the Canaanites. As a result, there was absolutely no reason to fear these people.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמרו כל העדה לרגם אותם באבנים, The whole congregation said to stone them. Why did the people not react in a similar fashion as soon as Caleb said in 13,30: "we can certainly go up and inherit this land?" Presumably the people did not pay any heed to the testimony of a single individual, as such testimony is halachically meaningless when the witness is confronted by two or more witnesses disputing what he said (compare Deut. 19,15). Now that Joshua had joined Caleb, the two represented a valid set of witnesses and the fact that they were outnumbered was halachically irrelevant (compare <i>Makkot</i> 5). In law, the two sets of testimony ranked equally. As a consequence, the two testimonies cancel each other out so that legally speaking the people did not have whom to rely on. Feeling frustrated, the people wanted to kill the witnesses who made up the minority report.
  We also need to know why Joshua and Caleb did not invoke the rule we have just mentioned which would have invalidated the testimony of the ten spies? Perhaps they were afraid that the people would consider Joshua's testimony as prejudiced inasmuch as he was Moses' personal valet ever since his youth.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויאמר ה׳….עד אנה ינאצוני העם הזה, G'd said to Moses: "how long will this nation continue to spurn Me?" G'd's question was intended to forestall Moses praying on behalf of the people; it is similar to G'd having said הניחה לי, "let Me be," when G'd had told Moses about the golden calf (Exodus 32,10). The absence of the word לאמור in our verse is a hint that Moses should not speak.
  עד אנה ינאצוני…ועד אנה לא יאמינו בי, "how long will they spurn Me and not have faith in Me?" If the people spurned G'd, what is the point in complaining about their not having faith in Him? Perhaps the expression "spurn" refers to the spies, whereas the statement about the people lacking in faith refers to the people at large.
  Another interpretation understands that the words ינאצוני were directed at the people who did not only throw stones at Joshua and Caleb but even at the cloud which enveloped them, i.e. at G'd Himself (<i>Sotah</i> 35). Other Israelites were merely afraid of the Canaanites but did not engage in activities which gave vent to their frustration. G'd described this latter group of people as the ones who did not have faith in Him. Both categories of people qualified for the pestilence G'd was about to unleash at the Israelites. He used the word אכנו, "I will smite them," when describing how He would punish the ones guilty of spurning Him, whereas He used the term אורישנו, "I will destroy them," when addressing the ones who displayed acts indicating that they spurned the Lord. The latter punishment included forfeiting the world to come. The ten spies themselves suffered both penalties as we can see from verse 37. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108 makes it clear that the ten spies have forfeited life in the hereafter.
  When the Torah speaks of G'd wanting to make a new nation out of Moses, a nation more powerful than the Israelites of that time, this meant that G'd would provide Moses with spiritual powers he had not possessed up until that moment. The word ממנו means that the new Jewish nation would emerge as a continuation, i.e. re-incarnation of the present Jewish people. Their souls would undergo a process of transmigration to be able to emerge as a spiritually stronger nation.
  These verses may also be understood as an attempt by G'd to present stronger arguments than the ones Moses had rejected at the time of the golden calf episode when G'd had once before proposed to make a new Jewish nation with Moses as their founder (compare Exodus 32,10). G'd reinforced the argument He had used to Moses at the time of the golden calf episode by pointing out that the people's behaviour had not improved in the interval. עד אנה, "how long is this supposed to go on?" They have spurned Me time and again so that there is no more any excuse to overlook their conduct. When G'd mentioned this He forestalled Moses who would have referred to G'd's image being denigrated if He allowed these people to be wiped out after all their misdemeanours. The Egyptians would not be able to say that G'd had already intended to wipe out this people at the time He took them out of Egypt. G'd also demolished the argument that these people had the merit of their forefathers going for them. No great king, especially someone such as G'd, could be expected to suffer such repeated spurning to which the Israelites had subjected G'd.
  <i>Shabbat</i> 89 has the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob saying to G'd who had told them: "your children have sinned," that the Israelites who had spurned Him should be wiped off the face of the earth in order that G'd's honour not be impugned. Even the patriarchs did not want someone to anger G'd. Regarding the argument used by Moses during the episode of the golden calf that "G'd had taken so much trouble to orchestrate the Exodus of the Jewish people," and that therefore a new Jewish people could not have evolved during so many hundreds of years in an iron crucible such as Egypt, G'd said that in the end all these trials had proved worthless. The people did not even have faith in G'd after all the miracles He had performed on their behalf. As far as keeping the oath to the patriarchs was concerned, G'd suggested that Moses would become the founding member of a new nation descended from the original patriarchs. There remained the problem of how could one be certain that a new Jewish nation based on Moses would be any better than the present one? G'd argued that if the souls of the new Jewish nation would be based on Moses, surely they would be greater than those of the present Jewish people. Such souls would be closer to the source of sanctity than the souls of the present Jewish people had been. Compare my commentary on Genesis 49,3 about Reuben's soul having been flawed. The very fact that the present Jewish people had spent so many years in the morally corrupt climate of Egypt was a strike against them which a nation based on Moses would not have to contend with.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ושמעו מצרים, "and when Egypt will hear, etc." Why did Moses add the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ושמעו, seeing this is the first comment Moses permitted himself after He heard G'd's reaction? Moses simply should have said: ישמעו מצרים, "Egypt will hear, etc." Furthermore, what did Moses have in mind when he said כי העלית? If he meant that the Egyptians would hear about G'd having taken the Israelites out of Egypt this does not make any sense at all. The Egyptians had been the first to witness G'd's miracles and the Exodus, after all! Besides, how does the killing of the Israelites contribute to the Egyptians' hearing about the miracles G'd employed to orchestrate the Exodus? If Moses intended to describe who these Egyptians were who would hear about these miracles of G'd, the question is whether there were any other Egyptians who could have heard about G'd's actions at that time? Even assuming there were such Egyptians, Moses' words clearly referred to the Egyptians with whom we are familiar.
  The answer must be connected to why Moses did not use the same arguments he had used after the sin of the golden calf. It is true that I have explained on the words עד אנה ינאצוני that G'd had spoken these words to prevent Moses from again advancing an argument he had used successfully at that time. Nonetheless, Moses had been at liberty to use the argument of זכות אבות, the merit of the patriarchs in conjunction with the argument that G'd's effforts would be perceived as having been futile. The combined arguments would help ward off an evil decree at this time.
  However, Moses was very clever; he used the conjunctive letter ו to indicate that this was only an additional argument to others he would present. He emphasised that the Egyptians would most certainly hear about the demise of the Jewish people. The reason was that G'd had expended so much effort at the time to remove the Jewish people who had been an integral part of Egyptian society מקרבו, from within its midst. Whereas the whole world knew about the miracles G'd had performed at that time, the impression it had made on the Egyptian neighbours of the Israelites was far more pronounced. They would certainly follow the fortunes of this people to find out exactly how they progressed ever since they left Egypt. The word כי in כי העלית must be understood to mean "because," rather than "that."
  Another way of explaining the letter ו is to provide an answer to why Moses appeared concerned only about the impression the demise of the Jewish people were to make on the Egyptians and not on the other nations. He explained this by saying "for You have elevated this nation from amongst its midst." The Egyptians -as opposed to any other nation- were well aware that the Israelites could never have revolted successfully and have escaped from their enslavement if G'd had not literally "lifted the Jewish people out of their midst." Once they would hear about this people dying en masse they would never again credit G'd with defeating the Canaanites Supposing even that G'd's plan to create a new Jewish nation out of Moses would be carried out, any success of that new nation in overcoming the Canaanites would henceforth be attributed to the strength of Moses' genes, not to G'd's interference in their fate. It is nothing unusual for a strong nation to defeat a weaker nation. The present Israelites were known to be militarily weak. Their victory over the Canaanites would enhance G'd's image. Any future Jewish nation which had never exhibited weakness as had the present Israelite nation would not be a vehicle for G'd to demonstrate His power. בכחך את העם הזה, "with Your Power THIS NATION." The whole strength of Moses' argument lay in these four words. Only the Egyptians would be able to respond in this manner as they had known the Jewish people from all the many years the latter had lived amongst them. They had truly known them, i.e. ושמעו מצרים.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואמרו אל יושבי הארץ הזאת, and they will say to the inhabitants of this land, etc. The Torah fails to mention what precisely the Egyptians would tell the Canaanites. If the Torah meant that they would tell the Canaanites about G'd's inability, etc., these words should have been appended in the following sequence: "they will say to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan that G'd was unable, etc." The word ושמעו should have appeared at the beginning of the verse, not after "the inhabitants of this land."
  We therefore must understand the verse as follows: ואמרו, when the Egyptians will hear about the fate of the Jewish people they will attribute this to their G'd's inability to overcome the Canaanites though He had been able to overcome them at that time. The Egyptians could construe two possible reasons for the demise of the Jewish people. 1) They did not qualify for the miracles it would take for their G'd to overcome the Canaanites. There is no comparison between overcoming the single Egyptian nation and overcoming of seven powerful nations such as the Canaanites. The fact that the Jewish G'd had overcome Egypt does not prove that He is omnipotent seeing that the Egyptians were far weaker than the Canaanites. G'd was not fond enough of the Israelites to orchestrate the type of miracles needed to overcome the Canaanites. 2) G'd did love the people sufficiently; however He was not powerful enough to overcome the Canaanites. This is why Moses said: כי אתה ה׳ בקרב העם הזה, "for You O Lord are in the midst of this people." Moses meant that G'd should not allow the Egyptians to conclude that the Canaanites too were beloved of G'd and that is why He did not disinherit them. The Egyptians were well aware of how beloved the Jews were in the eyes of G'd. If G'd did not bring them to the Holy Land and rather killed them, this could only be interpreted by them as proof of His impotence in the matter.
  
  Verse 15
  
   והמתה…כאיש אחד, "and You kill them..all at the same time, etc." Moses revealed here that he did not plead for G'd to forgive the Israelites their sin; he only pleaded that the retribution should be such that it did not result in a desecration of G'd's name in the eyes of the nations. This is why he emphasised the words כאיש אחד, "as one man."
  ואמרו הגוים, "and the Gentile nations will say, etc." Moses did not only refer to the Egyptians but to all the nations who would hear about the fate of the Jewish people. לאמור, to say; this word again means "something elevated," as we explained on 14,7. All the people who had thus far looked upon the G'd of the Hebrews as a supreme deity would now revise their estimate of G'd's capabilities if they heard that this G'd had wiped out His people as one man. Moses added the letter ו at the beginning of the word אמרו in order to indicate that he referred to all the Gentile nations not only to the Egyptians. Another reason for the open-ended word לאמור is that Moses did not know precisely what the Gentiles would say and in what order. When Moses spoke about what the Gentiles would say, i.e. ואמרו, he did not imply that they would be justified in what they would say. He was only concerned that they would say it anyway.
  
  Verse 16
  
   מבלתי יכלת, "due to an inability, etc." This may either mean that the people would believe that G'd never had such power or that He had lost such power due to old age, etc. (compare Psalms 14,1). Either way, Moses could not envisage a greater desecration of G'd's Holy Name than to allow people to arrive at such conclusions.
  העם, the people, etc. This verse is intended to counter G'd's intention to create a new nation from Moses' descendants. Moses argued that even this would be a desecration of the Lord's name. As long as G'd had not brought the nation to the land of Canaan His image would remain tarnished. Refer to what I have written on the word ושמעו on verse 13. The thrust of Moses' argument was that even though the Israelites had spurned their G'd, if He would retaliate by killing them in one fell swoop this would be a desecration of His name, world wide. When the Torah wrote in verse 13 "Moses spoke to G'd," the words "to G'd" may be a hint that his concern was for the damage killing the Israelites would do to G'd, i.e. to His image in the world.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ועתה יגדל נא כח השם, "and now, I pray, let the Power of the Lord be great!" We need to analyse why Moses said: "and now," as well as why he said that G'd's power should appear great although He had not done anything to demonstrate wherein His power was so great. The word יגדל implies that G'd would perform some act which would enhance people's awe for His power. Why did Moses use the word נא in the middle of the verse? If it were meant as a plea he should have started the sentence with that word. If it meant something like "now," he had already said ועתה. Furthermore, what did he mean by the words כאשר דברת, as You have said?" What had G'd said, and when did He say it? What is the meaning of the word לאמור? To whom was G'd supposed to say this?
  Seeing that Moses had been clever in his argument about the damage to G'd's world-wide image which killing the Israelites would entail, he added that there was another advantage for G'd if He would allow His anger to dissipate and let the Israelites enter the land of Canaan, an advantage that G'd had not enjoyed previously. The advantage to G'd would be that in view of the exaggerated report of the toughness of the inhabitants of that land G'd's power would indeed be perceived as great when He demonstrated it by helping the Israelites to conquer them.
  Moses added: כאשר דברת. This is a reference to the first verse in our portion where G'd's reason for despatching the spies is described as "to tour the land I am about to give them." We explained there that the land was not subject to conquest by the Israelites and could only be attained by them as a gift from G'd. G'd Himself had told Moses at the time to point this out to the Israelites. This was the meaning of the word לאמר in 13,1.
  The meaning of the word נא is "now." Moses repeated this word. We have beeen told in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6 that the word ועתה invariably means that G'd provided an opening for man to do תשובה, to repent. Moses apologised so to speak for having said things to G'd about Him which should not be said by any human being although he had only paraphrased what he presumed that the Gentiles would say. We find an analogous situation in the Talmud when witnesses were required to repeat the exact words they heard a blasphemer say before such a blasphemer could be convicted (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 60). The witnesses in question have to rend their garments in grief and remorse at the words their mouths had to utter. Moses did something similar and that is why he added the word ועתה in addition to the word נא.
  He may also have hinted that the word ועתה represented the remorse of the Israelites who prayed that G'd's power would be perceived to be great henceforth and that G'd should accept their repentance. We are told in <i>Berachot</i> 34 that repentant sinners are on a morally higher plateau than people who have never sinned. The reason is that G'd's name is sanctified more when the world perceives that sinners have changed their ways. Moses alluded to this when he said יגדל נא כח השם, i.e. "now Your power O G'd is even greater than heretofore seeing the Israelites had repented after their rebellion." The repetition of the thought by the word נא may also allude to the statement in Avot 4,22 that "one hour spent as a repentant sinner in this life is worth more than the the whole life in the world to come."
  Another approach to our verse is this: Moses did not ask G'd to extend His pardon to all the people who had spurned Him, but only ועתה יגדל נא כח השם, to exact retribution from the perpetrators who spurned Him, from the spies themselves. When G'd is perceived as punishing the wicked His name is sanctified and exalted. Moses added: כאשר דברת, referring to G'd having said in verse 12 that He would smite them with pestilence. This statement could be read as referring only to the spies themselves. Moses added the word נא meaning "now," suggesting the spies be punished immediately as only then would their death be understood as the penalty for their crime. G'd complied with Moses' request as we read in 14,37 that "the men who had slandered the land died through pestilence in the presence of G'd." Please read on what I have written on that verse. The reason Moses added the word לאמור may be that He asked G'd to tell the spies before their deaths why they were being punished. It is also possible that Moses wanted G'd to tell the Israelites that the people who had spread lies about the land were being punished in order to frighten the people into not causing G'd to become angry again on their account. We find something analogous in Psalms 9,17 בפעל כפיו נוקש רשע הגיון סלה, "He works judgments; the wicked man is snared by his own devices. Higgayon, Selah." [The verse comes on the heels of the Psalmist demonstrating that G'd's powers of retribution were seen to have reached the enemies of the Jewish people. Ed.] The initials of the words ועתה יגדל נא כח equal the numerical value of the name of G'd, i.e. 86. The name used for G'd in the verse is also a reference to G'd in His capacity as Judge. Having said all this, Moses reverts to ask G'd's mercy for the people.
  Yet another meaning of the word ועתה is that Moses referred to G'd's suggestion to create a new Jewish nation making him the founder. We have a tradition that the curse of a wise man, even if it was only conditional, leaves a mark (<i>Makkot</i> 11). A blessing by a scholar certainly does so also. When the blessing has been pronounced by G'd Himself, there is no question that He will not withdraw it. Moses prayed that G'd should preserve the Jewish people and be aggrandised through their very survival even though He was aware that what G'd had promised him would come true. We find indeed that <i>Berachot</i> 7 tells us that the descendants of Rechaviah (Chronicles I 23,17) Moses' grandson from his son Eliezer amounted to well over 600,000. Moses used the words דברת לאמור, to indicate that at the very time G'd had spoken harshly of the Israelites He had exalted him by contrast. [the word לאמור is used again in the sense of Deut. 26,17. Ed.]
  Still another meaning of כאשר דברת, is that it refers to Moses himself becoming a great nation, even greater (in numbers) than the Jewish people at present. 
  If we accept this, we must examine why Moses did not react in this fashion as soon as G'd proposed to make him into a replacement of the present Jewish people. The words כאשר דברת refer to the time when G'd had offered to make a new Jewish nation with Moses as the founder at the time of the golden calf episode (Exodus 32,10). The word עתה, "now," means "this time" as distinct from the previous occasion. 
  A careful comparison will reveal that on the previous occasion when G'd had offered to make a new Jewish nation based on Moses, He had not added that that new Jewish nation would be more powerful because it would be ממנו, based on the original Jewish people, as G'd had done here in verse 12. I have explained that one of the possible reasons for the statement that the new and powerful nation G'd had referred to would be more powerful is that they would not have absorbed the morally negative influences due to having been part of the Egyptian culture. Having prayed that the Jewish nation should continue to exist in its present form, i.e. the nation that had experienced the Exodus, Moses now turned to G'd's promise to make a nation out of him. He declined, seeing that all G'd had promised was to use him as the founder of a continuation of the Jewish people [seeing he himself was a member of that nation. Ed.]. This is why he said to G'd: "now let Your power be great, etc." At the time G'd had offered to make a nation out of Moses during the episode of the golden calf, G'd had not used the word ממנו, i.e. that the new nation would be a continuation of the original Jewish people. It could be assumed that although, at the time, G'd had changed His mind about wiping out the people immediately, the promise made to Moses to make him into a great nation had not been cancelled. G'd could be presumed to have planted new souls at the time that would be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps this may even have been the meaning of the sages (quoted by Rashi) who claimed that Moses argued that if a stool with three legs had proved unstable how could a stool with only a single leg (Moses) be expected to be more stable? Moses had referred to the three patriarchs as the three legs of the Jewish people. This appears to be a very weak argument. After all, Moses himself was also a descendant of the patriarchs and the new nation would therefore be based on himself plus the "three legs" represented by the patriarchs? If you accept my interpretation that G'd planted new souls at the time He made that original promise in Exodus 32,10, then Moses' argument was solid, seeing these "new" souls would not have been descendants i.e. reincarnations of souls who had existed at the time of the patriarchs. As a result, they would have only a solitary "leg" to rely on i.e. their founding father Moses.
  Another reason why Moses prayed at this juncture may be related to the word עצום which G'd had used to describe such a new "Jewish" nation. Moses understood that term to refer to the element of sanctity to be found in that new nation who would therefore not spurn Him. He prayed to G'd that this part of the promise should be speedily fulfilled. He added the word נא in the knowledge that the choice of doing good or evil was not something under G'd's control (<i>Berachot</i> 33). He begged G'd to create souls which had a tendency to be good.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ה׳ ארך אפים, The Lord is slow to anger, etc. Why did Moses not invoke all of the thirteen attributes G'd had taught him after the sin of the golden calf? We may understand this in accordance with <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 17. We quote: "ה׳, ה, I am the Lord before man sins as well as after he has sinned and has repented his sin." In my commentary on Exodus 34,6 I have quoted what the <i>Rosh</i> has to say on this subject as well as my own understanding of it. You have learned that the attribute of Mercy has to be invoked on behalf of man even before he has sinned. In this instance Moses had to invoke that attribute only after the sin. This is why he said השם only once.
  <i>Tossaphot</i> in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 17 quote both the <i>Rosh</i> and comments by Rav Nissim according to whom the first word השם in Exodus 34,6 is not part of the 13 attributes at all. It is only inserted to tell us who it is that is reciting the remainder of the attributes. Accordingly, there was never a reason for Moses having to say השם השם. We only need to understand how Rav Nissim could disagree with all the earlier authorities.
  Perhaps we should understand Rav Nissim to mean that he explained what the other authorities had said. When they referred to the two words השם referring to G'd's attribute of Mercy before the sin and after the sin which the sinner repented respectively, they meant to tell us that the quality of G'd's mercy has not changed because man sinned. G'd tells us that there is no new element in His attribute of Mercy as a result of man having sinned. This consideration may also help us answer the question of the <i>Rosh</i>. The latter had asked why G'd's attribute of Mercy needs to be invoked before the sin at all. Actually, it does have to be invoked even then. You will note that Moses also skipped three more attributes of the 13 attributes G'd had revealed to him; he did not mention either קל, רחום, or חנון. The reason was that these three attributes need to be invoked only if someone either finds himself in trouble already and has no means of extricating himself. Or, it may be invoked on behalf of someone already suffering severe pains; it may also be invoked on behalf of someone totally deprived of any of the good (pleasant) aspects of life. Moses commenced with invoking G'd's patience, ארך אפים, which is something He extends even to deliberate sinners. We are told in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 111 that when Moses ascended to the celestial regions in order to receive the Tablets, he found G'd occupied writing the word ארך אפים. He assumed that G'd meant that He extended His patience to the basically Torah-observant people. G'd corrected him saying that he extends His patience even to the habitual sinners. Moses objected saying that those ought to be wiped out. G'd told Moses that he would soon learn that even the habitual sinners had need of this attribute of His. When Israel sinned, G'd asked Moses: "did you not say that I should be patient only with the righteous?" Moses retorted: "Did You not tell me that You extend Your patience even to the sinners?" This is what Moses meant when he said: "now let Your power be great!" In other words, Moses invoked the attribute called ארך אפים. Moses also invoked the attribute of רב חסד, abundant loving kindness, as he wanted G'd to tilt towards love rather than towards retribution when judging the people. He omitted mentioning the attribute of אמת, Truth, neither did he refer to the attribute of נוצר חסד לאלפים, that G'd keeps His mercy towards thousands of generations, as neither of these two attributes were relevant to the situation under discussion. He did mention G'd's attributes as being נושא עון ופשע, forgiving iniquities of varying degrees of severity, as both of these attributes were needed in this situation. He omitted that G'd forgives unintentional sin, חטאה, as it did not apply here either. He mentioned the remainder of the thirteen attributes as they all had bearing on the present situation.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר ה׳ סלחתי כדברך, G'd said: "I have forgiven according to your word." G'd meant that He had not forgiven the sin absolutely, only, -as Moses had asked- that He would not kill them as one man. This was in response to Moses' argument that otherwise G'd would be perceived as unable to conquer the Canaanites. At any rate, He would invoke His attribute of ארך אפים by spreading the punishment over 40 years. The following verses are all illustrations of what G'd meant by invoking His attribute of ארך אפים on the one hand, and swearing an oath that all of the people would suffer retribution on the other.
  Another meaning of the word כדברך could be that G'd responded only because of Moses' having pleaded on behalf of the people, as well as the fact that one of Moses' arguments had been the presumed reaction of the Gentile nations if G'd were to wipe out the people all at once. We have already explained that Moses described the Gentiles' reaction as being either that G'd had ceased to be powerful, or that His powers sufficed only to overcome the Egyptians, not the more powerful Canaanites. G'd said (verse 23) ואולם חי אני, "in fact I am very much alive," in response to the Gentiles who would presume G'd to have faded away. Concerning the alternative reaction by the Gentiles that G'd did not have the power to disinherit the Canaanites, He said וימלא כבוד ה׳ את כל הארץ, that at the end of the period of retribution for this sinful generation He would demonstrate to one and all that He did have the power to carry out what He had said, that the seven Canaanite nations would be wiped out. G'd based His alternative plan of retribution and a degree of pardon for the Jewish people only on the honour He wished to bestow on Moses whose pleas He did not want to be perceived as having been rejected.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ולא שמעו בקולי, "and who did not listen to My voice." Inasmuch as the Jewish people had previously been granted the privilege to be personally addressed by G'd at Mount Sinai, G'd now was very angry that they had not listened to His voice at this time.
  
  Verse 23
  
   אם יראו…וכל מנאצי, "Surely they shall not see….any of those who have spurned Me." Why did G'd have to especially mention the people who had spurned Him? Who would have dreamt that those people would be exempt from this retribution? Perhaps they had to be mentioned seeing that G'd had spoken of a people who had tested Him already on ten different occasions. We might have thought that all those who had not been guilty ten times, such as the people who had not yet been 20 years of age at the Exodus, would have been exempt from this oath that they would die in the desert. G'd therefore made it clear that even these young people were included as they had spurned G'd on this occasion. The people described here as having spurned G'd are the ten spies as well as the people who had thrown stones at the cloud behind which Joshua and Caleb had taken cover (compare <i>Sotah</i> 35).
  Our verse may also have introduced a new dimension of punishment of the spies. Seeing they were not worthy of the land, they had forfeited their share in it. This is why we are told in <i>Baba Batra</i> 117 that the descendants of the spies did not take part in the distribution of the land under Joshua. They received shares based only on the size of the families of their grandfathers. The remainder of the generation who were now slated to die in the desert received their share of the Holy Land based on their present family status, i.e. how many male children they had. The verse ends with the promise that "My servant Caleb as well as his descendants will inherit their shares in the land."
  
  Verse 24
  
   ועבדי כלב, "and My servant Caleb, etc." Why did the Torah not mention Joshua also at this juncture? The word היתה requires analysis as do the words וימלא אחרי as well as the letter ו in והביאותיו.
  The Torah wanted to explain why G'd decided to refer to Caleb as "My servant," an exceptional compliment. Although also Joshua did not spurn G'd, Caleb was possessed of a totally different spirit. He had not needed the prayer of Moses to enable him to resist the influence of the other ten spies. Caleb had at one time during the mission experienced the רוח אחרת, i.e. the evil spirit which filled the other spies. He had gone to the graves of the patriarchs in order to recharge his spiritual batteries before he would succumb to the wiles of the evil urge. וימלא אחרי, "He decided to follow Me." The Torah describes how Caleb decided to follow his good urge rather than his evil urge. Man is subject to two advisors. One advises him to follow G'd's wishes, the other advises him to assert his independence. If one decides to resist the urge to commit a sin it is accounted as if one had fulfilled one of G'd's commandments (<i>Kidushin</i> 39). Joshua had not been in a similar dilemma as he had never been tempted to be disloyal to G'd and to act illogically, due to Moses' prayer on his behalf. We have a verse in the Book of Samuel which describes a mystical dimension concerning the prayer of a צדיק such as Moses. It suggests that such a prayer may exert influence on a person's moral tendencies. This is based on Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת השם, "the righteous exercises some control concerning matters of reverence for the Lord." Seeing that Caleb's resistance to the evil urge under circumstances of great provocation was unaided by external factors, he is described similarly to Moses, i.e. that he was G'd's servant.
  The Torah adds that G'd would bring him to the land he had already come to (once). The Torah hints here at the inner struggle that had preceded Caleb's deciding to remain loyal to G'd. This struggle may be described as Caleb praying on his own behalf. G'd promises that although Caleb was already 40 years old at the time and conquest of the land of Canaan would now be delayed by at least 40 years, Caleb would live long enough to be among those who would take part in that conquest. This is the only time in recorded history that G'd promised someone that he would live for at least another 40 years.
  Perhaps G'd had to describe Caleb as "My servant" in order to justify this extraordinary promise. This was a promise by G'd that Caleb would not forfeit his status as a צדיק during the 40 years the Israelites would wander in the desert. I was asked once how one can reconcile the statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 30 that when David asked G'd to know when he would die and G'd's reply that He does not reveal such information to any living human being nor does He tell him how many years he will live, with the fact that He told King Chiskiyahu that he would have another 15 years to live. Why then had G'd revealed to Chiskiyahu that he had another 15 years to live? I answered that the only date that G'd refuses to reveal is the original lifespan allocated to man at birth. This is based on Job 14,5 אם חרוצים ימיו, "his days are numbered." If and when G'd decides to grant someone a lifespan beyond that which had been originally decreed, the addition is not subject to the decree that its length will not be revealed. It may be G'd's wish to reveal such information as we know from <i>Shabbat</i> 10 where the meaning of לדעת כי אני ה׳ מקדשכם, "to make known that it is I the Lord who sanctify you" (Exodus 31,13), is being discussed. The Talmud derives from that verse that if someone gives a second party a gift he has to inform him of that gift beforehand. This is the reason that G'd informs recipients of an extension of a person's lifespan at the time He grants that gift. You will find something similar in Joshua 14,10 where Caleb asked to conquer Chevron and the mountain it is situated on and to inherit it. At that time Caleb referred to the fact that though aged 85 he was every bit as fit as when he was forty years old and G'd had granted him the additional lifespan. In fact, the Torah added in our verse that G'd's blessing to Caleb would also extend to his descendants.
  There is another way of explaining our verse. Caleb had performed two meritorious deeds and as a result he qualified for two rewards. 1) He had a different spirit, i.e. he resisted the temptation to make common cause with the ten spies. 2) He proved his loyalty to G'd by not only not merely keeping silent but by trying to persuade the people to have faith and not to believe the conclusions drawn by the other ten spies. G'd repaid him by 1) bringing him to the Holy Land, 2) letting him take possession of it. Joshua was not mentioned seeing he did not have to overcome the evil urge as he had been the recipient of Moses' prayer on his behalf.
  
  Verse 25
  
   והעמלקי והכנעני יושב בעמק, "And the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwell in the valley." The reason the Torah provides this detail at this juncture, as well as the reason for the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word והעמלקי is that G'd had decided that the entire generation would not enter the Holy Land and would die in the desert. He said that He would not kill them all at the same time as will be spelled out in subsequent verses. One might have assumed therefore that the Israelites would remain in their present location during the entire forty years. The Torah had to provide a rationale why it was not practical for the Israelites to remain in the same location during all this time. They were liable to fall victim to attacks by the Amalekites or Canaanites. We do not provoke Satan at a time when we are in danger (<i>Tanchuma Vayigash</i> 1). This is why G'd told the Israelites to move from that area already on the morrow. Whereas it is true that we find that the Israelites lingered at Kadesh for many years (Deut. 1,46) and the sages say that this was a period of 19 years, this occurred on their way back at a time when the effect of their sin had already worn off and half the people guilty of that sin had already died. The reason for the letter ו in the word והעמלקי is to connect our verse to verse 23, אם יראו את הארץ. G'd advised that He added another stricture, namely the immediate departure from their present encampment although they were not headed for their ultimate objective, the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 26
  
   וידבר השם, G'd said, etc. From the wording of this verse one might get the impression that G'd only now addresses Himself to the nature of Israel's sins and the retribution it is about to receive. This is not so, however, seeing that G'd had already been doing just this starting with verse 11. The reason the Torah appears to repeat these things is because up until now G'd had said these things to Moses in a private conversation. Only now does G'd give instructions to Moses and Aaron i.e. לאמור to communicate all this to the Israelites at large. When you review the chapter up until this verse you will note that the word לאמור did not appear once.
  
  Verse 27
  
   עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת, "How long will this evil congregation, etc." The "evil congregation" referred to here are the ten spies. This view is confirmed by <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108. G'd continues: את תלונות בני ישראל; this is a reference to the rest of the people. The words עד מתי imply that even now the spies were still exerting their evil influence on the people preventing them from identifying with G'd. This is the reason that G'd calls these ten men עדה רעה, an evil congregation. When G'd says אשר המה מלינים עלי, He underlines that not only are these people wicked themselves but they attempt to turn the Israelites into wicked people.
  את תלונות בני ישראל שמעתי, "I have heard the complaints against Me by the children of Israel." It was necessary to inform us that G'd heard, i.e. He only heard the complaints of the Israelites, not the wicked words of the spies. The meaning of the verse is as follows: "The complaints of the Israelites which have been inspired by the spies I have heard, whereas I have not listened to the spies who have inspired these complaints." The words of the spies were so despicable that G'd did not even want to consider if there was any basis for them that He could find an excuse for.
  
  Verse 28
  
   אמר אליהם…כאשר דברתם, "say to them…as you have spoken, etc." Here G'd relates to the fears the Israelites had expressed, sentiments which G'd had heard and decided to address. As a result, He limited the ages of the people who would die in the desert to those who were over the age of twenty. G'd never allowed the spies themselves to be informed of the decree He was about to hand down as they died a miserable death within the sight of all the Israelites.
  
  Verse 29
  
   מבן עשרים שנה..אשר הלינותם, "from the age of twenty and up..because you have complained against Me." We must try and understand why G'd said אשר הלינתם. If the word אשר is to be equivalent to על אשר (the way we have translated it), then there is nothing new here. G'd had mentioned this already in verse 27!
  It appears that these words were necessary in view of G'd having spoken of the decree applying to the people who were twenty and over. We might have interpreted this to mean that anyone 20 years of age at the time of the decree was included in the decree that he had to die in the desert. As a result, men who had not been twenty years old at the time of the Exodus would be included in this decree. To make it clear that this was not so, the Torah says אשר הלינתם, people who were 20 years old from the time you started complaining, i.e. immediately after the Exodus. If anyone of the complainants had been twenty years old at the time he complained, he was now included in the group of people to whom this decree applied. This is precisely what G'd had meant when He told Moses in verse 22 that the Israelites had tested Him already ten times.
  Perhaps the generation in question did not notice this nuance of the verse as to who was and who was not included in the decree and they thought that the decree applied only to people who had turned twenty as of that day. As a result of such a faulty interpretation they examined who had died in the fortieth year of their wanderings on the night of the ninth of Av. They found then that not a single one had died on that night. When they checked for the next 5 nights and found that not a single Israelite died during those nights either, they declared the 15th of Av of that year as a day of rejoicing concluding that the decree had come to an end (compare introduction to <i>Midrash Eycha Rabbah</i>.) It is difficult to understand why they should have expected anyone to die during the night of the ninth of Av in that year unless they had misunderstood the meaning of who was included in the description "from twenty years and over."
  Possibly, G'd had couched the decree in a language which permitted more than one interpretation, something G'd is fond of doing on occasion. The reason G'd couches something in ambivalent language is to allow for a more lenient interpretation if the people deserve it, or for a more stringent interpretation in the event the people do not deserve it. A classic example of what I have in mind is Genesis 2,17 where G'd warned man not to eat from the tree of knowledge on pain of death. The "death" warning is phrased as follows: "for on the day you eat from it you will surely die." This could be taken to mean that death would be practically instantaneous, i.e. the very same day, or it could be taken to mean that on that day man would become mortal but that death might still be a long way off and that the "day" G'd spoke of was the amount of time He considered a "day" in His calendar, i.e. 1000 years in our time. If Adam would repent, G'd would apply the latter interpretation, if not, He would let Adam die within 24 hours after he had eaten from the fruit of that tree. In our verse G'd also used ambivalent language when the Torah wrote אשר הלינתם. The expression lends itself to two interpretations. 1) על אשר הלינותם, "because you have complained." 2) "from the time you have started to complain the first time," as we explained earlier. G'd meant that if the Israelites would repent and behave from now on He would apply the more lenient of the two interpretations, i.e. only people who had reached the age of twenty before the episode of the spies would die. If the people would become guilty of further misdemeanours, G'd would consider all those who had been twenty years at the time of the first complaint as included in this decree. When G'd had mentioned that the Israelites had tested Him ten times, He referred to the majority of the complainers. When the people realised on the night of the ninth of Av in the fortieth year that no one had died, they celebrated as the decree had finally been lifted from those who had left Egypt while under twenty years of age but had been 20 years of age when the decree was pronounced.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה, "And as to your children of whom you said they will become prey, etc." Seeing that G'd had said He would do to the people in a manner corresponding to what they had said, and they had said that evil would befall their children if they listened to Caleb and Joshua, G'd now specifically exempts those children from the curse that they would not enter the Holy Land. The Torah adds the conjunctive letter ו in front of the word והבאתי אותם, "and I will bring them," to tell us that not only will these children not become prey, but they will inherit the land their parents should have inherited.
  
  Verse 32
  
   ופגריכם אתם, "As to you, you are already carcasses, etc." Why did the Torah have to write this verse, seeing it had already told us in verse 29 what would happen to the parents of these children? Perhaps the Torah intended to inform us that the children would not be allowed to carry the bones of their parents into the Holy Land with them, as the children of Israel had done with the bones of Joseph and those of the other tribes (Joseph's brothers).
  The Torah may also have intended to tell us about another dimension of the death of this generation. Not only would their bodies die in the desert but they would experience an even greater indignity in that their very bodies would become the property of the שר המדבר, the spirtually negative force which rules over the desert. Scholars who have researched this matter agree that there is no more demeaning experience than to be told that after one has become a carcass one will yet experience another "fall." This is why the Torah speaks of פגריכם..יפלו, "your carcasses will fall." If the word "you will fall" had applied only to their actual death, the word "you will fall" should have preceded any word which described the death. To make this point very clear, the Torah wrote: "you who are already carcasses will fall." Clearly, this phraseology refers to something demeaning that will happen to their bodies after their deaths. The Torah is at pains to add the word אתם, "you," to prevent us from interpreting the verse as speaking of something that would happen to the grandchildren of the present generation. In view of the fact that grandchildren are often described as children, seeing the son is part of his father, the Torah was careful to prevent any misunderstanding by writing אתם.
  I have heard in the name of scholars who have been expelled from Castilia that they interpreted the word אתם as a reference to Moses and Aaron whose death in the desert G'd had also decreed. Seeing G'd was addressing Moses and Aaron at the time, He used the word אתם when referring to what would happen to them personally. G'd provided a reason for His words when He concluded (verse 35) by saying: אם לא זאת אעשה לכל העדה הרעה הזאת…יתמו ושם ימותו. This can be understood as similar to the way <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,13 explains Deut. 33,21: ויתא ראשי עם. The <i>Midrash</i> explains that the reason Moses was buried on the East Bank of the Jordan was to enable the generation of the spies to be resurrected at the time Moses would be resurrected. If Moses and Aaron had not died in the desert, the people would have thought that Moses led a new generation into the land of Canaan and thereby fulfilled his life's mission, whereas the generation which died in the desert was lost forever. Moses had to die and be buried in the desert to keep alive the tradition that eventually he himself would lead the generation he had led out of Egypt to the Holy Land at the time of the resurrection. This is, of course, merely an allegorial interpretation. It is quite inconceivable that the Torah would refer to the bodies of Moses and Aaron as פגר, "carcass." Their bodies were as refined as if they had been angels. The Torah would also not apply the tern נפילה, "fall," to two of the most illustrious human beings such as Moses and Aaron.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   אני ה׳ דברתי אם לא זאת אעשה, "I the Lord have spoken, surely this I will do, etc." Why did G'd have to announce that it was He who had been saying all this? Did we not know this? What is the meaning of the words אם לא זאת אעשה? Why did G'd repeat שם ימותו, "they will die there?" This was implied already by the words "they will be consumed in this wilderness." I believe we have to approach this verse by concentrating on the attribute G'd applies to Himself here. He describes Himself as השם, i.e. as the attribute of Mercy. It is an announcement by G'd that the attribute of Mercy concurred with the decision of the attribute of Justice. G'd emphasised דברתי, "I spoke these harsh words," to show that even the attribute of Mercy had to associate itself with this decree. In the event that we would wonder how the attribute of Mercy could agree to subject the people of Israel to such harsh punishment, G'd said "if I do not do this, etc." He meant that If He did not now decree death but extended His patience even longer, in the end He would not only have to deny them life on earth now but He would have to deny them life in the hereafter. This would be due to future acts of spurning G'd of which the Israelites would become guilty. The words במדבר הזה יתמו "they will be consumed in this desert," mean that they would die in שלמות, i.e. that at the time of their deaths their bodies would expire, ושם ימותו, and in the hereafter their souls would die. The only way G'd could forestall such a development was to let them die in the desert now so that they would not also forfeit any chance at a life in the hereafter (according to the view expressed in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108 that the generation of the desert had not forfeited their life in the hereafter).
  
  Verse 36
  
   והאנשים אשר שלח משה, And the men whom Moses had despatched, etc. This entire verse seems superfluous. We already know that Moses had despatched the spies and what the spies had done. Perhaps this verse wanted to inform us that although under normal circumstances G'd extends His patience also to sinners -as we explained on verse 18- in this instance G'd punished these men immediately. The Torah repeats the nature of their sin in order to explain why they did not deserve G'd's patience.
  There are five different circumstances which cause G'd to exact retribution without extending patience towards the sinner. 1) The sinner in question is a person of exceptional stature. When such a person rebels against G'd, He does not want to forgive him. After all, such a person should have known better and cannot expect to be judged by the same standards as an average person who commits a sin. 2) A person who has moved in a Torah-observant society and has abandoned this society to pursue a sinful conduct. 3) If someone experiences a strong urge not to commit a certain sin and he makes every effort to resist that urge and sins regardless of his primordial urge not to sin. The Talmud <i>Menachot</i> 44 illustrates this with the example of someone deliberately ignoring the warning by his ציציות not to go through with his intention to sleep with a certain harlot. 4) If the person involved not only sinned but caused others to sin. 5) If the nature of the sin is greater than normal; the Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 103 describes Amon the son of King Menashe as committing such a sin when he slept with his mother against her will. When his mother tried to dissuade him claiming he could not possibly derive any gratification from entering an area of her body which he had come out of at birth and which was unclean, he countered that his objective was not gratification but causing G'd to be angry.
  In our situation the Torah informed us that G'd did not extend His customary patience to the ten spies in question as they had been guilty of all the five factors we just enumerated. The Torah described the spies as והאנשים, to remind us that these men used to be looked up to as models of Torah-observance. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> on our verse states that the term אנשים throughout Scripture means that such people were knwon for their exemplary conduct. 2) They were described as leaders of thousands, i.e. people looked up to them. They were despatched by a society, i.e. Moses and the children of Israel, all of whom were known to be a healthy Torah-observant environment. 3) Although they were exposed to great dangers in their mission as spies, they had themselves acknowledged that they only returned safely because they had experienced G'd's personal protection. In spite of this they had committed such an ugly sin. 4) The Torah tells us that they not only sinned themselves but caused the whole community to sin, i.e. וילינו עליו את כל העדה, "They caused the whole congregation to murmur against G'd." 5) By slandering the nature of ארץ ישראל they angered G'd although they could not possibly derive any gratification from their sin. It is hardly surprising then that G'd did not extend His patience to such men.
  
  Verse 37
  
   וימותו האנשים מוצאי דבת הארץ רעה, The men who had issued an evil report about the land died, etc. We have to understand this verse as follows: "The men who died were the ones who issued the evil report." We find a parallel construction in Psalms 9,17: בפועל כפיו נוקש רשע, "The wicked person is snared by his own deeds." The verse may also tell us why these people died by pestilence; this was an appropriate tit-for-tat because they had spread evil tales. The words <i>davar,</i> word, and <i>dever,</i> pestilence, are spelled identically.
  לפני השם, in the presence of G'd. The Torah means that they died before G'd's presence as represented by the cloud ascended again. The type of permission granted to the destructive forces in this instance differs from that given to the same forces when Aaron and Miriam had been guilty of slandering Moses. On that occasion the <i>Tzoraat</i> had not struck until after G'd departed. The fact that in this case G'd gave permission for the destructive forces to become active immediately indicates the seriousness of the sin of the spies.
  
  Verse 38
  
   ויהושע בן נון, And Joshua son of Nun, etc. Why was there a need to write this verse seeing the Torah had already written that the men who issued the slanderous report died? Besides, what is the meaning of the words מן האנשים, "from amongst the men, etc.?"
  The meaning will become clear when we recall a statement by the Talmud <i>Baba Batra</i> 121 that Yair son of Menashe was born while Jacob was still alive. The Talmud queries this seeing that this same Yair was among the people who entered the land of Canaan as we know from Joshua 7,5 where the men of Ai are reported as having killed about 36 Israelites during the latter's first attempt to conquer that town. The Talmud there suggests that the peculiar phrase כשלושים וששה איש, means that only one man was killed and that the man was Yair ben Menashe. The reason the Book of Joshua spoke about "approximately 36 men," is that this Yair was so outstanding a person that he was considered equal to half the members of the Sanhedrin of 71 sages, i.e. 36. At any rate, it is obvious that this Yair was far older than 20 years when he left Egypt. How is it that he was permitted to enter the land of Canaan? Rabbi Acha concludes from this example that G'd's decree to kill the men over 20 applied only to the men between the ages of 20 and 60, i.e. the men who would bear arms and who would have been in danger of being killed by the Canaanites in any attempt to conquer the land. Our verse hints at the conclusion Rabbi Acha arrived at in the Talmud. The reason that Joshua and Caleb were exempted from the decree although they were under the age of 60 at that time was because they had been part of the group of spies and had proven their loyalty to G'd. Had they not been מן האנשים אשר תרו, from amongst the men who toured the land, they too would have been affected by the decree that all men between 20 and 60 had to die in the desert even though they were righteous.
  Our verse hints at yet another comment we find in <i>Chagigah</i> 15 that the deserving person inherits also the place in the hereafter reserved for a person who forfeited it through having become wicked. The words מן האנשים allude to Caleb and Joshua inheriting the share the other ten spies would have inherited in the hereafter had they not spread slander about the land. They also took over the shares reserved for these spies inside the land of ארץ ישראל (compare <i>Baba Batra</i> 117).
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   אל תעלו כי אין ה׳ בקרבכם, "do not go up for G'd is not in your midst." Moses gave two reasons why the מעפילים should not attempt to invade the land of Canaan. 1) G'd was not in their midst. 2) Seeing that G'd was not in their midst, i.e. had not approved their plan, any attempt to invade the land of Canaan now would be an act of rebellion against G'd. You will find that Moses spells this out in Deut. 1,43 when he recalled to the new generation that he had warned their fathers at the time not to attempt to invade the land and thereby to rebel against G'd.
  
  Verse 43
  
   כי העמלקי והכנעני שם, "for the Amalekite and the Canaanite are there, etc." The meaning is clear: The ten spies had given as the reason that the people would be unable to conquer the land the very presence of the Amalekite and the Canaanite. In view of this, any attempt to invade that part of the land knowing that G'd was not in their midst was an act of rebellion as it reflected the fact that they relied on themselves rather than on G'd. Moses warned that the certain result of such an attempt would be that they would fall by the sword just as the ten spies had predicted.
  
  Verse 44
  
   ויעפילו לעלות אל ראש ההר, But they presumed to go up to the top of the mountain, etc. They erred in thinking that by ascending the mountain they could demonstrate their faith in G'd and that as a result G'd would save them. G'd was not impressed, 1) for their punishment was still too recent to have run its course, and 2) the decree had been made absolute so that G'd could not reverse it. Please compare what I have written on this subject in Deut. 1,43.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם, "when you will come to the land of your habitations, etc." When G'd saw the despondency of the Jewish people over the decree that He had issued against them to wander aimlessly in the desert for forty years, He provided some encouragement for their hearts by instructing them in commandments which would apply only once they lived in the land of Canaan. G'd wanted to keep this prospect before their eyes in order to make their lives more meaningful. If one knows that at the end of a certain period of time one will experience fulfilment of one's hopes then the time lag until then becomes less onerous. G'd made sure to write אשר אני נותן לכם, "which I am about to give to you," although the generation He addressed had already been described as carcasses. He taught the people that the accomplishments of the children reflect credit also on their parents seeing the children are meant to be the extension of their parents.
  Another reason why the Torah wrote here נותן לכם, "am about to give you," may be based on <i>Sanhedrin</i> 90 where the Talmud raises the question "where it is written in the Torah that there will be a resurrection?" The Talmud quotes Exodus 6,4: "and I will also keep My covenant with them (the patriarchs) to give the land of Canaan to them." The fact that the Torah did not write "to you," seeing the living Israelites were being addressed, proves that the patriarchs will be resurrected. In our verse the Torah addresses "carcasses." The verse makes sense only if it presumes that these "carcasses" will be resurrected and will take possession of their land.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   והקריב המקריב קרבנו, When the person offering his sacrifice is about to do so, etc. An examination of the relative amounts of oil which are to be part of the meal-offerings appears at first glance to be proportional to the amounts of solids used in those offerings, i.e. the amount of flour. Similarly, the amount of wine which accompanies an animal sacrifice as a drink-offering is also proportional to the size of the animal being offered as a sacrifice. Why does the Torah make an exception to these proportions (compare verse 6) in our verse when the amount of flour used in the meal-offering is one tenth of an <i>eyphah,</i> i.e. a quarter <i>hin</i> which is equivalent to three <i>lugin?</i> [this is a proportionally much larger amount of oil than with other sacrifices. Ed.] Please refer to the <i>Mishnah</i> in <i>Menachot</i> 107. Maimonides writes in chapter 17 of his treatise on <i>Maaseh Hakorbanot</i> that "someone may voluntarily donate, or promise by means of a vow, a drink-offering to consist only out of wine, provided the minimum quantity is two <i>lugin.</i> He is not allowed to donate an offering consisting entirely out of oil even if the quantity is 2 <i>lugin</i> oil, as we do not find meal-offerings containing such a small amount of oil. One may also not donate one <i>log</i> or two <i>lugin</i> wine, however, as the drink-offerings accompanying animal offerings require larger amounts of wine than that." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. This may be the reason why in our verse the Torah is not satisfied with the person offering the meal-offering donating two <i>lugin</i> oil to be mixed with the tenth of the <i>eyphah</i> of flour although when the amount of flour in the meal-offering consists of two tenths <i>eyphah</i> of flour, the Torah had stated that 4 <i>lugin</i> oil are required. This is to teach you that a drink-offering of wine must not consist of less than two <i>lugin</i> of wine.
  One may be tempted to argue that this reasoning is only correct concerning the amount of wine in the respective drink-offerings, seeing that according to Rabbi Tarfon (<i>Zevachim</i> 91) an offering consisting of oil only is acceptable even in a relatively small amount. We find a difference of opinion in the Talmud <i>Menachot</i> we have quoted, one sage holding that one may donate as little as one <i>log</i> of oil as a separate offering. According to the reasoning presented in the Talmud for this latter opinion, why did the Torah not remain consistent in its presentation of the relative amounts of oil and flour? We may have to conclude that the Torah was anxious to equalise the respective amounts of oil and wine to be used in these drink or meal-offerings respectively which accompany the animal offerings.
  
  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
  
   וכי תשגו ולא תעשו, If you err and do not observe, etc. We are taught in <i>Horiot</i> 8 that this verse speaks about someone who commits the sin of idolatry. We find that the Torah repeats itself here, first writing "all the commandments," and then, in verse 23, "all that G'd has commanded you." The Torah appears to speak of someone who denies the validity of the Ten Commandments [commandments the people heard from G'd directly, Ed.] as well as all of the other commandments recorded in the written Torah but relayed to the people only through Moses. The message of the verse is that if someone worships idols he effectively rejects all the positive as well as all the negative commandments which make up Judaism. The words לא תעשו refer to the positive commandments, whereas the words את כל אשר צוה ה׳ אליכם refer to the negative commandments. The Torah informs us of a new concept, i.e. that there are individual positive commandments whose performance is equated with performance of all the positive commandments. Nonetheless, if someone worships idols he is considered as if he had also denied the validity of all the positive commandments. Similarly, there are some negative commandments the violation of which is considered as equivalent to rejection of all the negative commandments and the punishment in store for the person guilty of this is that which would be visited upon a person who had physically violated all the negative commandments.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה, But the person who acts defiantly, etc. This means that if someone deliberately worships idols, G'd considers it as if he had blasphemed against Him. This is why his punishment is that he will be cut off from amongst his people.
  The Torah adds: כי דבר ה׳ בזה, "for he has despised the word of G'd." This means that inasmuch as the sin of idolatry is equivalent to rejection of the entire Torah, such a person has despised every word of G'd. The Torah adds that ואת מצותו הפר, "and he has violated His commandment," i.e. by worshiping idols he has in effect violated all the negative commandments. As a result, הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא. The word הכרת refers to the tendons of the soul, the word תכרת to the limbs of the soul. The soul is perceived as being made up of parallel parts to those of the body. Just as the body consists of 365 tendons and 248 limbs, so is the soul a composite of 613 parts. Once a person is treated as if he had violated all the 613 commandments no vestige of his soul remains. Such a soul can never be repaired. This is the deeper meaning of the words עונה בה, "its sin remains an ongoing fact." Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 90 explain this differently. We know that the written Torah can be explained in many different ways.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, While the children of Israel were in the desert, etc. Why did the Torah have to let us know that the children of Israel were in the desert? This may be understood in conjunction with what we learned in <i>Shabbat</i> 96. Rav Yehudah is quoted as saying that the sin of the person collecting the firewood consisted of his carrying it a distance of 4 cubits in the public domain. We have aslo learned in <i>Shabbat</i> 6 that a <i>Seratya or a Platyah</i> i.e. a camp or a busy highway, constitute a public domain. The Talmud asks there why the Baraitha which mentioned the examples of a camp or busy highway did not include a desert as a further example of a public domain? Abbaye answered that this was not really an appropriate question as the desert constituted a public domain only while the Israelites (600,000 plus) marched through the desert, whereas the Baraitha was concerned with conditions at the time. Rashi comments on this as follows: "In those days the desert was considered a public domain whereas in our time it is not considered an area traversed by many people. When a Baraitha did mention that a desert may also be a public domain this is based on the assumption that the desert once more became a route used by multitudes of people on a regular basis."
  This is basically what the words "while the Israelites were in the desert" wanted to convey to us. The reason that the מקשש עצים, the person gathering firewood, was guilty of violating the Sabbath, was because at that time the desert was a proper public domain and carrying in it for a distance of four cubits or more was forbidden on pain of death. If the Israelites had not at that time travelled through the desert, the act of the מקשש would not have been punishable.
  According to the opinion of Maimonides in <i>Hilchot Shabbat</i> chapter 14 there does not seem to be a difference between the status of the desert in the days of the Israelites' trek through the desert and nowadays. I explained this in a volume called <i>Chefetz Hashem</i> which I composed during my youth. Maimonides understood the words of Abbaye to mean that the scholar who included the desert as an example of the public domain spoke of a period when the Israelites travelled through the desert. The other scholar who did not list the desert as a public domain was only concerned with conditions prevailing during his lifetime. Seeing that during his lifetime the desert was not travelled by many people he did not bother to define its status. In actual fact, however, the desert must be regarded as a public domain even in our own times. If this is the correct interpretation of what Abbaye had in mind we are back to square one, i.e. why did the Torah have to tell us that the Israelites were in the desert when this incident took place?
  We may be able to explain our verse with the help of another statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 96 where a Baraitha is quoted which defines the sin of the מקשש as lopping the wood off the tree rather than carrying it a distance of 4 cubits. This appears difficult in view of a <i>halachah</i> in <i>Chulin</i> 88 that earth taken from the desert is unfit to be used to cover the blood of wild beasts or birds after their having been slaughtered. The reason given is that such earth is salty and incapable of supporting growth of plants. If this is so, where did the מקשש find trees in the desert that he could lop branches off? The Torah answers this question by writing that the Israelites had been in the desert for quite a while when the incident under discussion occurred. During the years preceding the incident with the מקשש the travelling well accompanying the Israelites had irrigated the desert around their camp so that that part of the desert became capable of producing a variety of plants. It was from these plants that the מקשש lopped off some firewood. This interpretation even fits the opinion offered by Rabbi Acha in <i>Shabbat</i> 96 that the מקשש was gathering in firewood lying on the ground, making a pile of them. This too would have been possible once we assume that the well of Miriam had irrigated the desert around the camp of the Israelites.
  וימצאו איש מקשש עצים, they found a man collecting firewood. The reason that the Torah employs the word "they found" is because according to <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> Moses had instructed the people to spread out and search for any one who was violating the Sabbath. The word מצא is used in a similar sense in Esther 2,23 where the plot to assassinate Ahasverus was being investigated.
  מקשש עצים ביום השבת, gathering firewood on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah first mentioned the deed before mentioning the day when it occurred is to tell us that the man was well aware that it was the Sabbath. If the Torah had reported this in the reverse order the meaning would have been that they found him on a day which they (the searchers) knew to be the Sabbath. The present phraseology makes it clear that the man gathering the firewood knew that it was the Sabbath. Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> have cleverly deduced that the man was aware that it was the Sabbath from the repetition of the word מקשש עצים in verse 23. That repetition indicates that even after the man had been found collecting the firewood and had been warned about it he continued to do it. According to our own approach the repetition of the words מקשש עצים proves that the man had not erred in thinking that his activity was one which was permitted on the Sabbath. The men who found him warned him immediately about the fact that what he was doing was forbidden on pain of judicial execution. The man was guilty of being aware that it was the Sabbath (on which certain work prohibitions apply) as well as that the work he was performing was one of the forbidden categories.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  And the LORD said to Moses: the reason that this passage deviates from the norm in that it says, 'And HE said' whereas in all of scripture it says 'And HE spoke' can be explained by the teaching pf the Sages (Yalkut): When Moses saw the event of the Sabbath woodcutter he said to the LORD, "On the weekdays the Israelites don phylacteries (tefillin) and thereby remember the commandments. On Sabbath, (when it is forbidden to don phylacteries) how are they to remember?" The Holy Blessed ONE responded, "I am hereby giving them the commandment to tie fringes, through which they will remember, etc." This is why "And HE Said" is appropriate. It implies soft words that satisfy the heart of a questioner. 
  
  Verse 38
  
  Speak etc. and you shall say: Since there is an element of commandment as well as advantage, and honor which come from the commandment, therefore it said both Speaking (in a commanding form) and saying (in a gentle and respectful form). 
  And the shall make for themselves: The reason this passage is connected via the connecting "Vov-and" is as the sages taught, which I wrote about the previous verse, that Moses said to G-d, "During the week your people don phylacteries (tefillin) and thus remember etc. Thus when G-d comes to instruct him that they make fringes (tzitzit), one might mistakenly think that this commandment will take the place of phylacteries (tefillin), that when you wish you may don phylacteries (tefillin) and when you wish you may don fringes (tzitzit) without the phylacteries, even on the week days,  implying that either one of these commandments suffices as the reminder about the commandments. Therefore it said, "And they shall make..." implying that the commandment of phylacteries remains and the commandment of fringes is added. 
  לדרתם ונתנו…פתיל תכלת. "throughout the generations and they shall put…a thread of blue." There is a good reason for writing the word לדרתם. Inasmuch as the Torah describes the function of the fringes as a means to remind the Israelites of their duties, I could have thought that when there would arise a generation which did not need to be reminded of its duties the people of that generation could dispense with the need to observe this commandment. The Torah therefore had to write: "throughout their generations," in order to remind us that this commandment would remain in force at all times.
  Another reason why the Torah wrote the word לדרתם in the middle of the verse describing the commandment is that the commandment consists of two parts. We have the white threads and the blue thread. The former form part of the commandment throughout the generations. The latter is mandatory only at a time when the proper colour is available. G'd was careful to write the word "throughout their generations" before mentioning the blue thread, to make it plain that the first half of the commandment, i.e. the white threads applies always whereas the instructions to make one of the threads of blue wool applied only when the colour was at hand. <i>Menachot</i> 38 rules that the availability or non-availability of either kind of thread is no impediment to fulfilling the commandment with the kinds of threads which are available.
  
  Verse 39
  
   והיה לכם לציצית, "And it shall be unto you as a fringe, etc." It is not quite clear what the words "it shall be a fringe" is meant to convey. <i>Menachot</i> 43, where the view of Rabbi Meir that the penalty for not fulfilling the commandment with the white fringes is greater than the penalty for not fulfilling the commandment with the blue thread is discussed, illustrates this as follows: "Imagine a king who commanded two servants to bring him a golden seal or a clay seal, respectively. Both of them failed to bring him either kind of seal. Which one of the servants will be punished more severely? Clearly, the one who received the instruction to bring a seal of clay will be punished more severely because that command was easy to fulfil. <i>Tossaphot</i> comment that the reason Rabbi Meir chose this parable as illustration for the commandment of ציצית is that one places one's' seal on slaves as a mark of ownership. When the Israelites wear fringes this is evidence that they are servants of the Lord. We have further proof of this in <i>Shabbat</i> 57 where a slave's chain is not permitted to be carried from one domain to another domain on the Sabbath. Thus far <i>Tossaphot</i>. The words והיה לכם לציצית mean that wearing the ציצית will be proof that you are the Lord's servants just as wearing a slave's chain would be proof of whose slaves you are.
  וראיתם אתו, "and when you look at it, etc." When you look at the ציציות the symbol of your servitude to the Lord, you will remind yourselves that you are not totally free to do as you please in matters of food, clothing, etc., but you will remember all your duties, i.e. the commandments of the Torah.
  ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם, "and you will not deviate to follow the desires of your heart, etc." Normally, man employs his eyes to activate his desires. G'd's commandments frequently require us to do precisely the opposite of what we would like to do. This leads to an inner conflict in man. When we wear the fringes and are reminded to whom we owe obeisance, this makes it easier to comply with G'd's laws. If it were not for the commandment of ציצית we would often find it too hard to deny what our eyes have found alluring.
  למען תזכרו ועשיתם, "so that you will remember to do, etc." This is best understood by means of the example given in <i>Menachot</i> 44 of how the fringes kept its wearer from demeaning himself with a harlot. The Torah promises that the fringes themselves will protect you against committing all kinds of transgressions. In this instance the word ועשיתם "you will do," is to be understood as in <i>Kidushin</i> 39 where we were told that when a person is tempted to commit a sin and he resists it, i.e. he does nothing, it is accounted for him as if he had fulfilled one of the positive commandments. Our verse continues with והייתם קדושים, "you will be holy, etc." This may be understood in line with the statement in <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 24, that one is not awarded the title "holy" unless one had separated oneself from all matters of sexual licentiousness. The Torah goes on to say: I am the Lord your G'd, etc." This verse establishes G'd's credentials for all that He demands from us. Seeing He had taken us out of Egypt, from underneath far worse conditions of bondage, He is certainly entitled to place the mark of the fringes on us to demonstrate that we are obligated to be His servants. I have explained why the line "I am the Lord your G'd" is repeated at the end of <i>Parshat Behar</i> on the line: "for the children of Israel are. My servants" (Leviticus 25,55).
  Now we shall try to understand the mystical dimension of why this whole commandment applies only to garments which are four-cornered. Inasmuch as the fringes are a symbol of our being servants of the Lord, G'd commanded that the symbol should also testify as to who is our Master. Other nations too have their symbols by means of which they can identify who is a servant of whom. G'd decreed therefore that we must not attach these fringes to garments which are not four-cornered so as to symbolize that we are the servants of the Master whose Kingdom extends to the four corners of the globe. This symbolism would be lost if we attached fringes to three-cornered or rounded garments.
  G'd commanded that the threads be white to symbolise G'd's attributes of Mercy and goodness, something traditionally symbolised by the colour white. The colour blue symbolises G'd's mastery in the Celestial Regions, seeing the colour blue is similar to the colour of the sky. The number of threads i.e. 8 or 4 folded over, also symbolise His Holy name of four letters. His uniqueness in His Sanctuary is equivalent to the number 8, i.e. a combination of two of His names, י־ה־ו־ה plus א־ד־נ־י. According to <i>Menachot</i> 39 it is a mystical dimension of the <i>halachah</i> that the knot with which the blue thread is tied together with the white threads symbolises the mystical dimensions of kindness and mercy respectively. This is the mystical dimension of what constitutes heaven. This dimension is related to our patriarch Jacob who represents the attribute of תפארת, harmony. Kabbalists who have studied the mystical elements of the written Torah claim that the attribute of תפארת yearns for the attribute of חסד, kindness, the quality attributed to Abraham. This is the reason that the blue thread winds around the white threads, i.e. mercy coils itself around kindness, love. The relationship of the two is similar to the relationship of רוח to נשמה. 
  I wanted to explain why G'd did not permit any blue except that which is derived from a fish which comes out of the sea, and not from any other source which is itself blue. Perhaps this is what the sages meant when they said in <i>Chulin</i> 89 that the sea resembles the sky. We should also understand that mercy is rooted in the Torah which itself is allegorically compared to the sea.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקח קרח, Korach took, etc. What did the Torah mean when it wrote ויקח, "he took," without telling us what it was that Korach took? Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18 say that he took himself to one side. This implies that he diminished himself thereby. [I have not found this quote in that chapter of the <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> Ed.] When we think of Korach, we automatically think of someone who separated himself from the main body and lost out thereby. If the <i>Midrash</i> meant the same as Onkelos who renders the word as meaning that Korach seceded or differed, this is not accurate, philologically speaking. Clearly, Onkelos did not translate the word but explained its intent. Whereas both the <i>Midrash</i> and Onkelos are correct, there is yet a way to explain the word both as philologically appropriate and as reflecting an acceptable meaning. Furthermore, why did G'd list such great men as Yitzhar, Kehat and Levi, thereby associating them with Korach, when there was no need for this? This is especially puzzling since our sages say in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18,5 that Jacob prayed on his deathbed that his name not be associated with that of Korach? This proves that under ordinary circumstances his name should have been associated with Korach and that he was spared this only on account of his prayer. Personally, I am amazed at the list of outstanding ancestors of Korach whom the Torah did list. Thirdly, why did the Torah write ודתן ואבירם, in the same breath? What had they done to be lumped together with Korach? If the Torah meant to tell us that they too quarrelled, the Torah should have mentioned their names beside that of Korach, thus: ויקחו, "they took!" On the other hand, if the Torah meant that Korach took these men to join him in his quarrel with Moses, then their names should not have been preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. Fourthly, what did the Torah mean with the words "they rose up in the face of Moses and Aaron?" If it means that these people came to quarrel, the Torah has stated this already when it wrote ויקהלו על משה ואהרן, "they assembled themselves together against Moses and Aaron?" If the words merely mean that Datan and Aviram assumed an upright posture vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron, why did the Torah write the two verbs ויקהלו and ויקמו in separate verses and separate them from the other 250 men?
  The Torah wanted to tell us about the root cause of the quarrel. Anyone who reads the Torah must ask himself how Korach could even have imagined that his uprising could succeed? Moses' stature as an outstanding prophet had been proven over and over again so that it is strange for Korach to have imagined that he could succeed before the people would simply stone him to death for his impertinence! This is why the Torah tells us that Korach, a very clever man "took," i.e. he took stock of the factors which would give him a chance to rally the people around him. First, the Torah tells us that he was a son of יצהר older than his younger brothers Chevron and Uzziel. Kehat's younger sons could not present a claim against Korach seeing he was the oldest one surviving. [Amram was the oldest son of Kehat but may have died prior to the Exodus. Ed.] Secondly, he was a son (grandson) of Kehat the most illustrious of the sons of Levi, the ones entrusted with carrying the Holy Ark. Our sages say that Korach personally was one of the bearers of the Holy Ark. Thirdly, he was a descendant of Levi the most illustrious of the twelve tribes.
  The Torah goes on to say ודתן ואבירם, to tell us that Korach took them with him in order to challenge Moses also on their behalf seeing that they were the most important members of the tribe of Reuven, Jacob's first born son. These were the factors which encouraged these three men ויקמו, to claim a superior status vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron who were descended only from the third of Jacob's sons. Datan and Aviram based their assessment on the fact that they were the foremost dignitaries of the tribe of Reuven, which itself was descended from Jacob's firstborn son. The word ואנשים means that they took with them other dignitaries as support by such dignitaries strengthened their case in the eyes of the people. This is the reason why the line starting with ויקמו had to precede mention of the other 250 rebels.
  We may also explain the whole verse in terms of the opinion offered in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18,2 that Korach's main quarrel concerned Elitzafan the son of Uzziel upon whom Moses had bestowed the honour of being the prince, i.e. the chief dignitary of the Kehatites (Numbers 3,30). According to this view Korach "took" a string of arguments to prove that Moses had acted in a high-handed and arrogant manner when he appointed Elitzafan. He pointed out that 1) he was the son of Yitzhar who was senior to Uzziel the youngest of Kehat's sons. If Moses considered seniority of birth as important and this is why he had appointed Aaron as High Priest seeing he was the son of Amram, Kehat's oldest son, then the office of prince of the Kehatites should have been given to him inasmuch as his father was second to Amram in order of seniority of birth. Seeing that this is not what Moses did, Korach construed this as evidence that Moses had not been influenced by considerations of seniority of birth. This raised the question why Aaron had been chosen to be the High Priest? Seeing Moses had not explained the rationale of appointing Aaron as High Priest, Korach challenged that appointment. He claimed that all the Levites were of equal status. The Torah alluded to this when it described Korach as a "son" of Levi.
  Korach was afraid that the only one of his arguments which might succeed was his challenge to the position of Elitzafan, whereas no one would take seriously his argument against giving preference to the sons of Amram over the descendants of Kehat as it was accepted that seniority of birth was a reason to accord someone precedence in rank. This is why he looked for allies among the members of the tribe of Reuven whose claims to superior status based on seniority had been ignored. This then justifies the letter ו preceding mention of Datan and Aviram, i.e. ודתן ואבירם…בני ראובן. He challenged Moses that if he would defend Aaron's appointment as based on seniority, why had he ignored similar claims to senior positions by members of the tribe of Reuven and had not given the position of High Priest to a member of that tribe? When the Torah wrote ויקמו לפני משה ואהרן this means that they rose up in order to present their arguments before Moses and Aaron. They took with them other dignitaries from various segments of the people to ensure that Moses would not dismiss his arguments based on his self-appointed status of authority.
  <i>Sanhedrin</i> 109 offers another reason why the Torah lists the various ancestors of Korach. The Talmud says that the name קרח is a description of the man, i.e. he made a קרחה, "a bald spot" i.e. a depopulation in Israel. בן יצהר, is a reference to midday, צהרים. Korach caused the world to become even hotter at midday, i.e. to become angry at him during the normally hot part of the day. בן קהת, he <i>kiha</i> i.e. "blunted" or caused his ancestors to gnash their teeth," by making them ashamed of having such a grandson. בן לוי, "he made himself a companion to <i>Gehinom,</i> to hell. The Talmud asks that if we adopt this approach why was יעקב not also mentioned in Korach's genealogy and the meaning would be that Jacob produced a descendant who was "hell-bent," עקב עצמו לגיהנם? The answer given is that Jacob prayed that his name should not be associated with that of Korach. I fail to understand why the Talmud was at pains to associate negative connotations with the names of these righteous men who were Korach's ancestors, even going as far as trying to find negative connotations in the name of our patriarch Jacob? Besides, what point was there in trying to show that the fact that Korach was descended from Jacob paved the way to Gehinom, when the sage in the <i>Midrash</i> told us the same thing already when he explained why the Torah had associated Korach's name with Levi? Why did this association have to be repeated twice?
  Before answering these questions I must reveal two or three grains of the mystical dimensions of the Torah. 1) The branches of holiness which G'd confers upon the Israelites by means of the Torah are the paths [moral guidelines. Ed.] and the judicial elements of the Torah which G'd legislated and inscribed in the Torah by the hand of His servant Moses. Anyone who tampers with even the precise order in which these details have been recorded in the Torah is as if he were uprooting that particular branch of holiness associated with the nature of his soul, thereby turning this particular branch of holiness into something evil. This is so because he deprived this branch of its power to confer sanctity. This is also the reason why if someone had the wrong thought-association as to when or where he would eat the sacrificial meat of his animal-offering the entire sacrifice is considered impure, unfit and the person who eats from it is guilty of the <i>Karet</i> penalty.
  2) The very branch against which the person committed a wrong is the first to exact retribution from the sinner, as we know from Jeremiah 2,19 "that the very evil you are guilty of will act as the instrument which disciplines you." The prophet tells us that the source of sanctity once perverted will turn into a source of harm, G'd forbid.
  3) The very letters in the written Torah represent the various souls G'd has planted in His people. [This is the reason that Kabbalists insist that there are 600.000 letters in the Torah, something at variance with the count that we arrive at when checking the letters in the Torah. Obviously, Kabbalists use a different method of deciding what constitutes a "letter." Ed.]
  4) When G'd created man He thereby created a single "plant" which comprised all branches of holiness. When man sinned, all the souls which were part of him became defective, flawed, and this is why all of Adam's descendants had flawed souls. This process was not reversed or even halted until the soul of Abraham emerged. His soul underwent ten trials, i.e. a tenfold process of refinement. The flawed parts of his soul departed from him through the birth of Ishmael. When Isaac's soul emerged, it was refined by means of the עקדה, his preparedness to give his life for G'd at his father's bidding. Any residue of the flawed parts of his soul departed from him with the birth of Esau. As a result, when Jacob's soul emerged it no longer contained flawed parts. This is the meaning of <i>Baba Metzia</i> 84: "The spiritual beauty of our patriarch Jacob was akin to the spiritual purity of original man." Clearly, what the Talmud meant was the spiritual beauty of Adam before he sinned.
  From the foregoing it becomes clear that Jacob was perceived as a tree from which twelve branches emerged, one of which was Levi. This branch in turn produced three new branches, Gershom, Kehat and Merari. Kehat himself produced four branches, Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron and Uzziel. The branch produced by Yitzhar was Korach. As soon as Korach tried to tamper with the order of holiness which the Torah had laid down and tried to interfere with who was accorded the priesthood, all the branches of holiness going right back to the root of his soul became flawed. Up until this time all these "branches" had contributed positively to Korach's stature as a distinguished person. The process of these sources of Korach's stature (holiness) becoming flawed commenced with Korach himself and proceeded further and further into his ancestry. Originally, the name Korach (קרח=ice) stood for purity. The name Yitzhar (צהר) symbolised the light of the world when it is at its brightest, i.e. at noon. The name Kehat stood for people gnashing (קהה) their teeth in envy when they beheld the splendid stature of that man. The name "son of Levi" conjured up the image of a person equipped (לוה) by G'd with numerous advantages since birth. Now the branch itself which had borne a complimentary name קרח, had become defective so that its wearer had made a "bald spot," depilation, on this branch. Not only had he caused his own branch to become flawed but also the immediate root that he came from had become flawed, i.e. the name Yitzhar now represented something negative, causing fiery anger in the world. Not only this one immediate root of Korach's soul had become flawed but even that of the previous generation, i.e. בן קהת had become defective so as to cause the teeth of those who had sired them to gnash in anger at their being embarassed by their offspring. Even the root of the first branch which Jacob had produced, the root of Korach's soul, Levi, had become defective and flawed so that it turned on its descendant consigning him to Gehinom instead of afffording him the presence of the Divine. The reason that Jacob is not mentioned was that Jacob had not become aware of Korach's behaviour although Korach's flawed soul affected Jacob's soul also and it was doubtful if Korach's entire soul [his link with the holy soul of Jacob, Ed.] had thereby become irreversibly flawed or not.
  Remember that there is a disagreement amongst the sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108 as to whether Korach and those who made common cause with him have a share in the hereafter or not. According to the view that through his action Korach's link to Jacob's soul had been irrevocably damaged, these people have no share in the hereafter. This is why the sage in the Talmud asked that if that is indeed so [that Korach and company have no share in the hereafter, Ed.] the Torah should have mentioned Jacob as an antecedent of Korach so that we would have known why he has no share in the hereafter. That sage was very precise in the wording of his question since he added the words שעקב עצמו לגיהנם, "he made himself travel to Gehinom." The word עקב must then be understood as derived from the root "heel," i.e. Korach backtracked morally all the way, winding up in Gehinom as a result. He reached moral rock bottom. We find that our sages employ this kind of terminology in <i>Sotah</i> 49 when speaking of בעקבות משיחא, "at the tail end of the exile." When the sage in the Talmud answered that Jacob offered a prayer that his name not be associated with that of Korach this meant that but for that prayer Korach would have forfeited all claim to the hereafter. G'd did Jacob a favour, however, and the fact that the Torah does not mention Jacob as being an ancestor of Korach indicates that he had not been completely cut off from his holy root, i.e. Jacob. Alternatively, Jacob's prayer was concerned about what damage could happen to his own soul if he was connected to Korach and he prayed to be spared this negative fallout from Korach's rebellion. Clearly, Rabbi Eliezer who quoted Samuel I 2,6: "G'd consigns to Sheol and has raised them," used this verse to substantiate his opinion that Korach and company did not lose their share in the hereafter, as opposed to Rabbi Akiva (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 109). I believe that we must pay very careful attention to the wording used in the verse in Samuel, i.e. ויעל, in the past tense as opposed to the first half of the same verse which describes G'd as ממית ומחיה, "killing and reviving" in the present tense. Also the verse following the one we quoted from Samuel states ה׳ מוריש ומעשיר, "G'd disinherits or makes wealthy," is in the present tense. Why did Hannah change the tenses in this one instance where she referred to someone who had already been raised from Gehinom while still in the process of descending there? It appears clear that she must have referred to Korach who is the only instance of someone who had descended to Sheol while alive. Rabbi Eliezer felt that the verse proves that Korach's place in the hereafter had already been secured prior to his descent to the regions of Gehinom. This was in answer to Jacob's prayer that he not be associated with Korach.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדושים, "a great deal for you, for the whole community is holy." They meant that Moses and Aaron had arrogated too much authority to themselves. In the event that Moses and Aaron would ask wherein precisely they had arrogated to themselves too much authority, Korach and company said that in view of the fact that the entire community was holy having experienced direct communication from G'd something not granted to any other nation, plus the fact that G'd remained within its midst, Moses and Aaron had placed themselves above such a holy nation. By saying ובתוכם השם, "and G'd is in their midst," they hinted that the presence of G'd was due to the people and not to the merit of Moses and Aaron.
  In view of this, מדוע תתנשאו "why do you raise yourselves above the community of G'd?" Korach and company referred specifically to the domain of the Tabernacle and the Sanctuary which Moses had declared out of bounds to ordinary Israelites on pain of death. They accused Moses and Aaron of having insulted the community as a whole by denying them access to the Sanctuary and the opportunity to perform sacrificial service there.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישמע משה ויפל על פניו. When Moses heard this he fell upon his face. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Moses heard what Korach said? Korach and company had been described as addressing Moses; it is obvious that he heard what they said. Furthermore, what precisely is the meaning of Moses "falling?" It appears that inasmuch as the scoffers had not yet completed what they came to say the Torah wanted to inform us that Moses already understood their meaning even though they had not spelled it out as yet. Accordingly, we may assume that Moses "fell" already as soon as Korach accused him of having raised himself above the people. He wanted to demonstrate that far from raising himself above the people he humbled himself and made himself equal to the dust of the earth like a slave prostrating himself before a master. As far as the second accusation was concerned, i.e. the fact that Aaron was the High Priest, he told the rebels that already on the morrow G'd Himself would demonstrate whether Aaron's appointment was an act of nepotism or any other form of autocratic behaviour, or if he had been appointed at the command of G'd Himself.
  
  Verse 5
  
   בקר וידע ה׳ את אשר לו, "In the morning G'd will make known who is His, etc." The reason Moses said that the proof would come on the morrow and he did not offer to provide the proof immediately may either have been due to the fact that the incense offered every afternoon had already been offered on that day, or it may have been so that they could not accuse him of having chosen a time of day when G'd is not particularly well disposed towards the people. According to the <i>Zohar</i> second volume page 39 the late afternoon is a time when the attribute of Justice is in the ascendancy. In addition, Moses may have wanted to give Korach and associates time to reflect on the enormity of their challenge so that they could desist and repent before dawn. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18,7 suggest additional reasons why Moses delayed until the next morning.
  את אשר לו ואת הקדוש, "who is His and who is holy, etc." Why did Moses have to repeat this statement (although he changed the wording somewhat)? The <i>Zohar</i> says that the words אשר לו refer to the status of the Levites, whereas the word קדוש refers to the status of the priesthood. If so, we must still understand why Moses had to mention the Levites altogether seeing that Korach had only challenged the appointment of the priests. If you consider that I have explained that Korach took the elders of Reuven in order to buttress his arguments that Moses had ignored the privileges due to people of seniority, we can understand that Korach had argued that the privileges of seniority should be restored to the members of the tribe of Reuven. In that event Moses also had to defend the appointment of the Levites to their respective positions.
  We must also try and understand why Moses repeated that G'd would bring close to Him the one whom He considered holy, i.e. ואת הקדש הקריב אליו, ואת אשר יבחר יקריב אליו. Perhaps we can understand this by analysing the nature of Korach's complaints. Firstly, he claimed that Aaron was not specifically suited to be High Priest seeing there were people more qualified than he. Secondly, Korach argued that even if he granted Aaron's qualifications to be High Priest, there were others equally qualified to perform the sacrificial service with him. Why should he enjoy an exclusive? Concerning the argument that there were people better qualified than Aaron, Moses said את אשר לו, that G'd would demonstrate whom He had chosen, i.e. who had been designated for this task since creation. We have a parallel situation in Jeremiah 1,5 where G'd told Jeremiah that He had selected him for his task already before he was born. The words ואת הקדש mean that after having come into the world Aaron had sanctified himself in order to be worthy to occupy the position for which he had been destined. Moses carefully chose the expression והקריב to make it plain that Aaron had already been divinely approved and that G'd had seen fit to make His שכינה come to rest on him. Concerning the claim that others were just as worthy as Aaron to perform the service in the Tabernacle, Moses said ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, "if G'd chooses anyone in addition He will bring him close to Him, i.e. they too will be allowed to enter the Tabernacle, etc."
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויקרב אתך ואת כל אחיך בני לוי, "He has brought you close together with all your brethren the sons of Levi." What is the meaning of the הבדלה, separation, of which Moses spoke in the previous verse and the הקריבה, the bringing near, of which he speaks in our verse? Maybe Moses referred to two different levels of spiritual elevation. The הבדלה, is the lower level of elevation which all the members of the tribe of Levi participated in and which resulted in their elevation vis-a-vis עדת ישראל. The הקריבה referred to the special status conferred on the Kehatites, whose task of transporting the Holy Ark, etc. reflected their superior status even amongst the Levites. Moses used the word אתך, "especially you personally," indicating that all his brothers depended on Korach and looked up to him.
  
  Verse 11
  
   לכן אתה וכל עדתך, "Therefore, you and your whole congregation, etc." The word לכן is equivalent to an oath. Moses swears that Korach and associates are gathered against G'd (not against Moses). Moses did so in the hope that when they realised this they might yet become afraid to continue this quarrel and not go through with the test to determine who was fit to be a priest.
  
  Verse 12
  
   וישלח משה לקרא, Moses despatched a messenger to call, etc. Moses was clever in trying to speak to Datan and Aviram individually, not when all the rebels were together, hoping thereby to persuade them to adopt a more receptive attitude. He also hoped that the honour he paid them by inviting them individually might cause them to at least listen to what he had to say. The Torah uses the word משה although there was no need to tell us who invited Datan and Aviram. The Torah emphasised that these people received an invitation from the king for a private audience.
  לא נעלה; המעט כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב ודבש, "we will not go up; is it not enough that you have taken us away from a land flowing with milk and honey, etc.?" By saying לא נעלה, Datan and Aviram made it clear that seeing they did not consider Moses fit to be their leader, they also did not consider it an honour to be secluded with him in a private audience. They spurned any honour which emanated from Moses.
  They justified their attitude vis-a-vis Moses by citing Moses' track record as a leader. They ridiculed what Moses had portrayed as an ascent from Egypt, saying: "is this what you call an ascent that you took us from a land flowing with milk and honey and now we are stuck in a desert, a place only fit to die? If this is your idea of an עליה, ascent, improvement in our lot, then no thank you, we do not want any part of it." They added כי תשתרר עלינו, "your sole purpose is to make yourself a prince over us." They did not even give Moses credit that his invitation was designed to provide them with a "soft landing," a face-saving opportunity to climb down from the limb they were on. By repeating the words גם השתרר, they added insult to injury claiming that Moses was not content with his status as leader prior to the Exodus, but that he wanted to consolidate his position. They hinted thereby that it suited Moses' purpose for the Israelites to remain in the desert for a long time as they were dependent upon him and this strengthened his positon as autocrat. We do know from <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 5,23 that Moses' position as king was in effect only while the Jewish people were in the desert.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, "Moreover, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, etc." Since they had already accused Moses of bringing them to a place where all one could do was to die, what was the point of accusing him that he had not brought them to a land flowing with milk and honey? Rashi gives a rather forced explanation to this question. Perhaps we can say that Datan and Aviram did not want to justify their refusal to go and see Moses merely because he had brought them to a place where all one could do was die. They implied that even if all he had done was not to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey this would be sufficient reason for them to decline his invitation as Moses had failed to deliver on his promise. The words אף לא אל mean that this latter detail is already enough reason to decline his invitation. They were working up to their next argument: "will you put out the eyes of these men?" They implied that the fact that Moses had caused the people actual damage by marooning them in the desert was an additional reason for not coming to see him."
  העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, "should you gouge out the eyes of those men? we will not go up." They meant that they would rather have their eyes gouged out than to pay Moses the compliment of accepting his invitation. This comment revealed the very depth of their hatred. They preferred to have their eyes gouged out rather than to be granted a favour by the righteous Moses. No wonder Moses anger was greatly aroused!
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמר אל ה׳ אל תפן, He said to G'd: "do not turn to their gift-offering." Moses now understood the depth of Datan and Aviram's hatred, that they were thoroughly wicked and actually hated anything or anybody who was good. He was aware that there are no people who do not have certain merits due to good deeds they have performed. He realised that G'd does not withhold the reward for such merits from anyone, and that if the people in question cannot be rewarded in the hereafter because they had forfeited their hereafter, G'd would compensate them in this life. This is based on Deut. 32,4 that "the Lord is one of faithfulness without iniquity." <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 provides us with an example of the wicked Bileam, who had after all pronounced all the blessings on the Jewish people, collecting his fee for having the Moabites seduce the Israelites, prior to his being slain. Moses did not want G'd to accept even the good deeds Korach and associates had performed for whom they had not yet received a reward. This is what he had in mind when he referred to מנחתם.
  You may well ask how Moses could expect G'd to change the rules of how He dealt with the wicked on account of himself?
  Be aware that the righteous possess the power to annul merits which the wicked have accumulated when they observe that the potential recipients have become thoroughly wicked. This is the mystical dimension of Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, "The righteous rules in matters of G'd-fearingness." This means that G'd has given the righteous leeway to cancel merits that the wicked have acquired. The idea is that although G'd Himself does not do this, He has allowed the righteous to be His surrogates in this respect. This is not so surprising as the same principle which has been adopted by a court in our world which has the right to deprive an accused of property he owns under the heading of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when a Jewish court declares certain property as ownerless such a declaration is binding (compare <i>Gittin</i> 36).
  You may still ask why Moses demanded such an exceptional punishment for Korach and his associates? Surely the mere fact that they hated Moses was not enough of a reason for Moses to act in this manner? Moreover, did we not learn in <i>Moed Katan</i> 18 that when someone is accused of something, if he is not guilty of the whole accusation he is at least guilty of part of it, and even if he is not guilty of having carried out part of the evil deed attributed to him he may have planned to do so? In view of this how could Moses demand such a penalty? This is the reason that Moses began to justify himself publicly saying that he had never taken anything from anybody, i.e. he had not displayed any sign that he lorded it over the people. He had not been guilty of any of the things that kings normally do without being faulted.
  He added ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, "neither have I hurt anyone of them (in some other way)." Moses meant he had not been guilty of any act that would account for someone hating him for it.
  When Moses said the words את אחד מהם, this included that he was not even involved when one Jew hurt another Jew in some way. He had never given a verdict in which the guilty had been exonerated, nor had he issued a verdict in which the innocent had been declared guilty. If, as a result of his decision, one party had to pay money to a second party this was not Moses' doing but the guilty party had caused that loss to the other. Seeing that Moses possessed sufficient prophetic insight not to make awards to people who did not deserve them from people who were innocent of wrongdoing, he could say of himself that he had not wronged anybody during his career as leader of the nation. Inasmuch as Datan and Aviram's hatred of him could only be the result of bad character, Moses felt entitled to ask G'd to deprive these men of any merits they might have accumulated in their lives and for which they had not yet been recompensed. I believe that the wicked people concerning whom Moses offered this prayer, i.e. Datan and Aviram, were not considered by him as part of the congregation of Korach concerning whom we applied the verse from Samuel I that their share in the resurrection had already been assured (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108). The souls of these men (Datan and Aviram) must have had their roots in the קליפה, the spiritually negative domain of Satan.
  
  Verse 16
  
   אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני השם, "you and your whole congregation be in the presence of the Lord!" Why did Moses not include Aaron in the same breath, seeing he too was supposed to bring incense? Why did he mention Aaron separately? Had Moses done so he would not have had to repeat the words: "you and they." Perhaps Moses wanted to emphasise that the decision would be made on the morrow. He did not want to give the rebels a chance to put off the date of the confrontation and perhaps add to their numbers in the interval. As far as Aaron was concerned Moses did not worry about when the confrontation would take place. He only had to mention that Aaron too would bring his censer.
  Another reason Moses gave the people until the morning was so that they could sanctify themselves in the interval. This was the meaning of: "be in the presence of the Lord." He certainly did not have to include Aaron as amongst the people who had to sanctify themselves as Aaron was always in a state of readiness to present himself before G'd. He did have to tell Aaron to be present at that time on the morrrow. The reason the whole instruction has been repeated seeing Moses had already told Korach and associates to take censers for incense in verse 6, is that in the interval Moses had rebuked the rebels and pointed out to them that they were guilty of overreaching themselves. In view of the fact that these people did not accept Moses' rebuke he had to tell them again to prepare for the confrontation which would be the test.
  
  Verse 17
  
   חמישים ומאתים מחתות, ואתה ואהרון "two hundred and fifty censers as well as you and Aaron." All these words are superfluous in view of what Moses said in verse 16, i.e. "you and your whole congregation as well as Aaron." If all Moses wanted to tell us was how many people were going to appear with the censers this should have been part of verse 16. The words "you and Aaron" are superfluous whichever way you look at it. Perhaps Moses was clever enough to tell Korach not to become part of the 250 men and their censers but to compete only with Aaron. He may have done so to prevent people from claiming that the only reason Korach's incense had not been accepted was because he had become part of the evil congregation of 250 men, but that in a straight confrontation with Aaron he would have won out. Even though all the people offering incense did so at the same time, this did not prevent them from doing so in two groups, i.e. the 250 men on the one hand and Korach and Aaron on the other.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויקהל עליהם קרח, Korach assembled against them, etc. This tells us that these people did not voluntarily assemble against Moses but only after Korach had put heavy pressure on them to do so. Accordingly, the Torah reports something here that is favourable for this whole congregation of 250 men. On the other hand, the words ויקהל עליהם may only provide the background to the command by G'd in verse 20 to separate themselves from this congregation in order that G'd could destroy them simultaneously and at once. The verse would provide the answer to the people who questioned why the animals had to perish along with their masters. What sin had the animals committed? To this the Torah answered that seeing the animals had obeyed Korach they were considered as if they had been supporters of his.
  וירא כבוד השם The glory of the Lord appeared, etc. The entire congregation experienced this glory of the Lord in order that they would recognise that it was G'd Himself who carried out this judgment and that only He decides who is worthy to serve Him in the capacity of a priest.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   הבדלו מתוך העדה הואת "separate yourselves from this congregation, etc." This instruction was not addressed to Moses and Aaron as they did not have anything to fear from the attribute of Justice. Nothing would happen to them even if they remained standing close while G'd killed the whole community. I can give you proof of this when you consider that Aaron who was part of that group when he offered his incense remained unharmed while the earth opened underneath Korach and his family and swallowed them. G'd's instructions were addressed to the other righteous men in the congregation, people such as Joshua and Caleb as well as the families of Moses and Aaron. G'd prefaced His instructions to Moses and Aaron with the word לאמור. If the instructions had applied to Moses and Aaron themselves the word לאמור would have confused them. G'd addressed the righteous people who had to demonstrate by separating themselves that they disassociated themselves from Korach and his associates.
  ואכלה אותם כרגע, "and I will consume them in a moment." Why did G'd add the word כרגע, "in a moment?" If all G'd wanted to inform us of was that He possessed the power to wipe out 600.000 people in a flash, He had already told us this in Exodus 33,5 "for if I go up in your midst for one moment, I shall consume you."
  It appears according to the <i>Midrash</i> quoted by Rashi on verse 22,4 that this was already the fourth time the Israelites sinned and that the uprising of Korach occurred after the sin of the spies. I have explained there that the decree that the Israelites would die in the desert remained in effect but that Moses' prayer in this instance only prevented G'd from destroying the people all at once instead of over an extended period of time. In view of all this, the congregation we speak about here was already guilty of death in the desert. The Torah therefore reintroduces the threat to kill the whole people at once. This provides us with an answer as to why G'd would decree death for the vast majority of the people who had not been part of this uprising at all. Moses himself speaks about a single person sinning and the whole community becoming the target of G'd's anger (verse 22). Actually, as we demonstrated, the people were under sentence of death regardless of whether they associated themselves with Korach's rebellion or not. We have learned in <i>Shabbat</i> 32 that Satan is always especially active when there is danger. At such times even a relatively mild offence such as talking during the prayers is considered serious enough to free soldiers from participating in expansionary wars lest they endanger themselves needlessly on account of that sin. It is clear that the sin of talking during prayers is not a captial offence. It is only the fact that during war the angel of death is especially active which makes the unatoned for sin of talking during prayers potentially lethal. In our situation, the fact that the people were under sentence of death anyway would have made the angel of death eager to kill them at once if they had not first dissociated themselves from Korach.
  After looking further into this matter I have realised that ordering the people to separate themselves from Korach's group could be perceived as therapy for the Jewish people. Had G'd not given these instructions, only those righteous amongst the Jewish people who had not yet been included in the decree that they would die in the desert would have escaped becoming victims of the angel of death at that time. By giving this instruction G'd actually gave the Israelites an opportunity to save themselves from imminent death seeing that all of them had a minor share in Korach's sin because they had not protested it. In fact, failure to protest what Koarch was trying to do was equivalent to being a passive supporter of Korach. G'd instructed Moses and Aaron to separate the righteous and thus enable him to pray on their behalf to ask for them to be spared, invoking his own merit. This is why G'd said to Moses: "tell the whole congregation 'get up from from around the dwelling of Korach, Datan and Aviram'" (verse 24). If we accept this approach the word הבדלו in our verse was meant to alert Moses and Aaron to pray, seeing there was no need for Moses and Aaron to separate themselves in order not to become victims of Korach's sin. Perhaps this is what G'd alluded to when He said לאמור, meaning that the whole purpose of G'd speaking to them at this juncture was לאמור, in order that Moses and Aaron start to pray as we indeed find that they did in verse 22. If we accept this interpretation we need not understand that G'd referred to Moses and Aaron removing their families from around the tent of Korach.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויאמרו קל אלוקי חרוחות, They said: "O G'd the G'd of the spirits of all flesh, etc." The reason Moses used the name קל for G'd was that he realised that the attribute of Justice was in the ascendancy. By invoking the attribute קל Moses hoped to counterbalance the attribute of Justice with the attribute of חסד, loving kindness.
  By referring to G'd as the "G'd of the spirits of all flesh," Moses used an argument that always evokes an echo from G'd as He wants that all spirits accept His Kingdom while they are still flesh, i.e. alive in this world. By saying הרוחות, Moses indicated that he referred to something spiritual, i.e. the G'd of thoughts and ideas. We find something parallel in Ezekiel 20,32 והעולה על רוחכם היו לא תהיה, "what enters your thoughts it shall not be!" Moses argued that though the judgment which G'd planned to perform through annihilating the whole people instantaneously was fair, the fact remained that to the outsider the impression this would create would be that G'd killed the whole people on account of the rebellious act of an individual. After all, it was clear that this rebellion did not involve the whole community! If G'd would proceed with what He had planned, the human mind would be so appalled by this that it might forever reject acknowledging such a G'd.
  Moses also intended that his words should have a calming effect on G'd, making Him better disposed towards the Jewish people. He did so by reminding G'd of a variety of creatures who did not only recognize His sovereignty but paid tribute to it such as the angels, the souls of the righteous who have already departed from this earth, as well as the righteous souls who have not yet been assigned bodies to inhabit. We know that there is a store of such souls from <i>Yevamot</i> 62 where we have been taught that the Messiah cannot come until that store of souls has been emptied and all the souls therein have been asssigned bodies to inhabit. All of these souls acclaim and praise the Lord as we know from Proverbs 16,4: "G'd has made everything to serve Him." The songs of praises recited by the souls which inhabit bodies in this world are still more precious to G'd. Why would G'd do something which would make it difficult or impossible for these souls to praise Him if they went to their graves prematurely? By consigning them to death G'd would make it impossible for these souls to grow to love Him! The <i>Zohar</i> elaborates on the theme of how important it is to G'd for man to grow to love Him.
  Considering all this, Moses was very astute in using the appellation אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, implying that G'd wants that all spirits would acknowledge, praise and love Him while they were still fused to the flesh. Killing them all at once would thwart G'd's desire. It was not reasonable then to allow the attribute of Justice to remain in the ascendancy.
  The reason Moses referred to G'd's anger was to demonstrate that though G'd was perfectly aware that this particular rebellion was started by a single man, the punishment it provoked was only due to G'd's anger, i.e. תקצף.
  האיש אחד יחטא, "shall one man sin, etc.?" Why did Moses phrase this in the future tense? He should have said: האיש אחד חטא? He referred to the fact that as long as Korach had not actually presented his incense he had not yet challenged Aaron's priesthood except with words. All he had been guilty of so far was ridiculing the system. If he were willing to retract, it would not be too late to save him.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   דבר אל העדה לאמור, "speak to the congregation to say, etc." It appears unusual that G'd uses the relatively harsh דבר when the thrust of the message is to save the people from death. He did so in order to demonstrate that He minded terribly that there were Jews who were so careless with their lives that they risked it by not removing themselves from immediate danger. This is why G'd not only employed the tough דבר, but repeated the word לאמור in verse 25 to ensure that the message would get across to the people. G'd demonstrated how important it was to Him that this precious people not be diminished in numbers. The repetition of the word לאמור may mean that the exact wording of G'd's message was left to Moses. If he did not want to phrase it so harshly he was at liberty to do so. As long as the result of the way Moses relayed G'd's message was העלו that the people would remove themselves from around the tents of these rebels this was all that mattered. In fact, Moses did make some changes when he did not mention Korach by name but referred only to "these wicked people (verse 26)."
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם, Moses rose up and went to Datan and Aviram, etc." Why did the Torah have to write ויקם that Moses rose up? If the Torah only wanted us to know that Moses had been sitting down before, why is this piece of information important to us 3000 years later? We may have to understand this in light of Proverbs 16,18 לפני שבר גאון, that "pride goes before ruin," and Proverbs 16,33 ולפני כבוד ענוה, "whereas humility precedes honour." Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 45,5 explain what David meant in Psalms 113,5 המגביהי לשבת. "When others deride me, G'd elevates me, whereas when I elevate myself G'd puts me in my place." Similarly in our verse. As soon as Moses had decided to waive his dignity and to go and appeal to Datan and Abiram, "he arose," i.e. he was elevated in the eyes of G'd. This is also the meaning of the verses we have quoted from Proverbs.
  
  Verse 26
  
   וידבר אל העדה לאמור, He spoke to the congregation, saying, etc. The word לאמור means here that Moses told the people that he had been instructed by G'd to tell them what he was about to say.
  סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה, "please depart from the tents of these wicked men." Moses was very astute in requesting from the people that by their departure from the tents of Korach they should indicate that they considered these men as wicked and about to perish. They should be afraid lest the evil that would overtake these men would also overtake them. If that would be the motivation behind their removing their presence from the tents of Korach G'd would interpret this positively and save them also from coming to harm. Even though G'd had already indicated that it was sufficient to merely remove oneself from Korach's tent, the righteous, such as Moses, are always concerned with helping their contemporaries to acquire additional merits.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויעלו מעל קרח ודתן ואבירם, They lifted themselves up from the residence of Korach, etc. The effrontery of Datan and Aviram in continuing to maintain a defiant posture though they had already been abandoned by their fellow travelers who had withdrawn in fear of being punished together with them, made a suitable impression on Moses so that he announced that the people would witness Divine intervention by the manner in which these people were going to die. This was to prove that he had not appointed himself as their leader but that G'd had appointed him at the time. The words את כל המעשים האלה mean that everything Moses had done including insignificant appearing things were all carried out at G'd's instruction. He now said that not only would these people die immediately but they would die a particularly gruesome death.
  
  Verse 28
  
   בזאת תדעון, "Hereby you shall know, etc." Why did Moses think that after all that had occurred during the preceding two years that the Israelites still did not believe that he was a true prophet? Furthermore, why did he have to repeat כי לא מלבי, "that I did not do all these things arbitraily?" The people did not actually accuse Moses of having acted on his own when he appointed Aaron as High Priest, etc. However, they thought that Moses had exploited his good standing in the eyes of G'd to persuade G'd to agree with his personal choices for these positions. Alternatively, the people had thought that Moses had desired for these particular appointments to be made and G'd had read his mind and indulged him by telling him to make these appointments. The people had not disagreed that Aaron was unworthy to be the High Priest. Moses therefore countered that what was about to occur would be proof that he had not even initiated any of these decisions but that all of them had originated with G'd. As to the people's suspicion that in his heart Moses had wished for these people to be appointed to the positions they had been appointed to at the command of G'd, he said כי לא מלבי, "the thought had never occurred to me." The word כי here indicates that Moses felt he did not need to prove that he had acted on his own. All he had to prove was that he had not even entertained any thought of appointing close relatives to high positions such as the position of being High Priest.
  אם כמות כל האדם, "If, in a manner similar to the death of anyone else, etc." In this instance the term האדם is one that includes Gentiles. We have a parallel for this in <i>Baba Kama</i> 38 where the Talmud explained that the word האדם in Leviticus 18,3 includes Gentiles. So far Moses referred to the actual death. The words ופקדת כל האדם refer to their burial. We have an example of that meaning of the word פקדה in Kings II 9,34 where the burial of Queen Izzevel is described. The words לא ה׳ שלחני mean that if Moses' prediction will fail to materialise this would be proof that G'd had not appointed him but that he himself had originated all he had done though G'd had not hindered him. The words ואם בריאה introduce what is going to happen, i.e. that body and soul will perish simultaneously.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואם בריאה יברא ה׳ ופצתה האדמה את פיה, "If G'd will create a new creation and the earth will open its mouth, etc." Why did the word בריאה have to be repeated? Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 37 explain that the earth's mouth has remained closed ever since the day that the earth opened it in order to hide the blood of Abel whom Cain had slain and that this was the curse the Torah referred to in Genesis 4,11. This meant that whenever the earth wanted to open its mouth in order to sing G'd's praises it had to use its "wings" rather than its mouth. This is the meaning of Isaiah 24,16: מכנף הארץ זמרות שמענו, "we have heard songs from the wings of the earth." In this instance when Moses wanted to punish the wicked he said: ואם בריאה יברא השם "if the Lord will create a new creation." [The author explains why Moses did not say ואם יברא הי בריאה. Ed.] He referred to a creation which had once existed, namely the mouth of the earth, but which had been sealed due to some deed the earth had carried out so that for practical purposes this creative act of G'd had been undone. Now Moses wanted the mouth of the earth to be opened again so that it could swallow Korach and associates. Perhaps this was Moses' way of affording the earth an opportunity to make up for a time when it had opened its mouth to hide a sin, i.e. to swallow the blood of a righteous person, i.e. Abel.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ככלתו לדבר את כל הדברים, "when he finished saying all this," The earth timed its action at the precise moment when Moses completed what he had to say. As soon as Moses was finished it swallowed Korach, etc.
  ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, The earth which was underneath them split. Why did the Torah have to write both that the earth "split" and that it "opened its mouth?" Why did the Torah describe the earth as אדמה when describing that it split, and as ארץ when "it opened its mouth?" Perhaps the mouth of the earth had not previously been situated exactly where Korach and his associates stood at the time so that the earth's reaction had to be described as a crack in its surface; for practical purposes this now became the earth's mouth. The crack was described as a crack in the אדמה, the mouth as the mouth of the ארץ.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   וירדו…חיים שאולה, they descended into Sheol while still alive. The earth did not kill them but they remained alive so that the bowels of the earth became their Gehinom. The reason the Torah did not say חיים לשאול, but חיים שאולה is that although generally speaking when a word should have the letter ל at the beginning, the letter ה at the end of that word can substitute for the missing letter ל at the beginning, the Torah does not make such changes arbitrarily, without a reason. In this instance the Torah hinted by means of this construction that after Korach and associates descended they did not die but were given the ability to remain alive. This is what is meant by <i>Sanhedrin</i> 100 that G'd gives the wicked the ability to experience their punishment. If they were to die too soon they would not suffer the pain of G'd's retribution. If the Torah had written לשאול instead of שאולה, the meaning would have been that they died as soon as they arrived in Gehinom.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אמר אל אלעזר, "say to Eleazar, etc." The reason Moses instructed Eleazar to collect these censers rather than Aaron was that he did not think the High Priest should perform such a menial task. It is also possible that seeing that these people had died in order to prove that Aaron was the High Priest, i.e. that Aaron had been a cause of their death, G'd did not want that the act of giving some status to these censers should be performed by Aaron.
  וירם את המחתות, and he shall lift up the censers, etc. In view of the fact that this was a totally new commandment why did the Torah write the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word וירם? Perhaps the Torah considered this use of the censers as part of the demise of Korach and associates. G'd wanted the people to see that the Priesthood of Aaron had been His doing and that He would reinforce this decision by reminding the people of it throughout the generations when they would observe that the censers of the people who had challenged Aaron's status were being used by Aaron when he performed the sacrificial service on the altar.
  
  Verse 3
  
   החטאים האלה בנפשתם, "of these sinners who sinned at the cost of their souls." The reason the Torah repeats this may have been so that Aaron and Moses would not feel badly at having been involved in causing the deaths of these people. The Israelites should also not attribute the death of Korach and associates to any fault on the part of Moses or Aaron. The Torah therefore emphasises that not Moses and Aaron but solely these sinners themselves were to blame for what happened to them. In spite of all this, the Israelites did not understand G'd's intention and accused Moses and Aaron of being the cause of the death of these people (17,6).
  כי הקריבום לפני ה׳ ויקדשו, "because they were offered before the Lord and have become sanctified." G'd explains that if He ordered these censers to be turned into a cover for the altar this did not mean that He was pleased with the incense that had been offered in them; on the contrary, the incense was repugnant to Him. However, the fact that these censers had been used for a holy purpose made them holy themselves. The new dimension of all this is that these censers were considered holy before the wrong people offered incense in them as they had been constructed for a holy purpose. ויקדשו, "they have become sanctified;" when someone donates silver or golden trinkets for the Temple, these trinkets become sanctified. Consider the status of these censers if the associates of Korach had decided at the last moment not to go through with their challenge to offer incense in them. The censers would have remained holy although they had not been used for the purpose for which they had been designated. As to the argument of Nachmanides against Rashi that the status of these censers was similar to vessels a non-priest constructed in order to offer a sacrifice outside the precincts of the Temple [and which therefore are not holy, Ed.], the Torah writes: "they have been offered before the Lord and become sanctified" (i.e. inside the precincts of the Tabernacle). The situation is not comparable to the one described by Nachmanides then as these censers had been brought to a site which was sanctified.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   למען אשר לא יקרב איש זר "in order that a non-priest should not approach, etc." Why did the Torah add the words "and so that he shall not become like Korach?" <i>Sanhedrin</i> 110 derives from these words that if someone helps a quarrel to continue he is guilty of transgressing a negative commandment. In addition to this interpretation in the Talmud the Torah may have wanted to explain why it had to recall to people, זכרון, what happened to Korach who brought an unauthorised offering, and why it was not sufficient to merely forbid such offerings in the normal manner and to warn of the death that had befallen Korach. People would not be frightened by this. They would consider it an exceptional occurrence. Only the addition of the word זכרון would impress upon them how seriously G'd viewed the offence of someone arrogating to himself the privileges reserved for the priests.
  כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה לו, "as G'd had said to him by means of Moses." The wording of this verse reveals that when Moses had told Korach that G'd would create something new and that he would descend into the bowels of the earth after the earth would split, he had not said this until G'd Himself had told him so. Had the Torah not written this we would have thought that Moses initiated this thought and that G'd did his bidding.
  
  Verse 6
  
   וילנו כל עדת בני ישראל, The whole congregation of Israel murmured, etc. What is the meaning of the word לאמר in this verse? Seeing the complaint was directed only at Moses and Aaron as has been stated what could the word לאמר possibly add? Perhaps the people did not spell out their complaint as did the Torah., i.e. they did not actually say: "you have killed the people of G'd." They merely voiced complaints which amounted to much the same as if they had made this direct accusation which the Torah summarised here. The words וילנו לאמר read together were equivalent to their having said the words quoted in their name in our verse.
  Furthermore, the audacity of the people who had witnessed how Moses had not stood on ceremony but had himself gone to Datan and Aviram in order to give them a chance to escape death if they recanted, is impossible to understand. What could Moses and Aaron possibly have been guilty of? We must conclude therefore that the complaint of the people concerned the very type of test Moses and Aaron arranged, i.e. the offering of incense of all the associates of Korach at one and the same time. They claimed that Moses only had to make this test between Korach and Aaron and as a result, as soon as G'd had shown that He accepted the incense from Aaron and not from Korach, the other 250 men would have learned their lesson and would not have had to die by engaging in this confrontation. The word לאמר was an accusation against Moses who had made all these men offer incense. The people did not complain about the death of either Korach or Datan and Aviram. They were only angry at the death of the 250 men who represented the elite of the nation, its most senior judges, etc., who they claimed had died through an exercise orchestrated by Moses and Aaron. According to some of our sages, the people's complaint was directed at the very nature of the offering Moses had insisted on, i.e. קטורת, the holiest of the holy. He should have allowed them to perform a relatively minor form of Temple service instead. According to that view the word לאמר addresses the instruction to offer incense.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   הרמו מתון העדה הזאת, "get up from amongst this congregation, etc." G'd did not speak about Moses and Aaron but to all those who had not joined the ones who had accused Moses and Aaron. Proof of the fact that my interpretation is correct is the word לאמר, which always means that others are to be informed. The word הזאת, "this," further indicates that only the people who had actively accused Moses of wrongdoing were slated to be destroyed. This also explains the need for G'd to have said הרומו altogether. After all, G'd has no problem in killing the wicked in the very presence of the righteous as He had done when He killed the firstborn in Egypt and their family members did not have to leave their houses first. If you accept our interpretation, however, the instruction הרמו makes sense as even the people not guilty of accusing Moses now were under sentence of death already and unless they demonstrated that they were not involved in this sin the angel of death would execute them now. (I refer you to my commentary on Numbers 16,21).
  
  Verse 11
  
   קח את המחתה, "take the censer, etc." Inasmuch as the people had claimed that the reason the 250 men had died was due to Moses having challenged them to offer the deadly incense, Moses now wanted to demonstrate that incense is far from deadly; on the contrary, this very "deadly" incense would now save the people's lives. The reason the incense had appeared to be "deadly" was because the wrong people had offered it at the wrong time and at the wrong place. Our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 89 claim that Moses had learned the life-saving property of the incense offering from the angel of death himself when he had been on Mount Sinai waiting to receive the Tablets and the Torah.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויקח אהרן כאשר דבר משה, And Aaron took just as Moses had said, etc. This means that Aaron did so as soon as he received the instructions from Moses. Aaron's action is remarkable because he had witnessed what happens when one offers incense at the wrong time. and the wrong place. He might have waited until the appropriate time and offered it inside the Sanctuary. Instead, he knowingly endangered himself having received his instructions from Moses the acknowledged prophet who was entitled to violate a commandment temporarily in order to deal with an emergency. Another example of a prophet acting in this manner was the prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel when he repaired a private altar at a time when private altars were forbidden (Kings I 18,30).
  
  Verse 13
  
  ויעמד בין המתים ובין החיים. He stood between the dead and between the living. This expression can best be understood with the help of <i>Tanchuma on Tetzaveh</i> paragraph 15. The <i>Midrash</i> explains there that Aaron took hold of the angel of death physically and prevented him from killing. At the same time he counted the number of dead to make sure that the angel of death would not add to their number. The correct translation of our verse then is: "he stood, i.e. arrested or limited the number of dead that had died from amongst the living." This explains why the Torah added that at that moment the number of dead from the plague was (already) 14,700. No additional people died once Aaron offered the incense.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וישב אהרן…והמגפה נעצרה. Aaron returned and the plague had been arrested. The reason the Torah repeats once more that the plague had been arrested is to inform us that even after the cloud of smoke from the incense had dissipated the plague did not break out again. We should not think that the effect of Aaron's offering was limited to while he was in the process of offering incense. We might have thought so in view of what the Torah told us in Exodus 17,11 that Israel's army prevailed over Amalek only while Moses managed to keep his hands raised heavenwards.
  We may also understand this repetition in light of the <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> on that verse who claims that the angel of death refused to take orders from Aaron until Aaron brought him to the entrance of the Tabernacle where he heard from the voice of G'd that he was to desist. The meaning of the word והמגפה would then be a reference to the angel of death who is defined as "the plague." At this juncture the angel of death agreed to become inactive, i.e. to stop killing the people of Israel. Whereas in the previous verse the Torah wrote ותעצר המגפה, in this instance the Torah wrote והמגפה נעצרה. In the previous verse the Torah refers to Aaron's role in stopping the plague although the angel of death had not agreed yet; in this verse the Torah describes that the cause of the plague, i.e. the angel of death himself agreed to desist.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל וקח מאתם, "speak to the children of Israel and take from them, etc." The expressions דבר plus קח suggest that we are speaking about two separate subjects. G'd said דבר, referring to the fact that 1) the Israelites were to bring one rod representing their respective tribes; 2) Moses was to accept these rods from them. Although the Torah did not spell out who was to bring these rods to Moses, the letter ו at the beginning of the words וקח alludes to this. [The problem is that the Torah did not spell out exactly what it was that Moses was to take from the children of Israel. Ed.] An additional reason for the Torah to write וקח with the extra letter ו may be that this demonstration was additional to the conversion of the 250 censers into covers for the altar which had also been described as being a memorial to what happened to Korach and associates. The people had to be given visual evidence that G'd had chosen Aaron.
  מאתם…מאת כל נשיאהם, "from them…from all their princes." The reason the Torah said both מאתם and did not content itself with writing מאת נשיאהם, is to ensure that Moses would accept these rods only from the princes and that he should not set aside 12 rods on behalf of the respective tribes. Had the Torah only written that Moses was to take these rods from the princes this would not have obligated the princes to come forward and present Moses with these rods. Moses could have acted as their representative and assigned a rod for each tribe. Alternatively, we could have thought that if the Torah had only written the words מאת נשיאהם this meant that the rods should be the property of the various princes but that Moses should take them, i.e. select them; therefore the Torah added the word מאתם to teach that the princes themselves must bring these rods to Moses. At any rate, the reason the Torah was so specific was to prevent anyone from claiming afterwards that Moses had selected a rod for them that never had a chance to blossom and that therefore the fact that Aaron's rod blossomed did not prove anything.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואת שם אהרון תכתב על מטה לוי, "and you will inscribe the name Aaron on the rod of the tribe of Levi." The Torah had to mention this as it had not previously written that the tribe of Levi was one of the 12 tribes for whom rods were to be taken. [Menashe and Ephrayim could have made up the tribe of Joseph. Ed.] It is possible that the whole procedure was that they took one long rod and divided it into 12 equal lengths and every tribal head came and took one length of the same original rod. In that way the test was absolutely fair as all the parts of that rod had come from the same root. If this was the procedure we can also understand the meaning of the words ומטה אהרון בתוך מטותם, "that the rod of Aaron was a part of their rods" (verse 21). I have found an opinion quoted in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18,23 which confirms what I have just written.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   והיה האיש אשר אבחר בו, "and it will be that the rod of the man whom I choose will bud." All the miracles G'd had performed with Korach had not sufficed to convince the people. Perhaps this was because the people thought that Korach's sin was that he challenged Moses so that G'd had had to defend the honour of His prophet, but that this did not prove that G'd was not willing to choose another tribe from which the High Priest would be chosen.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויגמל שקדים, it bore ripe almonds. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 18,23 say that the reason G'd chose almonds was to serve as a warning that anyone who would challenge that the priesthood belonged to the descendants of Aaron would be dealt with very promptly. It appears to me that what forced the sages to come to this conclusion was that if someone is desirous of having a miracle performed for him he does not wish the fruit to ripen prematurely as this could reflect something negative about the one who performs the miracle and is unable to deliver fully ripened fruit. If G'd nonetheless exposed Himself to such an interpretation by the people who watched this miracle it could only be because He had considerations which outweighed those of how His own image was being perceived.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויעש משה כאשר צוה השם כן עשה, Moses did as G'd commanded, so he did. The reason that the Torah repeated the same statement twice may be as follows: The first statement indicates that Moses carried out G'd's instructions immediately; the second statement כן עשה refers to his replacing the rod of Aaron in the Sanctuary. The word כאשר therefore refers to both actions.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   כל הקרב הקרב..ימות, "Anyone that comes near..that comes near will die." Only now did the message penetrate the average Israelite's head although they had been informed about this previously. This is remindful of a proverb cited in <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> on the verse (Song of Songs, 1,2: "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth." The proverb says that if one slaughters an animal one will suffer terrible pain."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אתה ובניך ובית אביך, "you and your sons, and your father's family." I believe the words ובית אביך refer to Moses, who was also a descendant of Aaron's father, to warn him to observe all the strictures i.e. to prevent unauthorised people from entering the Temple (Tabernacle) precincts. If the word was meant to apply to the Kehatites, in what way were these different from all the other Israelites when it came to entering the Tabernacle? Furthermore, the next verse addresses itself specifically to the Levites which proves that the Torah did not address the Levites in the previous verse. The reason the Torah had to warn Moses was because we learned in <i>Zevachim</i> 102 that the priesthood was never taken away from Moses [after he had performed the sacrificial rites during the first seven days of the Tabernacle's inauguration. Ed.]. Even according to the view that Moses' appointment as a priest was limited to these seven days, I do not believe that he had been forbidden to enter the areas reserved for the priests. Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> write as follows: "The words בית אביך refer to the Levites; this means that the Levites were instructed by the priests." I believe that this is an halachic exegesis, מדרש הלכה, an attempt to anchor the rules that have been handed down from Sinai in the text somehow.
  אתך, "with you." In view of the fact that the Torah already mentioned Aaron by name, why did the Torah have to write the word אתך? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate that Moses and Aaron had a joint responsibility in this regard at all times. We should not think that Moses and Aaron as well as his sons rotated the times of their responsibility in this regard. The word אתך defines that each party concerned bore round the clock reponsibility in ensuring that the sanctity of the Tabernacle be preserved at all times.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   גם הם גם אתם, "neither they nor you." According to the plain meaning the words גם הם mean "just as the Israelites who approach;" the words גם אתם mean "when you act on their account" just as in the previous verse the words about אתה ובניך.
  Our sages in <i>Erchin</i> 11 quote the following Baraitha: גם הם גם אתם; you with what is theirs and they with what is yours in respect to the death penalty; they with what is theirs without death penalty but subject only to the penalty due for violating an ordinary negative commandment." [Priests who perform the songs allocated to the Levites are guilty of the death penalty (at the hands of heaven) just as the Levites are guilty of the death penalty if they perform the sacrificial service which is the exclusive domain of the priests. Levites who are assigned to watching the doors and sing or play musisc instead, or vice versa, are not subject to the death penalty. Ed.] Abbaye disagrees and says that even if a Levite who is assigned a certain task normally performed by the Levites performs the task allocated to another Levite instead he is also subject to death at the hands of Heaven. Rashi explains that Abbaye does not accept the wording of the Baraitha which said הם בשלהם אינה במיתה. He quoted another Tannaitic scholar who holds his view.
  Maimonides who deals with this problem in chapter 3 of his <i>Hilchot kley Hamikdash,</i> writes as follows: "if a Levite assisted in the performance of a task which was not assigned to him [but to another Levite, Ed.] he is guilty of death as the Torah wrote ולא ימותו, "in order that they not die (our verse)." However, if a priest performs a task which is really one to be performed by a Levite he has transgressed an ordinary negative commandment but is not guilty of the death penalty." Thus far Maimonides. There are difficulties with everything Maimonides wrote in this regard. There is not a single opinion in the Talmud which supports his view that a Levite who merely assisted another Levite in the carrying out his specific task is guilty of death. In fact, all opinions agree that the prohibition of a Levite assisting another Levite in the task allotted to the latter, is only a rabbinic injunction. How could one possibly be guilty of death for violating such an injunction? Even if we accept the Talmud's concensus that the prohibition in question, namely the switching of tasks between Levites, is Biblical but does not carry the penalty of death at the hands of heaven, it follows that if a Levite actually sings although not appointed he is not guilty of death. How could Maimonides arrive at the ruling that the second Levite who merely assisted the first, albeit unbidden, should be guilty of death? Even if we were to posit that Maimonides accepted the view of Abbaye that the Levite who sang in place of the Levite who was appointed to sing is guilty of death, we still have two problems. 1) Abbaye said nothing about a Levite who only assisted the first Levite in the former's task; the Talmud makes it clear that there is a difference between someone who carries out a task and someone who merely assists. 2) Abbaye arrives at his ruling based on the verse והזר הקרב יומת (Numbers 18, 7), that the non-priest who approaches the Sanctuary (and performs sacrificial service) will be executed, whereas Maimonides quotes our verse that ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם, that the various categories of Israelites involved would be guilty of death. [The Talmud in Erchin 11 proves that the word זר in this instance does not mean simply a non-priest but the category of priest or Levite to whom the task in question had not been allocated. Ed.] Seeing that Maimonides derives his ruling from our verse, how can we assume that he agrees with Abbaye? Why does Maimonides disagree with the Talmud?
  Apparently Maimonides found support for his view in a Baraitha quoted in <i>Sifri Zuta</i> which writes as follows: "Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah (a Levite) tried to assist Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada [a fellow Levite who also lived while the Temple was still standing. Ed.] in the matter of הגפת דלתות, "the closing of the Temple doors." He said to him: 'desist' for you have already become guilty of the death penalty for I am one of the people appointed to be the one to lock these gates whereas you are one of the people assigned to sing." We see from this incident that a Levite who assists another Levite who performs in performing his task is guilty of the death penalty even if he only wanted to assist the Levite appointed for that task. This then is what Maimonides' ruling is based on.
  Although it is dear that the Talmud ruled differently, Maimonides accepted the version of <i>Sifri Zuta</i> as binding for 2 reasons. [The author continues to debate the merit of Maimonides' ruling in this matter for another six pages. In order to appreciate the subject it is necessary to study the matter in <i>Erchin</i> 11 thoroughly. The reader who is interested is referred to the original. In the end, our author demonstrates that both Maimonides, the Baraitha in <i>Erchin</i> and the Baraitha in <i>Sifri Zuta</i> are really on the same track. Ed.]
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואני הנני נתתי לד את משמרת תרומותי, "And I, behold I have placed you in charge of My heave-offerings." The reason for the word ואני, which appears superfluous, is that G'd adds another duty to the duty of the priests to guard the sanctity of the Sanctuary on pain of death; G'd states that He had already given the priests an advance payment so to speak, namely the task to preserve the sanctity of the heave-offerings (which are theirs) and the sanctity of everything holy the Israelites designate as such.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   בארצם לא תנחל, "you will not have an in heritance in their land, etc." According to <i>Sifri</i> this verse forbids the priests not only a share in the land but also a share in the spoils of war. This is based on the respective meaning of נחלה and חלק both of which appear twice in our verse. The Torah tells us that though the other tribes might be willing to share the loot with the priests and they might interpret the verse as only excusing them from sharing but not forbidding same, this is not so. The legislation is not comparable to the <i>Shemittah</i> legislation where we are told in <i>Shevi-it</i> 10,9 that the rabbis were delighted if a debtor volunteered to repay a debt which the creditor could no longer insist on collecting legally. To make the point quite clear the Torah wrote לא תנחל, you must not inherit. Had the Torah written nothing else I would have thought that only inheritance of land is actually forbidden but that accepting a share of the spoils of war is permissible. This is why the Torah had to add the word וחלק, "as well as any part." The reason the Torah added the word בתוכם may be understood when we look at Proverbs 1,14: גורלך תפיל בתוכנו, i.e. "accept part of our lot together with us." The prohibition applies only when the priests receive their share as part and parcel of the division between the tribes. If anyone wishes to give them some of the spoils in the form of a gift this is permissible.
  אני חלקך ונחלתך בתוך בני ישראל, "I am your share and your inheritance amongst the children of Israel." G'd first says "I," meaning that which is unique to Him will be the share of the priests. He then added: "amongst the children of Israel," i.e. that there would not be anything the Israelites did in which G'd did not have a share; the priest would receive this share of the harvests of the land, the trees, the bread, the meat, the wine, the oil, and the remainder of the 24 categories of gifts the Israelite is to donate to the priest on G'd's behalf.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו, for the tithes of the children of Israel which they set aside, etc. Earlier the Torah had said: "for I have given all the tithes to the Levites, etc. (18,21)." How do we reconcile this repetition of the same legislation? It appears that there are two aspects to the tithes which G'd assigned to the Levites. One reason they receive the tithes is in compensation for the Levites not having received a share of the land. The second reason is to save them having to till the land, i.e. the seven stages of work until the farmer's wheat is finally ready to be milled, etc. This is the reason the Torah gives a different reason in verse 21 i.e. that it is given to them in exchange for the service they have to perform in the Tent of Testimony.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   כי שכר הוא לכם, חלף עבודתכם, "for it is a reward for you, in exchange for your service, etc." This is basically a repetition of what the Torah has already said about the tithes in verse 21. The Torah now added that these tithes do not possess a special sanctity as they may be eaten anywhere, as opposed to תרומה or similar gifts allocated to the priests. If someone sells the tithe, the money received is treated as totally secular. This is the message of the Torah writing that the tithes are given to the Levites as a reward for their service in the Temple, i.e. as some kind of wages.
  Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> derive from that wording that only the Levites who have performed service in the Temple are entitled to such tithes. This leads the halachic authorities to arrive at the conclusion that any Levite who declared his preparedness to carry out all the duties a Levite has to perform bar one, is not considered as a true Levite. Both interpretations are fully legitimate.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת חקת התורה, This is the statute of the Torah, etc. Why did the Torah call this single commandment "Torah?" The Torah should have written simply: זאת חקה, וגו "this is a statute, etc." Alternatively, the commandment could have commenced with the words: "this is the law of ritual impurity, etc." We have such examples in Exodus 12,43 where the Torah wrote: זאת חקת הפסח וגו. We cannot answer the question we raised by saying that the Torah wanted to tell us that in order to be able to study Torah one first had to purify oneself with the ash of the red heifer. This is not only not so, but we have learned in <i>Berachot</i> 22 that "words of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity at all." All the opinions offered in the Talmud, including the ones that are most stringent when it comes to the purification rites needed for people who have experienced seminal discharges, agree that it is permissible for people who are ritually impure due to contact with the dead to study Torah while in that state of ritual impurity.
  We may be able to answer our question by referring to something we have learned in <i>Nazir</i> 61 and which has been ruled on by Maimonides in the first chapter of his treatise on <i>Tumat Met</i>. It is stated there that the concept of ritual purity originating from a dead body and conferring ritual impurity does not apply to the type of Gentile known in the Talmud as a <i>Kuti</i>. Here is the wording of Maimonides' ruling: "If a <i>Kuti</i> touches a dead body or carries same or forms a tent over such a dead body it is as if he had never touched the dead body. The situation is analogous to an animal having touched a dead body. Just as the animal does not become ritually impure thereby, neither does the <i>Kuti</i>." Thus far Maimonides. The Jewish people have been elevated above other nations in that they have received the Torah without which the Jews would not be different from any other nation. The wording of our verse then reminds us of the distinction of the Jewish people in that contact with the dead confers ritual impurity on a people who have been given the Torah. Lesser spirits yearn to attach themselves to the Jewish people inasmuch as the latter represent a high level of spirituality not only while alive but even while they are dead. The sanctity Jews experience during their lives is evident due to the fact that contact with the dead, or even being under the same roof with a dead body confers ritual impurity on the bodies of living Jews. This reflects how the Gentiles even while dead aspire to attach themselves to Jews, somehow. Were it not for the power of the ash of the red heifer with which this legislative act of the Torah has endowed us to help counteract the pull of the impurity associated with a dead body, we would not be able to shake off this attachment by the spiritual residue of the dead.
  I have already illustrated this relationship between Israel and ritual impurity by means of a parable. Let us assume that we have two containers inside a house, one full of honey, the other full of refuse. If you take both these containers outside it will be observed that the container full of honey attracts swarms of flies whereas the number of flies which are attracted to the container full of refuse is insignificant by comparison. Similarly, when a Jew dies, the fact that he was full of holiness while alive -i.e. sweet as honey,- now attracts all kinds of spiritually negative elements seeing the soul has departed from that body. These are the forces of impurity which always attempt to attach themselves to anything sacred as they wish to benefit from the physical sweetness of holiness. This is the reason that the body of a dead Jew confers impurity on any other Jew who is under the same roof. This is so even if 1000 houses attached to each other surround the room in which the dead body is kept. As long as one door opens into those houses the impurity is spread throughout the airspace in all these houses. The same does not occur if the dead body is not that of a Jew. This is because the Gentile never possessed holiness while alive so that the spiritually negative elements have no reason to think they would benefit by attaching themselves to it. The body of a dead Gentile confers ritual impurity on a Jew only if the Jew touches it, etc., not if he merely shares the same roofed-over airspace with it. The only impurity which does cling to the body of a dead Gentile is that which is capable of killing on contact. The root cause for all these rules is the Torah (which was given to the Jewish people).
  With the help of this explanation I have been able to understand why G'd was so particular about only two aspects of the Passover legislation in Egypt. The first aspect is G'd's insistence that only Jews who had been circumcised were allowed to offer and eat the Passover lamb. Our sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 17,3 understand Ezekiel 16,6 and 8 as referring to the blood of circumcision and the blood of the Passover sacrifice respectively. The second aspect G'd was so concerned with at the time was the prohibition of a בן נכר (normally translated as a Gentile) eating from that sacrifice. The sages in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 16,3 explain Exodus 12,21 משכו וקחו לכם צאן, "draw out and take for yourselves lambs, etc." to refer to people who had withdrawn from worshiping idols. The visible evidence of abandoning idol worship consisted of slaughtering the very animal which served the Egyptians as a major deity. When a Jew did this he ceased to be a בן נכר, a Gentile. It is strange that the third major stricture which the Torah warned the Jews of regarding the observance of the Passover ritual, namely, that it must not be eaten by people who are ritually impure did not feature in the legislation as it applied to the Jews in Egypt. Why did G'd not care about this at that time? It is true, of course, as you are all aware, that if the majority of the Jewish people were to find themselves in a state of ritual impurity due to contact with the dead the rule about eating the Passover while in a state of impurity is relaxed, as we know from <i>Pessachim</i> 67. Nonetheless, G'd could have at least commanded that the Jews in Egypt should endeavour to be ritually pure before eating the Passover? Moses could have prepared the ash of a red heifer to facilitate the process of a Jew cleansing himself of such impurity! Even the whole Passover legislation for future observance as detailed in Exodus 12,42-49 does not mention the need to be ritually pure! While one can come up with various excuses as to why ritual purity inside Egypt was not feasible, the Torah should have at least mentioned this as part of the requirements for the Passover observance forthwith! When you reflect on what we have written above you will find that there was a perfectly good reason why the Torah ignored the requirement of ritual purity in Exodus. The Israelites did not need to purify themselves because they had not been defiled through contact with the dead in the first place. As long as they had not been Jews in the legal sense of the word, i.e. through circumcision and the affirmation of their monotheism through the act of slaughtering an Egyptian deity, i.e. the lamb, they were no better than the <i>Kutim</i> discussed in <i>Nazir</i> 61 and the rule laid down for who is subject to such ritual impurity by Maimonides. As long as the Israelites had not received the Torah they would not contract ritual impurity even after they had circumcised themselves and prepared the Passover lamb for ritual slaughter. Moreover, even assuming that Jews could contract ritual impurity as soon as they had converted by circumcision and the denial of idol worship, such a conversion took place only on the 14th of Nissan as they prepared to slaughter the lamb. Any so-called ritual impurity which was contracted before that date would be automatically cancelled as it had been contracted by a different person, a Gentile instead of a Jew. Even nowadays, if a Gentile converts on the 14th of Nissan, any impurity he had contracted prior to that date is ignored for the purpose of including him in the people who may eat of the Passover, provided he meets all the other requirements. Having written this we are faced with the problem mentioned in <i>Pessachim</i> 92 where it states that a proselyte who converted on the 14th of Nissan may not participate in that year's Passover although he had ritually immersed himself [a requirement for all proselytes. Ed.], the reason being that in the event he would be impure due to contact with the dead in the following year he would think that all he had to do was to immerse himself in a ritual bath. Maimonides also rules this way in chapter 6 of his <i>Hilchot Pessach</i>. The reason both the Talmud and Maimonides had to explain the reason for this prohibition teaches that in actual fact such a proselyte had not been ritually impure at all at the time of his conversion. The same applied to the Jews in Egypt. This then is the meaning of the Torah writing זאת חקת התורה.
  On a moral/ethical plane we may see in the words חקת התורה a message telling us that whosoever observes this commandment although it is labelled as a statute lacking rationale, is considered as if he had observed the whole range of commandments contained in the Torah. The reason is that when we observe a commandment which is completely beyond our understanding this is equivalent to a declaration of faith in G'd and in His Torah. It is as if one declared one's preparedness to observe all the commandments given the opportunity to do so. Who knows if G'd did not present this commandment as a חקה in order to enable us to make such a declaration by means of observing it.
  אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר, which G'd commanded to convey. Why was this half-sentence necessary at all? We have already learned from verse one that G'd was the One Who instructed Moses and Aaron to convey this commandment to the Israelites! Besides, why did the Torah employ the third person i.e. אשר צוה instead of the usual אשר אנכי מצוך, "which I command you, etc.?" Why did the Torah have to repeat the word לאמר once more in our verse? The Torah already wrote לאמר in verse one! We must also analyse why the words דבר אל בני ישראל do not appear at the very beginning of our verse instead of after the words זאת חקת התורה.
  Most commandments are either based on reason or on traditions which have to be symbolised. The author calls the former מצות שכליות and the latter מצות שמעיות. An example of the former is the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas the commandment to rest on the seventh day is an example of the latter. Observance of the Sabbath is a symbolic form of acknowledging that G'd rested on that day when He created the universe. We observe certain festivals as commemorations of miracles which the Jewish people experienced on those dates. We do not worship idols to testify that G'd is our deity, that He took us out of Egypt. The examples mentioned are, however, only the apparent, i.e. the visible reason for those commandments. There is not a single commandment that does not contain mystical dimensions, unknown to most people but whose meaning had been revealed to Moses. It behooves each one of us to acquire as much insight into the meaning of the Torah as the 48 methods described in the last chapter of "Ethics of our Fathers" have revealed to us. If one pursues Torah study by taking advantage of all the various tools mentioned there one will be able to gain insights similar to those that G'd revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai and which Moses in turn communicated to the Jewish people. The members of Moses' generation were informed about all the mystical dimensions of the various commandments.
  In our instance, G'd decided to legislate a commandment which did not fit either of the two categories we mentioned before. He decided to withhold the reasons which prompted Him to formulate this legislation. The first time the Torah writes the word לאמר in verse one was to tell Moses to convey this commandment without elaborating on its meaning. This is why the Torah told Moses to say "זאת חקת התורה" as if to say: "do not ask me any questions about the meaning of this law." The second time the Torah writes אשר צוה ה׳ לאמר is equivalent to Moses telling the people: "this is all I am allowed to tell you." He implied that he himself had received further insights into the meaning of this law although he had to keep this a secret.
  This solves all the questions we had posed about the peculiar wording employed here. It explains why the commandment did not commence with the words דבר אל בני ישראל before saying זאת חקת התורה. The reason was that these words were precisely what made this commandment different from all the other commandments which Moses was meant not merely to convey to the people but also to explain to them. The word דבר referred to the substance of the commandment to be conveyed to the Israelites. The Israelites might counter that anyone who observes a commandment without knowing both the visible and the hidden reason for that commandment was like a person performing a commandment which had a body but no soul. In order to counter such an argument the Torah wrote דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה, "they shall perform the commandment because you know the reason behind it." The Torah meant that seeing that Moses was familiar with even the hidden reason for this commandment the people could observe it in a perfect manner although G'd had not taken them into His confidence in this instance. When looking at the paragraph in this way we can even understand the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו. It means that in addition to the actual taking of the red heifer the people should be conscious at that time that Moses was aware of the reason for this commandment.
  One could have reasoned that granted that there was a reason for the red heifer of the generation Moses led in the desert not to have been revealed; what was the situation with the red heifers during all subsequent generations? It is possible that G'd had not withheld the meaning from everybody but had revealed it to selected individuals in each generation such as to Aaron. It is reasonable to assume that such selected individuals in turn would reveal it to selected individuals of the next generation. Alternatively, the Torah expects that all successive generations have to be content with the fact that Moses had known the meaning of this commandment. I have found a comment in <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> according to which the words ויקחו אליך mean that all future red heifers would be named as the "red heifer of Moses." We have to understand why G'd departed from His custom when He formulated this commandment. When you review our explanation you will come to the conclusion that the verses make good sense without recourse to any other commentaries.
  You may also look at our text in light of the <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> where it is claimed that the Gentile nations would approach Israel demanding to know the rationale of this commandment. The Torah said זאת חקת התורה in order for the Israelites to be able to respond to the enquiries of the Gentiles by pointing out that the nature of this legislation is such that we cannot explain it. We do not make an attempt to second guess G'd on the subject or to question it and by inference doubt Him. If we accept the <i>Midrash</i>, Moses was permitted to reveal his insights to the people on the understanding that the people in turn would keep their secret and not reveal it to the Gentiles even under provocation.
  פרה אדומה, a red heifer, etc. I believe that all the details described by the Torah here are references to a variety of rules to be observed in connection with this red heifer. 1) אדומה; this is a reference to the ascendancy of the attribute of Justice; (a reminder of blood) 2) תמימה; it must not have black hair. We have learned in <i>Parah</i> 2 that two black hairs disqualify a red heifer from being used as such. Not only must it not have black hairs, but even the horns and the hooves must be coloured red. The colour black, and most certainly the colour white, disqualify such a heifer. 3) אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "upon which there never has been a yoke." The yoke reduces the impact of the power of the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical dimension of <i>Berachot</i> 5 that if a person experiences afflictions this cleanses away all the sins of a person. In other words, afflictions are an aspect of the attribute of Justice in action. 5) The burning of the red heifer is also symbolic of the attribute of Justice being in action. Once these various aspects of G'd's judgments have been reduced to ashes, these ashes enable the accumulated impurity which cleaves to man to escape, seeing that the impurity (טומאה) itself is only like a painful whip employed by the attribute of Justice in subjecting us to justice and retribution.
  I have seen in <i>Sifri Zuta</i> that it is part of the rules of the red heifer that a person must not buy a calf and raise it because the Torah wrote ויקחו פרה, "they shall buy a (fully grown) cow and not a calf." Maimonides also rules like this in chapter 1 of his <i>Hilchot Parah</i>. In light of what we said that all the details the Torah wrote about the red heifer are related to its connection with the attribute of Justice, there is a deeper meaning to the last mentioned <i>halachah</i>. The very name פרה reminds us of a certain number (known to Kabbalists) connected to the process of judgments and retribution. If one were to use a calf and raise it this would throw this connection out of balance. Even though such a calf would eventually become a cow=פרה and as such would symbolise the number 285 which is the number of judgments G'd has in store for man, G'd insisted that the red heifer be of age at the time it is designated as such.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ונתתם אתה אל אלעזר הכהן, "and you are to hand it over to Eleazar the priest, etc." The restrictive word אתה, "it" is necessary in view of a ruling in <i>Yuma</i> 42 that we have a tradition according to which subsequent red heifers could be handled either by the High Priest or by an ordinary priest, whereas in this instance it had to be handled by the High Priest.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, את ערה, "He shall burn the heifer in his sight; its skin, etc." Why does the Torah interrupt the sequence of what is to be burned by mentioning לעיניו, "in his sight?" We can understand this in light of a ruling by Maimonides in chapter 4 of <i>Hilchot Parah Adumah</i> that the red heifer should be burned whole, but that in the event the priest first skinned the heifer and cut it up before he burned it this was acceptable. The reason the Torah interposed the word לעיניו where it did was to alert us to this alternative way of burning the red heifer. The Torah wrote ושרף את הפרה to indicate that the entire heifer had to be burned at the same time even if it had already been cut up. The words את ערה, "with its skin," indicate that it all has to be burned together though it need not necessarily be when the heifer is still a whole cadaver.
  על פרשה ישרף, "with its dung it shall be burned." The reason the Torah repeats the apparently superfluous word ישרף, "he shall burn it," is to show that there are two ways in which this burning could take place, as I have explained. Either one burns the heifer while it is whole, or after it has been skinned and cut up. The second word ישרף refers to the second alternative. Maimonides in <i>Hilchot Parah Adumah</i> chapter 4 rules (based on a <i>Tossephta</i> in the second chapter of <i>Parah)</i> that if some part of the skin fell off, or even some of its hair in an amount equal in size to that of an olive, one has to put it back so it can be burned with the animal or the whole procedure becomes invalid. In other words, the second word ישרף may tell us that it is indispensable that all the parts of the heifer be burned.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל, "This is the Torah (law), when a person dies inside a tent, etc." The words זאת התורה in this verse can be explained along the same lines as I have explained the words זאת חקת התורה in verse 2. This is because the Torah commences this verse with the word אדם. Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 114 have taught us that the description אדם applies only to Jews. The Torah therefore teaches here that only the bodies of dead Jews are capable of conferring ritual impurity on people who are under the same roof; bodies of dead Gentiles are not able to have that effect on anyone under the same roof with them. The Torah wrote זאת התורה in order to provide the background to this <i>halachah</i>. Only people who have been given the Torah have absorbed the kind of sanctity during their lifetime which attracts the spiritually negative influences to their remains in swarms.
  כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, "everyone who comes into that tent and everything which is already inside the tent, etc." The difficulty in this verse is that if a ritually impure person entered the tent containing the dead body of a Jew and becomes defiled thereby why does the Torah have to tell us that the artifacts or another Jew already inside the tent become defiled by their presence in that tent? I have found the following line in <i>Pessikta Zutratey</i>. "The words כל הבא אל האהל mean that he entered only with part of his body." Accordingly, we may conclude that if the Torah had written only כל הבא אל האהל, I would have assumed that such a person contracts impurity only if his entire body enters the tent. How would I have known that he becomes ritually defiled even if only part of his body entered the tent? To teach us this the Torah also wrote כל אשר באהל. Seeing that the Torah had already told us that if one enters the tent with one's whole body one becomes ritually defiled, the words כל אשר באהל must refer to people who entered the tent with only part of their body. I have also found the following in that same paragraph of the <i>Pessikta Zutratey:</i> "An alternative meaning of these words could be that the words כל הבא אל האהל teach us that for halachic purposes we treat the floor of the tent the same as its airspace down to the bowels of the earth." It would appear that the authors were forced to come up with this interpretation because according to the reasoning employed in the first explanation the Torah should have written the two statements in the reverse order, i.e כל אשר באהל followed by כל הבא אל האהל. In that event I could have applied the principle of לא זו אף זו, that the Torah did not only teach me one lesson but also a second lesson. The first lesson would have referred to the entire body entering, the second lesson that even if only part of the body enters that tent the body still becomes ritually unclean. The fact that the Torah first wrote the words כל הבא tells us that the words כל אשר introduce a new <i>halachah</i> altogether.
  However, in the <i>Sifri</i> on our verse I have seen both explanations, the first one attributed to the editor, and the second one attributed to Rabbi Acha bar Yoshiyah. The editor concludes by saying that the reason the Torah had to write the words כל אשר באהל although it had already written כל הבא אל האהל is to include someone who enters the tent only partially. The reason this had to be spelled out is that one cannot impose a penalty on anyone merely by applying logic but that this has to be spelled out in the Torah. I do not understand this comment at all; it is our tradition that this principle applies only to sins involving the death penalty by execution of a human tribunal. In this instance, even if the person in question entered the Sanctuary in a state of ritual impurity, he would be guilty only of death at the hands of heaven. Furthermore, the whole principle of אין עונשין מין הדין is not relevant here at all since the punishment had already been spelled out. Once we have established that a person is culpable for defiling part of his body, there is no need to inform us that he will be culpable if he defiles his whole body seeing that every part of his body is part of the whole body. The culpability for the former has been spelled out in our verse and has not been derived through mere logic.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויבאו בני ישראל, The children of Israel arrived, etc. Why did the Torah have to emphasise that כל העדה, "the whole congregation" arrived in the desert of Tzin? Who would have doubted that the whole people travelled together? We have learned (<i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> end of Parshat Balak) on a previous occasion that whenever the Jewish people were on a moral/ethical high they are referred to as בני ישראל. On occasions when they were guilty of rebellious behaviour (such as Numbers 14,11 and many others) they are described as עם; the Torah wanted to inform us that at this time they were all entitled to the flattering description. There are also occasions when the Torah describes the people as עם בני ישראל, suggesting that though many of the people were not on the desired moral/ethical plateau at the time, many others were. This interpretation agrees with a statement by our sages that the words כל העדה, mean עדה שלמה, "a perfect congregation."
  Our sages apparently viewed the expression כל העדה as sufficient by itself to describe the Israelites in the most glowing terms. There are, after all, 70 different ways of interpreting the text. The reason that the Torah would choose the expression העדה here may be threefold. 1) We know that we will read shortly afterwards about the incident with the "waters of strife" which according to <i>Devarim Rabbah</i> was the reason for Moses' punishment. The reason given is that he addressed the Israelites as "listen you rebellious people!" It was important for the Torah to state that at this time the Israelites were all a holy congregation. Had this not been so the Torah could not have faulted Moses for addressing the Israelites as rebellious. 2) It was also designed to raise the image of Miriam in the eyes of the people by showing that although the people themselves were at their spiritual best at that time, their merit was not sufficient to ensure their water supply once Miriam had died (viz. <i>Taanit</i> 9). 3) The Torah informed us that contrary to Aaron's belief that the people assembled in order to show their last respects for Miriam, they actually assembled in order to quarrel with Moses and Aaron (compare <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 763 and Tanchuma). Considering the conduct of the Israelites in the verses immediately following our verse there was reason to assume that they had already descended from their spiritual high before Miriam died; the Torah therefore had to describe the Israelites in glowing terms to prevent us from making that mistake. This leaves us with the question of why the Israelites did not pay Miriam the kindness Aaron had assumed they were showing her. According to <i>Moed Katan</i> 28 the manner in which the Torah described Miriam's death as immediately followed by her burial without a word about anyone mourning her showed that due to the failure of the well the people immediately suffered thirst. This preoccupied their minds more than the respect they should have shown Miriam by mourning her properly. The Torah makes this even plainer by stating immediately after reporting Miraim's burial that there was no water "for the congregation."
  וישב העם בקדש. The people stayed in Kadesh. The Torah mentions this in order to inform us that the people stayed there for an extended period. This is confirmed in Deut. 1,46. The word ישב always suggests something of relatively long duration.
  ותמת שם מרים, Miriam died there, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word שם, "there?" Our sages in <i>Moed Katan</i> 28 say that the people buried Miriam near the place where she died. This interpretation is based on the words ותקבר שם, "she was buried there." Seeing the Torah mentioned the death of this righteous woman it also was concerned with the honour due to the body of such a righteous woman stating she was interred on the spot. We learned in <i>Berachot</i> 18 that the righteous are called "alive" even after they have died a physical death. When the Torah said שם, it wanted to remind us that Miriam was "dead" only "there," i.e. on earth, whereas she lived on in another region, the region reserved for the souls of the righteous. G'd views the righteous as if they were pearls reposing in a jewel box. Whenever it pleases Him He takes out one of these pearls and enjoys looking at it only to replace it at His leasure or to place it in another of His various jewel boxes. A different scholar on the same folio in <i>Moed Katan</i> uses the word שם in our verse as a גזרה שוה, a form of exegesis based on similar words being used in different contexts as proof that Miriam too experienced death in the form of a Divine kiss, i.e. painlessly. All of these explanations are equally valid.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וירב העם עם משה, The people quarrelled with Moses. The people now complained that they would have preferred for Moses to have let them die from the plague than to face death by thirst.
  
  Verse 4
  
   זלמה הבאתם את קהל ה׳ אל המדבר הזה, "and why did you bring this community to this desert, etc.?" Their second complaint was why Moses had chosen a route through the desert. Their reasoning was that seeing Moses was unable to provide water in the desert, by whose authority had he chosen such a route?
  They said ולמה העליתנו, "and why did you bring us up from Egypt (verse 5)? They argued that if Moses were to reply that there was no other safe route to bring them to the land of Canaan and he therefore had to bring them to this inhospitable location, why did he bring them out of Egypt altogether? Our sages in <i>Chulin</i> 88 already defined a desert as a place where there is no vegetation.
  They spoke about אל המקום הזה with the letter ה as a definite article to indicate that the negative qualities of that location had been well known. They added: ומים אין לשתות, "and there is no drinking water," to underline that not even the most basic fundamentals for survival existed in that area. Moses was unable to answer the people and both he and Aaron stood in prayer before the Lord. This is the meaning of "they fell on their faces."
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   קח את המטה…ויקדש בם, "take the staff… and He was sanctified through them." This paragraph has attracted many different interpretations, and most commentators have made a point of offering their comments. Before we will offer our view of the plain meaning of these verses we must first try and understand the nature of Moses' error and the reason underlying G'd's decree. I have come across 10 different approaches to our problem pursued by various commentators. I will list their comments very briefly.
  1) Rashi explains that Moses's error was that whereas G'd had told him to speak to the rock he hit the rock instead. 2) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that Moses' error caused the rock not to yield water until Moses struck it for a second time, and that Moses had forgotten G'd's precise instructions when he struck the rock the first time due to the vociferous quarrelling by the congregation. 3) G'd's anger was caused by Moses hitting the rock a second time. Had Moses remained content to strike the rock once, G'd would have accepted this as a form of addressing a rock as one does not expect a rock to listen to words. 4) According to this view G'd's anger was caused by the fact that Moses and Aaron did not sing a song of praise after the water materialised. Such a miracle deserved that it should be acknowledged by not less than a song praising G'd and thanking Him. 5) According to this view Moses sinned by talking down to the Israelites and calling them "rebellious." A man of Moses' stature should not have called the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by a name which belittled them. 6) Maimonides in his treatise שמונה פרקים feels that G'd objected to Moses having "lost his cool" when speaking to the Israelites. When the people observed that Moses was angry at them they concluded that G'd was angry at them also. 7) Rabbeynu Chananel and Nachmanides after him claim that what angered G'd was that Moses portrayed himself and Aaron as producing the water by saying נוציא לכם מים, instead of saying יוציא לכם מים, "He will make water come forth for you." The formula used by Moses created the impression amongst the people that Moses and Aaron produced the water by means of their own devices and know-how. This is why G'd said to them: "because you have not believed Me to make them sanctify Me." 8) Rabbi Moshe Hacohen, quoted by Ibn Ezra also feeels that G'd's anger had to do with Moses' wording of the question: המן הסלע הזה נוציא, "do you expect us to produce water from this rock?" Whereas we know that there are miracles which are produced by G'd's word and others by a combination of G'd's word and an action, Moses misled the people into thinking that G'd could not produce water from this particular rock. He proves his point by quoting Psalms 106,33: "because they rebelled against Him and he spoke rashly." 9) Rabbi Joseph Albo in his ספר העקרים criticises Moses and Aaron for not having proceeded immediately to produce water for their people something he claims they were capable of; by allowing them to become frightened they undermined the people's faith in G'd. 10) The <i>Baal Maaseh Hashem</i> explains that there had been an argument between Moses and the Israelites. The Israelites demanded that Moses produce the water from a different place where they had dug a hole and that Moses was unwilling to speak to the rock which the Israelites had dug out. As a result Moses became angry and threw his staff, not in order to hit the rock but merely as an angry gesture. It so happened that the staff hit the rock G'd had intended to produce the water from.
  None of the ten explanations we have listed really answer all the questions that arise from this paragraph. Nachmanides already pointed out that three of the approaches we have listed are unsatisfactory. Rabbi Ibn Ezra demolished three more of the 10 approaches we have listed. I shall show how the remaining explanations also do not really explain the wording of the Torah satisfactorily. As to the approach of Rabbeynu Chananel shared by Nachmanides, that Moses attributed the production of the water to his own ability, this is patently impossible as Moses was well enough known to the people as a true prophet who had never attributed anything to his own ability. Even granted that Moses' power was such that he could have produced the miracle without calling upon G'd first, it is in the nature of a true servant of the master that his accomplishments reflect credit on his master, in this instance on G'd, not the reverse. Moreover, we find in Exodus 12,21 that Moses did not bother to tell the people that when he instructed them to draw out a lamb for the Passover, etc. that he did so in the name of the Lord. Even at that time the people were well aware that Moses would not have given such instructions unless he had been commanded to do so by G'd. Furthermore, in the situation described here, Moses was forced to use the words נוציא לכם, "we shall extract for you," as they were in fact the ones whom G'd had delegated to do so either by word or by striking the rock I do not concur with the approach of Rabbi Joseph Albo for the simple reason that once Moses had observed that G'd had withheld water from the community upon Miriam's death by letting the well disappear, who was he to countermand G'd's obvious will? How did he know that G'd did not want to discipline the people at that time? This made it imperative for Moses to plead with G'd by prostrating himself rather than by invoking his own powers of prophecy. He had to leave it to G'd to do what He saw fit to do at that time. The approach of the <i>Baal Hamaaseh</i> is full of thorns and thistles containing neither salt nor spices so that I will not even bother to address myself to his arguments, begging his pardon.
  In my search for a satisfactory explanation I have only found peace of mind after perusing the words of the ancient scholars as expressed in the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 764, for instance. The author of that <i>Midrash</i> writes as follows: יען לא האמנתם בי. The Torah refers to four separate sins with this verse. 1) "you did not believe;" 2) "you did not sanctify;" 3) "you trespassed;" 4) "you rebelled;" "you did not believe for I did not tell you to strike the rock but to speak to it." "You did not sanctify Me to demonstrate that I could produce water from any rock of the Israelites' choosing." "You trespassed when you asked: 'should we produce water from this rock?'" "You rebelled for I told you to speak to the rock, i.e. 'teach the rock a chapter concerning Torah and it will produce water; however, you have violated My instructions.'" [My edition of the <i>Yalkut</i> makes the important additional point somewhat earlier that whereas one hits a young child when one wants its obedience, one appeals to his intelligence once he has grown up. Similarly, whereas at the time when the Israelites were in Refidim (Exodus 17,1) 40 years earlier, Moses was instructed to hit the rock, now the rock had matured and it would respond to a more sophisticated approach, i.e. it could be spoken to, i.e. Moses could teach it a chapter of Torah. Ed.] So far the words of the <i>Yalkut</i>.
  Bearing in mind what the <i>Yalkut</i> said we can understand the meaning of the words: "take the staff and speak to the rock, etc." "and you will produce water for them from the rock." However, first we must clarify some words in the text: 1) Why did G'd command Moses to take his staff if all G'd wanted was for Moses to speak to the rock? 2) Why did G'd repeat the words "and you will produce water for them" after G'd had already said that the rock would yield its water immediately prior to these words? 3) Why did the Torah have to write twice "from the rock" (in verse 8)?
  According to the words of the <i>Midrash</i> the words in these earlier verses become clear retroactively. When G'd said to Moses that he should take the staff this was intended to demonstrate that he was empowered to do what he was about to do by the king (G'd Himself). G'd did not mean for him to use the staff to strike the rock, it was merely to serve as the visible sign that he had authority to perform the miracle he was about to perform. It did not occur to G'd to think that Moses would err and use the staff to hit the rock with, seeing He had instructed him specifically to speak to the rock. Moses ignored the instruction to speak and hit the rock instead. This was the first sin Moses committed according to the words of the <i>Yalkut</i>. The second sin was that he failed to teach the rock a lesson by speaking to it. The third sin was that when G'd said "you will produce water for them from the rock," G'd had meant that any rock the Israelites would request to be the source of their water would do; Moses, by singling out a specific rock, i.e. המן הסלע הזה implied that only a particular rock would respond to G'd's command. The reason the Torah wrote twice מן הסלע was to indicate that it did not matter to G'd from which rock the water would eventually come forth. Had the Torah been particular about which rock, it would have written something like ממנו, "from it," i.e. from the rock which had been mentioned already. When Moses addressed the Israelites by saying: "listen you rebellious people" this proves that he considered them as rebellious by insisting that the water be produced from a rock of their choosing, whereas by his very question Moses implied that the rock chosen by the people was not capable of responding to G'd's command to produce water. This then was the fourth sin the <i>Yalkut</i> had in mind. As a result, Moses erred on two more counts, 1) that G'd had said to him to produce water from a rock of the Israelites' choosing, something which he failed to do, 2) he limited the miracle to a particular rock, thereby reducing the image the people would have of G'd's power. These are the sins listed as number two and number three in the <i>Yalkut</i>.
  It is our duty to explain how a man of G'd such as Moses could have committed four such gross errors.
  I believe that the cause of Moses' errors lies in the very fact that he applied both his wisdom and his reverence for G'd before carrying out G'd's instructions. When G'd told him to take his staff, Moses interpreted this instruction as having a dual meaning; 1) to hit the rock; 2) to demonstrate that he acted at the express command of G'd. He would perform a miracle by means of the staff which had the Ineffable Name of G'd engraved on it. The truth is that there was good reason to interpret the command to take the staff as an order to use the staff to strike the rock with rather than to use it only symbolically. It is true that in Exodus 4,17 G'd instructed Moses to take the staff to perform miracles without mentioning that it be used to strike anything. In this instance, however, the Torah mentioned that the staff would be the instrument by means of which Moses would produce the water. Why else would G'd have appeared to refer to the staff again after having already said: "speak to the rock" when He said "you will produce water from the rock?" Moses thought that what G'd meant was that it was not only the speaking to the rock which would produce the water but also an action he was to perform with the staff. He interpreted the words והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, "you will extract water for them from the rock" to mean that he would perform an act with the staff. In fact, he thought that these words revealed what G'd had had in mind when He told him to take the staff with him. Although Moses may well have been aware that G'd had also intended for him to produce the water from any rock that the Israelites chose, as I have explained earlier, it did not occur to him that G'd would have told him to take the staff unless He intended for him to use it in the manner he was accustomed to. I am aware that this interpretation is not forcing; I will come back to it later to demonstrate that it is the easiest way to explain Moses' error. The words ודברתם אל הסלע meant that in addition to the staff performing an act you are also to speak to the rock and tell it specifically to release its water. It never occurred to Moses that the words "speak to the rock" referred to teaching the rock (as well as the Israelites) a lesson to demonstrate that the rock had matured enough to respond to verbal instructions alone..
  A dispassionate reader examining the words simply on their own merits will realise that the meaning of the word ודברתם is modified according to the meaning of the words קח את המטה. Our reason tells us that inert objects such as rocks are not likely to comprehend verbal instructions given to it by Moses except under one of two special circumstances. For instance, it could respond to being struck by a staff on which the Ineffable Name of G'd is engraved which would awaken the highest potential of sensitivity G'd has equipped such inert objects with. I have already explained that such things are possible in connection with plants which also do not display this kind of sensitivity unless they have been especially awakened by G'd or His agent. Moses thought that being struck with a staff on which the Ineffable Name was engraved would "awaken" the dormant potential in that rock so that it could subsequently respond to his verbal instructions. An alternate method of awakening the latent sensitivity of such inert objects would be to "teach it a chapter (of Torah)" in the words of the <i>Yalkut,</i> provided that chapter would be taught by a holy man of the calibre of Moses. Seeing that Torah represents the epitome of life, being taught it by the foremost teacher Moses would bring out all the latent forces of life G'd had imbued the apparently inert objects with. It follows that if we understand the words: "take the staff" to mean that the staff should be used to hit the rock with, there would be no need to speak to it at all as it would already have responded to the impact of the staff which had G'd's name egraved on it. If, on the other hand, we do not interpret the words "take the staff" to mean that it should be used to strike the rock with, the words "and speak to the rock" must be interpreted to mean that Moses was to teach the rock a lesson in Torah which would awaken all its latent potential and enable it to respond to Moses' verbal instructions to release the water it contained. Moses' error consisted in thinking that he was to speak to the rock ordinarily and that in order to elicit a response he first had to hit the rock. G'd, however, had meant that he should instruct the rock in a lesson of Torah thus making it unnecessary to hit the rock first.
  At any rate, Moses was aware that the instructions could be interpreted in two different ways. He considered the likelihood that G'd wanted him to teach the rock a lesson in Torah as far-fetched and therefore he reasoned that if he only taught the rock a lesson and it turned out that he had misinterpreted G'd's instructions, the result would be failure and a desecration of the name of G'd. This is why he decided to hit the rock first and speak to it at the same time. He reasoned that if he did this he would not need to worry about the rock failing to yield up its water, and the name of G'd would not be desecrated.
  Moses also inclined to interpret the words והוצאת להם מים as referring to the result of striking the rock even though at the back of his mind he did consider that G'd might have referred to a rock of the Israelites' choosing. Nonetheless he reasoned that in the event G'd had not meant for any rock of the Israelites' choosing to produce its water, the wrong rock would not even yield up its water if he were to strike it. In that event too, G'd's image would be tarnished and the people would question His ability and His power to provide them with water. When we think about all these considerations Moses had to weigh before deciding how best to proceed, we realise that Moses at all times was concerned with portraying G'd in the best possible light.
  When the people challenged Moses to produce water from a specific rock and Moses responded by saying שמעו נא המורים המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים the word מורים has a dual meaning. On the one hand it refers to rebellious people, המראה, disobedience, people who subject G'd to unnecessary tests; on the other hand, it also means הוראה, instruction. Moses referred to the fact that the people gave him instructions as to which rock to produce the water from as a test to see if G'd could do it. It is not surprising that Moses was angry at the people on account of that.
  Do not have any misgivings as to Moses having misunderstood G'd's true intentions. It is not necessary for a prophet always to arrive at the correct conclusion when he studies a subject. In fact this is the reason we are told in <i>Baba Batra</i> 12 that a חכם a wise man, enjoys advantages over a prophet. In our situation, Moses did consider the alternative meanings of G'd's instructions but he decided to "play it safe" from the point of view of ensuring that G'd's image should not emerge tarnished through something he did wrong.
  Having explained the motives which prompted Moses to act as he did, we have to understand G'd's reaction. Why did G'd appear to deny the validity of Moses' considerations when He scored him precisely for what would have been Moses' defence when He said: "because you have not had faith in Me to sanctify Me you will not bring these people, etc.?" G'd accused Moses and Aaron of having decided what they had decided because they were afraid that a certain rock would not yield up its water unless it was precisely the rock which had been known previously to do so, and that even then that rock would respond only if it would be struck. G'd did not allow that Moses' real consideration had been to sanctify G'd's name through producing water from any of the rocks the Israelites had chosen for that purpose and without the need to strike that rock. Had they conformed to the people's choice of rock, G'd's name would truly have been sanctified when the people saw that G'd could make any rock produce water without the rock having to be struck by a staff on which the Ineffable Name of G'd was engraved. If it could have been demonstrated that inert objects such as rocks could have their latent potential released by having Moses teach them a chapter of the Torah this would have revealed to the people an additional dimension of G'd's power. Moses and Aaron should have suppressed their fear in order to enable G'd's image to be sanctified in the manner just described.
  On a deeper level, we have to appreciate that if Moses and Aaron had carried out G'd's instructions as He had meant them to be carried out, the resultant strengthening of the Israelites' faith in Him would have been so enduring that it would have stood the people in good stead for all subsequent generations. In such an event both Moses and Aaron would have entered the Holy Land, built the Holy Temple so that there would have been a fear that in the event the Israelites were to become guilty of a sin that G'd would pour out His wrath over them. We find that the <i>Midrash Tehillim</i> on Psalm 79 explains why Assaph did not write an elegy when he foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple but wrote a song of thanksgiving. He thanked G'd for having vented most of His anger at the stones of the buildings rather than at the Jewish people. Moses and Aaron missed an opportunity to elevate the Jewish people to a level of faith they had not possessed previously and this is why they were punished so severely.
  The word לכן (verse 12) means "on account of this." The word also has the connotation of an oath. G'd foresaw how the Israelites would conduct themselves in the land of Israel many years hence. Even Moses himself had predicted this already in Deut. 31,29. Had He allowed Moses and Aaron to build the Temple, He would have had to vent His anger at the people when the time came that they sinned, seeing they had allowed ideal conditions to go to waste. As it is, the people never lived in the Holy Land under ideal conditions so that G'd could use this as a mitigating circumstance when evaluating their sins.
  The Torah was specific in denying Moses and Aaron only leadership of הקהל הזה, that they would not lead "this community" to the Holy Land. The implication is that when the Messiah comes Moses and Aaron will lead the entire Jewish nation to ארץ ישראל. The <i>Yalkut</i> item 764 bases this on Hoseah 2,17 וענתה שמה כימי נעוריה, "there she will respond as in the days of her youth," as well as on Deut. 33,21. From the various comments in the <i>Midrashim</i> it appears that but for Moses' and Aaron's error in not speaking to the rock, the generation of Jews at that time could have overcome any spirit of impurity residual in them and could have therefore qualified to become the generation to whom the Messiah would have been been sent.
  והשקית את העדה, "and you (Moses) will give the congregation to drink." The reason the suffix "you" is appended here and the Torah does not simply say that the people will drink (in the third person), is either to tell you that Moses was to ensure that they would not drink too much with resulting damage to their health, or to ensure that they would drink as much as they liked regardless of any potential damage to their health. Considering the fact that the water was "miracle water," drinking too much of it would not carry with it the same hazards as drinking ordinary water would. [I am not aware of the harmful effects of drinking too much water, and assume that the author refers to drinking water which had not been boiled first, i.e. sterilised. Ed.]
  העדה ובעירם, "the congregation and their beasts." We have a rule (<i>Berachot</i> 40) that one gives one's animals to drink (and to eat) before drinking oneself. In this instance the Torah reverses the usual order to teach that the rule mentioned applies only when the life of the human being is not in danger. Whenever there is a danger that a human being may come to harm by first looking after the needs of his livestock, such a rule is suspended. I refer the reader to my comments in connection with Rebeccah giving Eliezer to drink before she gave his camels to drink in Genesis 24,19.
  
  Verse 9
  
   כאשר צוהו, "as G'd had commanded him." The Torah had to write this in order for us to know that Moses did not delay in carrying out G'd's instructions and took his staff. On the other hand, the Torah may have wanted to emphasise that the only thing Moses did strictly in accordance with G'd's instructions was that he took the staff with him. Anything he did subsequently was not in accordance with G'd's instructions.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   במטהו פעמים with his staff, twice. The reason he hit the rock twice was similar to a servant who is eager to carry out his master's instructions. Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 34 use this verse to illustrate the principle that a single verse yields many diverse insights.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why does the Torah switch from using the relatively harsh וידבר in verse 7 where it did not appear called for, and now portrays G'd as speaking softly, at the very moment when Moses had become guilty of a transgression? It seems ludicrous that at the moment when G'd decrees a harsh penalty on both Moses and Aaron the language this is couched in is most friendly! We may understand this in light of what <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,12 writes that Moses said to G'd that seeing He had decreed that he would die in the desert together with all the people who had believed the report of the ten spies, subsequent generations would conclude that he too was no better than they. He therefore pleaded with G'd to record his sin in the Torah to make certain no one would think Moses was guilty at the time the spies returned. This is the reason the Torah wrote the words יען לא האמנתם בי. Thus far the <i>Midrash</i>. The reason that G'd introduced the paragraph dealing with Moses' punishment with the soft ויאמר was to draw our attention to the difference between what had caused the death of the generation of the spies and that of Moses and Aaron respectively. On no account were these leaders to be compared to their flock although they shared the fate of dying in the desert.
  
  Verse 13
  
   המה מי מריבה, they are the waters of strife, etc. Why did the Torah mention "strife" twice in this verse, first מי מריבה, and then אשר רבו בני ישראל? The first word מריבה could easily have been skipped. Furthermore, from the words אשר רבו בני ישראל את השם I gain the impression that the subject in the words are the children of Israel, whereas from the words ויקדש בם it appears that the subject of the verse are Moses and Aaron?
  It appears that our verse wanted to explain why in this instance G'd had been so adamant about the sanctification of His name. The Torah writes המה מי מריבה to tell us that the strife justifies G'd's being adamant. By repeating the words אשר רבו the Torah wished to tell us that in this instance the Israelites were justified to quarrel with G'd (as they were entitled to water). The words ויקדש בם mean that G'd responded by taking action in order that His name should be sanctified amongst them, i.e. through the Israelites. G'd did this by instructing Moses to speak to the rock which the Israelites suggested because if that rock would produce water His name would be greatly enhanced seeing that He had demonstrated complete control even in the desert, and that the desert did not need to be an area spawning nothing but death as the people had thought so far. Now that Moses and Aaron had prevented G'd from demonstrating all this, G'd had become very angry that the opportunity had been missed to sanctify His name. Other sages interpret the words ויקדש בם as a reference to Moses and Aaron. G'd's name was sanctified through the punishment of Moses and Aaron as G'd demonstrated that He does not allow even those closest to Him to ignore His instructions without being punished.
  
  Verse 14
  
   אחיך ישראל, אתה ידעת "your brother Israel; you are aware, etc." The reason that Moses underlined the brotherly connection between Edom and Israel was to remind Edom that the discomfort of travel Israel experienced now was not due to recent events but to their respective ancestor and that he considered both Israel and Edom as being involved in this equally. Abraham's descendants were supposed to experience exile according to Genesis 15. However, only the descendants of one of Isaac's sons had paid the price by being enslaved in Egypt. Esau and his descendants had not experienced any of that suffering. The least the Edomites could do now was to display some degree of brotherliness by allowing the Jewish people passage to their own heritage. Compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 82, on Genesis 36,8 where it is explained that the reason Esau emigrated was that he did not want to pay the debt Abraham had contracted for at the covenant between the pieces.
  אתה ידעת, these words were Moses' reminder to Edom that they had been well aware of the decree which was part of the above-mentioned covenant that Abraham's descendants were to be enslaved in a foreign country for an extended period. This was something that only the descendants of Esau knew about. All the other pagans had considered the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt as one of the many accidents of history, and had thought that if the family of Jacob had not voluntarily migrated to Egypt they would never have wound up as slaves.
  וירדו אבותנו, "our ancestors descended, etc." This was in addition to the exile they experienced in Egypt. We have to understand this in light of <i>Shabbat</i> 10 where we are told that a person should not show favoritism to one of his children over the others; had Jacob not spent five pieces of silver more to make a coloured coat for Joseph our ancestors might not have had to descend to Egypt and to have wound up in exile there." Tossaphot already question that statement saying that G'd had decreed this exile long before Joseph and his brothers had been born, going back to the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15. They answer that but for Jacob's' open display of discrimination between his sons, the decree could have been fulfilled in some other country where it would not have been accompanied by nearly the same degree of cruelty that the Jews experienced in Egypt. The fact that the location where G'ds's decree came true was Egypt added untold suffering. This is why Moses described the migration to Egypt as a "descent," adding וירעו אותנו המצרים, how the Egyptians had mistreated the Jewish people
  Moses also conveyed to the Edomites by his lengthy explanantion that the Israelites had paid the debt arising from that covenant in full and that this was why they were now entitled to take possession of the land of Canaan. When Moses added the words ימים רבים, he meant that it had taken the people a long time to discharge their debt under that covenant in full.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויאמר ה׳…על גבול ארץ אדום. G'd said to Moses…on the border of the land of Edom, etc. The reason the Torah described the location as the border of the land of Edom was to show that the proximity of the wicked Edomites contributed to Aaron's death at that time. I have found a somewhat puzzling statement in the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on our verse (item 764). The <i>Midrash</i> accuses: "because you befriended yourself with the wicked," Aaron died as a result of the Israelites (or Moses and Aaron?) befriending Edom." Thus far the <i>Yalkut</i>. It is clear to me that this is a reference to the words על גבול. This also explains why the Torah added the word לאמר in our verse. G'd commanded Moses to tell the Israelites about this little detail, i.e. that because they made a point of befriending the wicked this contributed to the untimely death of the righteous. But for that incident Aaron might have lived a few months longer although death had been decreed for him previously.
  There may also be a moral/ethical dimension to our verse. We know from <i>Shabbat</i> 10 that Moses and Aaron will lead the Israelites to the Holy Land at the time of the resurrection as we explained earlier. The future redemption ushering in that idyllic era will be the redemption from the exile under the yoke of Edom, which symbolises the kingdom of Satan. The word גבול maybe a reference to the time when G'd puts an end to the rule of the kingdom of Satan and delivers it into the hands of Israel. Aaron's dying at this time and at the border of the kingdom of Edom, was to remind the Israelites of the glory in store for them in the distant future. This is why the Torah also mentioned that Aaron joined אל עמיו, "his people," something we would have assumed even if the Torah had not spelled it out. It is an allusion to the time "Aaron's people" would inherit the lands of Edom.
  
  Verse 24
  
   על אשר מריתם את פי, "because you rebelled against My word, etc." According to the words of the <i>Midrash</i> which I have quoted in connection with my commentary starting on verse 8, Moses had been instructed to teach the rock a chapter of the Torah as a result of which it would release its water. Moses and Aaron had failed to do so. In this instance, the Torah seems to blame Aaron for this and to justify his death now by his failure to sanctify G'd on this occasion. The reason is that when Moses failed to carry out G'd's instructions it was up to Aaron to rectify Moses' error. His failure to do so constituted an act of rebellion against G'd. Concerning the other 3 failures of Moses we described above in the name of the <i>Midrash,</i> Aaron was guilty of agreeing with Moses by not having objected or attempted to correct Moses. Whereas Moses alone was guilty of striking the rock, it was also only Moses who had refused to address the rock the Israelites had chosen. It was also only Moses who had called the Israelites rebellious and challenged them about producing water from a specific rock they had chosen. G'd told Moses in Deut. 32,48 to get ready to die on Mount Nevo, telling him that this was because he and Aaron had trespassed in connection with the water of strife (Deut. 32,51). According to the <i>Midrash</i> the Torah's reference in Deut. is to Moses' challenge to the Israelites: "shall we produce water for you from this rock?" In view of this why did G'd use the plural when He said על אשר מעלתם? If Aaron was not involved in that act why was he held responsible for words spoken by Moses? Granted that he shared responsibility in the matter of striking the rock, something which contravened Moses' and Aaron's joint שליחות, mission. However, how could Aaron have anticipated and therefore have prevented Moses from saying the words המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים? The answer is that G'd included Aaron in the collective responsibility for the failure of the mission because basically both he and Moses had erred jointly.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   והפשט את אהרן את בגדיו, "and strip Aaron of his garments." The fact that the Torah wrote the word את twice, both in connection with Aaron and in connection with his garments suggests that there were two separate "strippings." We might have thought that the garments that Aaron was to be stripped of were the priestly garments, not his personal clothing. This is why the Torah also had to write: "strip Aaron" to indicate that he was to be stripped also of his personal garments. It was only concerning the priestly garments that the Torah continued: והלבשתם את אלעזר בנו, "and put them on his son Eleazar. Had the Torah merely written והפשט אהרן את בגדיו, I would not have had the extra word את from which I could have deduced the proper meaning of the verse. On the other hand, if the Torah had only written והפשט אהרן בגדיו (without either word את), I would have simply understood that Aaron was to be stripped naked, and the words את בגדיו would have become meaningless.
  We may also interpret these words slightly differently. The words הפשט את אהרן refer only to his personal clothing. The Torah added the words את בגדיו to teach us that he would immediately be robed in different garments. This is what the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on our verse had in mind when the author wrote: "While Aaron was being undressed he was immediately enveloped by the clouds of glory." As a result, Aaron was never in a state of undress even while Moses undressed him as parts of the clouds of glory enveloped any part of his body from which Moses removed his clothing.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וילחם בישראל. He fought against Israel. The reason the Torah had to write the words בישראל, instead of עם ישראל as it did in Exodus 17,8 when Amalek is reported as attacking Israel, may be that in this instance the Israelites themselves were the cause that the Canaanites attacked them. They had sinned. The words: וישב ממנו שבי, "he took a prisoner from among them," the word ממנו suggesting that the reason Israel was attacked at this time was Israel itself. Israel's sin at this time was their share in causing the premature death of their High Priest Aaron on account of the events at "the waters of strife." Psalms 106,32 attributes G'd's anger to the people when the Psalmist exclaims: "they angered the Lord at the waters of Merivah and Moses suffered on their account." Naturally, David did not only refer to Moses but also to Aaron who shared in that mission. He singled out Moses by name as he was the principal involved.
  וישב ממנו שבי, "and took a captive from amongst them." We need to explain why the Israelites did not appear troubled by the fact that they suffered a defeat at the hands of a single Canaanite nation. We could have expected them to extrapolate that if a single Canaanite nation could inflict a defeat upon them, what would happen when they would face all seven Canaanite nations? After all, we find precisely such a reaction by Joshua when he suffered a defeat at the hands of the inhabitants of the town of Ai (Joshua 7,5-9).
  According to our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,20 the people described here as "the Canaanite" were in reality the Amalekites. The reason they were described as Canaanites was that they dressed up as Canaanites in order to confuse the Israelites. This is the reason that when the Israelites had prayed to G'd to deliver the attacker into their hands they had referred to the wrong nation in their prayer. When they found out that the attackers had not belonged to the seven Canaanite nations they were not overly concerned at the minor victory enjoyed by the Aamalekite at that time. Their losses had been negligible [a single maidservant according to tradition. Ed.]. Another reason they were not overly concerned was the fact that as long as they did not try and enter the Holy Land, i.e. at a time when the measure of sin of its inhabitants was full, they did not worry that G'd would deliver them into their hands when the time was ripe. Our sages offer a variety of reasons for all this.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אם נתן תתן, "If You will surely deliver, etc." The reason the Israelites repeated the words נתן תתן, is due to the fact that they were not certain which nation they were talking about. They said "if" i.e. if this nation is one of the seven Canaanite nations, all well and good. If not, Israel asked that G'd should nevertheless תתן, give that people into its hands, etc. There is a comment in the <i>Midrash Lekach Tov</i> according to which the first נתן refers to G'd handing back the prisoner the Amalekites had captured.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וידבר העם באלוקים ובמשה, The people spoke out against G'd and against Moses. Although the people were perfectly aware that everything Moses did he did at the command of G'd, this did not prevent them from speaking out against him as they felt he should not have agreed with G'd's route for them but should have pleaded that G'd lead them through a more hospitable country. It would appear that the people's complaints in this instance did not justify G'd decreeing a major punishment as was the case when they had complained after hearing the majority report of the spies in Numbers 14,3. At that time the Israelites had demanded to return to Egypt. This time they "merely" indulged in slander against Moses and G'd. G'd punished them by letting snakes loose against them, seeing snakes symbolise slander ever since the time Eve was tricked by a snake into eating from the tree of knowledge (compare <i>Taanit</i> 8).
  ונפשנו קצה מלחם הקלקל, "and we loathe the light bread." Perhaps they thought that the reason the arduous detour around the land of Edom bothered them so much was because they did not have the kind of food that would enable them to endure such a march more easily. People who travel on foot prefer to eat "heavy" food which is not easily digested as their very walking helps the digestive process. As soon as food has been digested one feels hungry again. Since the mannah was so easily digested they believed that the feeling of an empty stomach made it more difficult to endure the march. This is the reason the Torah introduced their complaint by mentioning the detour around the territory belonging to the kingdom of Edom. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,21 say that the people who said all this were the remnants of the earlier generation who had nothing to look forward to but death in the desert during the coming months as they were destined to die before the Israelites would enter the Holy Land. They were fed up with their very lives. The same did not apply to the younger generation who had much to look forward to in the immediate future.
  
  Verse 6
  
   את הנחשים השרפים, the fiery snakes. It appears that as a result of the continued complaints by the Israelites against G'd and Moses, He sent the very beasts against them which their לשון הרע had given birth to. We have explained on numerous occasions that the מזיקים, destructive forces in our world, are nothing but the creatures we cause to come into being through our sins. The incident of the serpents in this paragraph proves how true the words of our sages in <i>Taanit</i> 8 are when they said that in the messianic future the other wild beasts will ask the serpent why it kills with a poisonous bite seeing it does not even get a physical satisfaction out of the damage it causes; the serpent replies with the verse (Kohelet 10,11)אין יתרון לבעל הלשון, "the slanderer does not get anything out of his slander." It asks: "why not ask the same question of the slanderer? What does he get out of spreading lies against people?"  את הנחשים השרפים, the fiery serpents, etc. It seems quite appropriate that seeing the Israelites continued to slander G'd and Moses, that G'd sent the serpents created by these slanderous remarks against those who had caused their existence, against the slanderers themselves as per the Talmud in <i>Taanit.</i> In this instance the complaints of the Israelites gave birth to two kinds of serpents. The one called נחש has a poisonous bite which destroys the body, whereas the bite of the one called שרף burns the soul. The meaning of the word וישלח here is that G'd allowed the evil creations of the people's slanderous remarks to be turned against them. We find a similar use of that word in Job 8,4 וישלחם ביד פשעם, "He expelled them by means of their sin." In this instance the נחשים were the result of their slander against Moses, whereas the שרפים were the result of the Israelites having misrepresented what G'd had done. The <i>Midrash</i> too mentions that the שרפים were the punishment for what they said against G'd, as these serpents burn the soul.
  
  Verse 7
  
   התפלל אל השם, "pray to the merciful G'd, etc." In this instance the meaning of the word התפלל is equivalent to a call for forgiveness of the sin. There is a difference in the accessibility of forgiveness if one prays for it before the guilty party has experienced afflictions or if one has waited until after he has experienced afflictions. Once the guilty party has already become the victim of the destructive forces he himself has created and which have come home to roost, he needs to marshall some merit in order for these destructive forces to be called off. <i>Shabbat</i> 32 has this to say on the subject: "A person should make a point of asking for mercy before he falls sick because once he has fallen sick they say to him: 'produce some merit and you will be freed from the sickness.'" This is why the people of the generation of the desert (also known as the דור דעה, the generation blessed with knowledge) were astute enough to ask Moses to pray before asking him to remove the destructive serpents. They wanted Moses to invoke his own merits on their behalf.
  את הנחש, the serpent. They wanted that G'd should remove even the relatively minor problem, the deadly bite of the snake that attacked only the bodies. If they had mentioned the שרף or the נחש השרף it would have sounded as if they were only concerned about not having their souls destroyed but would have been content to die a merely physical death, i.e. a normal death. By mentioning only the נחש, the people made it plain that they did not want to die a natural death of the body, and if so, they certainly did not want their souls to die. They were also careful to speak of the נחש in the singular to indicate that they did not want a single snake to remain.
  
  Verse 8
  
   עשה לך שרף, "make a fiery snake for yourself, etc." Our sages in Avodah Zarah 44 have this to say on the peculiar word לך, for yourself, in our verse. "The Torah says לך to tell us that Moses was to construct the serpent using his own funds. The reason for this was that a person may not forbid the use of something which is not his." Thus far the Talmud. The meaning of these words is that seeing Moses had made the serpent using his own funds it became his personal property. No one has the right to forbid others something that is not his. [The problem was that in the days of King Chiskiya (Kings II chapter 18) the people appear to have offered incense to this copper snake Moses had made, and to prevent them from doing so King Chiskiyah broke this snake into little pieces. Ed.] Seeing Moses had made this copper snake, the leaders of subsequent generations had been unable to destroy this snake or to forbid the people to worship it in some form. This explanation of the words עשה לך is one that emerged in the course of historical developments. At this time it is hardly likely that G'd meant for Moses to pay for the snake out of his own funds in order that at a later time the kings or religious leaders should be unable to forbid the people to use it as an object of worship. We must understand why G'd would have phrased His instructions so that we could have understood them to mean that Moses pay for the snake. We must also try and understand why G'd called it a שרף, whereas what Moses made is described as נחש (verse 9). Furthermore, we must try and understand why G'd decreed that an object such as this, which resembled a form of idol, had to be made altogether and why looking up to it would heal a person who had sustained a bite. Our sages in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 29 claim that as long as the Israelites looked heavenwards this was a demonstration of their faith in G'd, etc. If indeed this was all that G'd had in mind, why did He not order them to look straight at heaven instead of looking at the snake as an intermediary?
  In accordance with what we have explained earlier that the reason that both נחשים as well as שרפים attacked the people was because they had slandered both Moses and G'd, we can understand G'd's instructions as meant to counteract both kinds of sins. G'd told Moses to "make for yourself a snake," meaning that with regards to the slander the people were guilty of against Moses himself he was to make a נחש, whereas with regard to the people having slandered G'd he was to make a שרף. It was important for the people to recognise that their sin was twofold, that they had slandered G'd as well as Moses. I will explain this in detail later on.
  Moses was astute enough to construct a copper snake (נחש נחשת) for had he not made the snake out of copper (the same word as נחש) the <i>Saraph</i> G'd had commanded him to make [without specifying the material it was to be made of, Ed.] would not have symbolised both sins. This is why the Torah described what Moses actually made not as a שרף but as a נחש נחשת. The animal itself symbolised the slander against G'd, whereas the material from which Moses constructed it symbolised the slander against Moses the people were guilty of.
  As to the overall meaning of the whole episode, it remains for us to explain why Moses' prayer did not suffice to remove both kinds of snakes from the Israelites so no one would be bitten and require a cure. Clearly, G'd had found that the people on whose behalf Moses had prayed had not repented, or at least had not not been sufficiently penitent. This is spite of the fact that they did say חטאנו, "we have sinned in having spoken out against the Lord and against you" (verse 7). The most important element of repentance is an undertaking not to again become guilty of the sin one asks G'd to forgive. The people had failed to mention such an undertaking on their part. This is why their affliction had not been removed. G'd in His wisdom and His desire to cure the Israelites, invented the stratagem of the artificial snake placed high above the people to give them a chance to either repent properly and not be bitten or to be bitten to awaken them to the need to repent properly. He commanded them to look up to the snake which would result in their being cured. 
  Their looking at the snake was meant to symbolise seven different things.
  1) Kohelet 10,11 attributes a snake's biting to it having been incited. The incitement for the snake to attack humans are their sins. When there is no such incitment, לחש, the snake remains silent, harmless. We are to learn from this that if we keep our tongues silent and do not whisper (לחש) slanderous remarks, the snake will be as harmless as the reproduction Moses had made and placed on a pole.
  2) The Israelites would be prompted to recognise the nature of their sin. We are told in <i>Tikkuney HaZohar</i> chapter 13 concerning a certain serpent found nesting in a tower that this was the angel of death which is compared to a serpent and had seduced original man. Placing this replica of a serpent on a pole was to symbolise the serpent which is found in a high place. The people were to recognise that their slanderous comment had been responsible for placing the serpent in such a high position. They had been guilty of exactly what the original serpent had done when it made slanderous remarks about G'd who is so High. They were also to remember how they had slandered Moses when they realised what material Moses had made the serpent of.
  3) They were to realise the difference between a serpent which crawls on earth, which is the lowest of the low and brings death in its wake, and the serpent constructed by Moses and placed high on a pole which brought life in that it revived people who had been bitten by the deadly poison of a snake. This should remind the people that they had spoken out against the mannah and had professed their preference for bread grown in the ground. Concerning such comments the prophet Isaiah exclaimed in Isaiah 5,20 "Ah, all those who call evil good and good evil, etc."
  4) The copper snake on the pole was designed to awaken in the Israelites the need to do <i>Teshuvah</i> concerning their complaint that G'd had led them through a desert in which their needs could not be provided instead of leading them on a route where there was grain and regular bread. They were to realise that the reason G'd who dwells in the heavens had done so was to make them totally dependent on Him for their sustenance and all their other needs and that there is no other source on which they could rely. G'd managed to make this point very clear by refusing to heal the people who had been bitten unless they raised their eyes and looked at the copper snake on the pole, i.e. in the direction of their Father in Heaven. This is what the Talmud in <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 29 meant which we quoted earlier. The Talmud had only omitted to draw the comparison with the nature of the people's slander, etc. and that G'd wanted the people to rely on Him just as a son relies on the table of his father morning, noon, and night. If G'd had led the people through civilised country they would not have experienced this closeness to G'd as they would have bought their supplies. In that event their whole lifestyle would have been one that would have estranged them from realisation that G'd cared for them every step of the way.
  5) G'd also wanted to counter the criticism implied in the people's reference to their having been led through inhospitable country which required miracles in order to keep them alive. We have a principle that one does not rely on miracles because miracles have a habit of failing to materialise when one needs them most. It is a fact that people who deny G'd's miracles endeavour to demonstrate by all kinds of deceptive devices that what are claimed to be miracles are in actual fact natural occurrences which had to occur at that particular time and at that particular place. The argument of these heretics is based on the fact that the so-called miracle occurred only once and only in a particular location. Inasmuch that the people might have harboured similar thoughts, G'd determined to demonstrate that He could maintain such miracles on a permanent basis by supplying the Jewish people with all their needs through miraculous means for a period of 40 years. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 19,23 describes that Moses threw the copper snake into the air and that it remained suspended there without being supported from the ground. Any person, who had been bitten (even if not by a snake) who would look up at it and would acknowledge that he had been wrong in denying miracles and who now believed that the reason that G'd had led the people through the desert had been in order to demonstrate His ability to perform miracles on a regular basis, would be healed.
  6) G'd wanted to demonstrate the power of true penitence. Our sages in <i>Yuma</i> 86 have said that if someone is a truly penitent person even his former sins will be accounted as merits for him, i.e. not only will he have his sins forgiven but they will be turned into meritorious deeds. In our situation a person who had been bitten and who looked up at the copper snake observed that the very symbol of death, the snake, now kept silent although by definition every kind of snake is guilty of voicing slander. The fact that this very snake now had turned into a life-giving force rather than the reverse taught the repentant sinner this valuable lesson about the power of repentance.
  7) G'd wanted that every individual Jew experience His miracles as something which had happened to him personally. This occurred when the person who had been bitten experienced the cure by looking up at the copper snake.
  והיה כל הנשוך, it would be that everyone who had been bitten, etc. When the Torah here used the word והיה which denotes something joyous rather than the word ויהי which suggests something sad, this was to show the positive effect of having been bitten. A person who had to look up at the copper snake because he had been bitten learned seven lessons in faith. This was certainly a joyous experience for him. The reason the Torah wrote כל הנשוך, "everyone who had been bitten" without adding the word "by a snake," is that even people, who had sustained snake bites before the snakes had proliferated and Moses had made the copper snake as a result of the people's slanderous remarks, were healed also if they looked up at the copper snake. The reason the Torah added the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word וחי was to inform us that looking up at the copper snake also cured those people who had been bitten by a שרף by the kind of snake that burned their souls.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   משם נסעו, From there they journeyed, etc. We need to understand why the Torah changed its style in describing the journeys of the Israelites by introducing both this journey and the one following it as משם, "from there." The Torah's normal way of telling us about the Israelites' journeying has always been the word ויסעו. Perhaps the reason is that the two journeys introduced by the word משם נסעו, i.e. the journey from the river Zered and from the river Arnon occurred at the Israelites' own initiative seeing there were no longer any clouds signalling their move. I have seen proof that my estimate is correct by what is written in Deut. 2,13: "now rise up and get over the brook of Zered, etc." These words clearly indicate that the Israelites did not journey at the behest of the clouds of glory. If the journey had started because the clouds moved, why would Moses have to tell the people to get moving? Although the Torah had said in Numbers 9,20 that the Israelites made camp and broke camp at G'd's instructions, this referred to all the other journeys barring these two. The reason was that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory had disappeared. Even though we have been told in <i>Taanit</i> 9 that these clouds re-appeared due to the merit of Moses, it is possible that the particular cloud which signalled to the Israelites that they were to break camp had not returned.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות השם, wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, etc. Our sages offer two explanations on this verse, one in <i>Kidushin</i> 30 where they interpret the "wars" as referring to the disagreements between scholars about how to interpret the Torah. Such disagreements are called "a war of G'd," as these people are friendly with one another on a personal basis though opposing each other as Torah scholars. This is supposed to be the meaning of the words את והב בסופה. The second explanation is offered in <i>Berachot</i> 54 where the Talmud says that there were two Jews who had been stricken with <i>Tzoraat</i> one of whom was called את and the other והב. They trailed the remainder of the Israelite camp walking behind the main body seeing they were not allowed into the camp proper as מצורעים, people afflicted with this skin eczema. It was they who informed the others of the collision of the mountains situated on either side of the river Arnon.
  We prefer to explain this verse according to its plain meaning. The Torah mentioned in verse 13 that the river Arnon formed the boundary between Moav and the Emorite. It follows that Israel owned no part of it. This is the reason the Torah goes on to say that in the book which is open before G'd and which contains records of the various wars describing which nation G'd disinherited and to which nation He granted additional territory, the river Arnon is recorded as the border between Moav and the Emorite. It is also recorded in that book that eventually, i.e. בסופה, this area will become part of the land of Israel. However, the time had not come for this development. The area in question is part of the three tribes Keyni, Kenizi, and Kadmoni whose territory was included in G'd's promise to Abraham at the covenant of the pieces (Genesis 15,19) but whose territory Israel never conquered to this day.
  The word והב may have either of two meanings. 1) It is an expression of love, אהבה, i.e. that G'd loves to give these lands to Israel also but not at that time. 2) It is an expression denoting נתינה, giving, granting. We find this expression in that sense [aramaic, Ed.] in Daniel 2,23 "You have granted me wisdom." This is not the only time that the Torah employs aramaic words. Some other examples are Genesis 21,7 מי מלל; another example is Deut. 33,2 ואתא מרבבות קדש.
  The Torah continues ואת הנחלים, "and the brooks, etc.," to further describe in detail the borders of Moav which are recorded in the book in which G'd records the various wars. In the future all the tributaries of Arnon will become part of the land of Israel as well as the tributaries which are close to the seat of Or.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אז ישיר ישראל, Then Israel sang, etc. What precisely was the point of this song? Besides, why had the Israelites not acknowledged the mannah by a song just as they acknowledged the water? The entire paragraph needs explaining. Perhaps the entire song really was an acknowledgement of the Torah. This is why one cannot criticise that generation for not breaking out in a song of thanksgiving when the Torah was described as its מורשה, something precious left to them as an ongoing possession (Deut. 33,4). The reason is that the people had already acknowledged the gift of the Torah in the song recorded here, the song acknowledging "water." After all, Torah has frequently been compared to a well of water. It is called "well" because it originates with G'd the ultimate well from which all springs forth. It is also called "water" as it symbolises water and its life-giving properties. When the people sang עלי באר, "arise o well," this was not a reference to the physical well and the waters beneath the earth's surface, but to a celestial well. The words ענו לה are similar to Exodus 15,23 ותען להם מרים, the responsive nature of the chant.
  חפרוה שרים, which the princes dug. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 64, states that by means of Torah study man is able to make repairs to celestial sources called באר, "well." The extent of the "repair" achieved depends on the depth of the Torah study by the individuals concerned and the spiritual level of those scholars. The Patriarchs who were on a very exalted spiritual level dug this "well," and made its waters fit to drink. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 29,10 והאבן גדולה על פי הבאר, ויגל את האבן העל פי הבאר וישק את הצאן. "The stone was large on the mouth of the well, and he (Jacob) rolled the stone from the mouth of the well and watered the flocks." From that moment on the Torah was fit to be given to the people of Israel although the stage had not yet been reached where Israel could drink from it. This stage was not reached until Moses "dug" in it, i.e. brought it down to the Jewish people from Mount Sinai. The שרים in our verse are the Patriarchs, the נדבי העם is a reference to Moses. Subsequently the Torah was handed from generation to generation through the elders, the prophets, and eventually, through the Men of the Great Assembly. These people explained the Torah and its secrets. The meaning of the words כרוה נדיבי העם is that if we have only the written Torah without the oral Torah we cannot drink from the Torah's waters.
  במחקק במשענתם refers to the additional insights into Torah the scholars have revealed throughout the generations. These insights are likened to someone who adds decrees to existing decrees, not comparable to the earlier generations who have truly dug to explore primary meanings of the Torah. Even the additional aspects of Torah discovered by scholars in recent generations were discovered only with the help of the earlier generations, i.e. במשענתם, by using them as a crutch. We are not free to innovate new meanings and הלכות unless we can show that our conclusions are the direct continuation of the path in Torah shown us by the earlier generations of scholars.
  The Torah goes on וממדבר מתנה, "and from the wilderness to Matanah." This is a hint that whatever Torah-scholarship we acquire is due only to our first making ourselves like a wilderness, as we explained on Exodus 19,2 on the words "they camped in the desert." Torah can be acquired only by men who first train themselves to be humble. The Torah goes on in verse 19 וממתנה נחליאל, "and from Matanah to Nachliel." This is an allusion to the fact that G'd inherited us as it were by means of the Torah which He gave to us. This is spelled out in Deut. 32,9 יעקב חבל נחלתו. The words also mean that G'd chose only us as we know from Psalms 135,4: "for the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel as His treasured possession." He even left His abode in heaven and took up residence amongst us.
  ומנחליאל במות, "and from Nachliel to Bamot." Due to the fact that we have become His inheritance, He has turned us into במות, someone on a high elevation, i.e. higher than the angels. The Torah goes on ומבמות הגיא אשר בשדה מואב, "and from Bamot to the valley which is in the field of Moav." This whole line is a reminder that the principal reward for מצוה--performance is not in this world, "in the valley," but in a higher world and that in this world true spiritual wealth cannot be achieved.
  As a result of the foregoing considerations it is essential that man must be removed from this earth in order for him to receive the full reward he is entitled to at the hands of G'd. When it appears to us that death has been caused by sin, this means that but for sin man would live on earth forever. If that were so, how could G'd pay man the reward due to him for his good deeds, etc.? Kabbalists answer that had it not been for sin, man would have ascended to heaven and have been allocated appropriate accomodation there. The prophet Elijah is an example of someone who had not died and who ascended to heaven in order to receive the reward due to him. It is true that the body finds it impossible to survive in those regions even after it has been refined to the highest degree possible so that it is has become comparable to something spiritual. Still, such spirituality is as nothing when compared to the higher degrees of spirituality. Our sages in the Zohar, volume 1, page 209 explain that as soon as Elijah had reached the domain (galaxy) of the sun (in his ascent) he was stripped of his body, leaving it behind in that domain. Whenever he has occasion to descend to earth to fulfil his various assignments, he picks up his body in the גלגל חמה before completing his journey to earth. Our sages have also said that at the moment G'd gave the Torah to the Jewish people they were freed from the need to die and became like original man before the sin. They allude (Exodus 32,16) to this by reading the expression <i>charut al haluchot</i> as <i>cherut al haluchot</i> (compare <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 41,7). Since this was the new found status of the Israelites, at that time, they too ascended to the domain (galaxy) of the sun and divested themselves of their bodies there, just as Elijah did many years later. When the Torah writes here מבמות הגיא, "from the heights to the valley," this describes the subsequent descent of the Jewish people from their places in the celestial domain to a domain called "valley," i.e. the grave. This valley was in the "field of Moav," i.e. the earth is called "field." The resason the Torah speaks of מואב is a reference to the "Father" who has created the universe.
  Alternatively, the word שדה refers to woman who has also been called שדה as we know from <i>Zohar</i> volume 1 page 36. The meaning of the verse then would be as follows: "the valley (grave) which was a state reached due to woman, who had been formed out of the "father" of all mankind, Adam, is the only one who had been created in this fashion, part of the rib of Adam, her husband." She had become the cause of mortality of man so that man's bones (remains) are buried in the grave, i.e. בגיא. This situation can be retrieved only by means of the Torah which is the remedy that can help us be restored to the condition of Adam before the sin. When man achieves that state his body will be of the order of the "valley" in the Celestial Regions, just as it used to be when G'd had created it.
  I do not know the precise parameter of the region the Torah describes as ראש הפסגה. Perhaps it is a place in higher Celestial Regions, the area where G'd keeps the souls before they are assigned to bodies or after they have returned from earth. This might be alluded to by the words ונשקפה על פני הישימון, "looking down upon the desert" in verse 20. The word ישימון is connected to שממה, a wasteland, the letter י suggesting a land which is going to be laid waste. It may also be called thus as an allusion to the evil urge as it tries to dominate and lay waste all creatures. The area it looks down upon is the galaxy of the sun where all the people destined for the גיא, the grave, are found. The upshot of the paragraph is that the useful function of the Torah is that it enables both body and soul to remain alive.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וירא בלק בן צפור...ויגר מואב, Balak son of Tzippor saw- ..and Moav was afraid, etc. Why does the Torah describe only Balak as "seeing," whereas his countrymen are only described as being afraid of the Israelites? Secondly, why was only Moav afraid and not Midian? After all, Midian had much more reason to be afraid seeing that their horoscope told them they would be lost whereas there was nothing in the horoscope of the Moabites which foretold them disaster at this time?
  We have to remember that according to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,4 Balak used to be one of the princes of Midian, but the Moabites had appointed him as their king out of fear from the Israelites. When the Torah writes that "Balak saw," it reveals that the former prince of Midian who had seen what the Israelites had done a short while previously to the mighty king Sichon of the Emorites was just as much afraid of the Israelites as the Moabites. There was no need for the Torah to spell this out as everybody had taken note of the defeat of the mighty king Sichon. Subsequently, the Torah mentions that even Moav was afraid of Israel. The fact that both Moav and Midian feared Israel brought them closer together and they made peace with one another as is evident from the proposal made by the elders of Moav to the elders of Midian. Our sages also say in that same <i>Midrash</i> that the proof that the Moabites and the Midianites were warring is the verse המכה את מדין בשדה מואב, (Genesis 36,35). There was always hatred between these two peoples. The <i>Midrash</i> describes their relationship as like that of two dogs which always fight each other until threatened by a wolf. The reason that the Moabites humbled themselves and appointed someone from Midian as king over them instead of vice versa was that the Moabites needed the counsel of the Midianites amongst whom Moses had lived for many years.
  Another peculiarity in our verse is the use of the word "saw" instead of "heard" for Balak's reaction. What had Balak seen? While it is true that the <i>Mechilta</i> had stated that there are occasions when the Torah uses the word "saw" instead of "heard," such as in Exodus 20,15: "the whole people saw the sounds, etc.," this certainly does not apply here. In fact, we have been told in <i>Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer</i> 41 that the people at the time of the revelation actually saw the sounds with their eyes, [the soundwaves, I presume, Ed,]. Furthermore, why did the Torah find it necessary to tell us who Balak's father was, i.e. צפור? Why did the Torah use two expressions denoting something additional but indeterminate, i.e. את and כל? Why does the Torah describe two distinct reactions by the Moabites, "they were afraid," and "they detested?" Why are the Israelites referred to as "Israel" and simply as "the people," and then again as "the children of Israel?"
  We can understand all this in light of the <i>Zohar</i> on our verse where Balak is described as a greater sorcerer than Bileam. He employed a certain bird, צפור to perform his sorcery with. When the Torah mentions that Balak "saw," it means that whatever he "saw" he saw by means of that bird. His biological father may not have been someone by the name of צפור, at all; his reliance on the magic he could perform with the help of that bird, caused the Torah to describe him as a "son of צפור." He was able to use such a צפור in his pursuit of magic. This צפור had informed him about all that Israel had done to the Emorite. He did not depend on outside sources of information.
  It is even possible that he used the צפור as an oracle which foretold him things to come. The extraneous word כל may indicate how Balak came by his knowledge, whereas the word את may be an allusion to the visions he had of the future of what would happen to another nation., i.e. that it too would suffer a fate similar to that of the Emorite at the hands of the people of Israel. The nation which Israel would uproot at that time was Midian. The word את may be a reference to the people of Midian who were next on the list of nations whom the Israelites would destroy. It is possible that Balak "saw" that the Moabites were safe against any attack by the Israelites; he was quite right in this as G'd had forbidden the Israelites to even put pressure on Moav. Balak's magic foretold not only disaster but also pleasant news. The Moabites had to place heavy reliance on the person of Balak who alone was able to "see" by means of his צפור. The Torah alludes to all this as an introduction to why Balak and the Moabites turned to Bileam and the sins committed by Israel as a result of Bileam's visit. The "vision" Balak saw was only one factor as I shall explain later. When the Torah adds ויגר מואב, this is not something which was caused by what Balak had "heard" or "seen," but refers to another event which followed and inspired fear in the heart of the Moabites.
  The Torah was careful to describe Moav's reaction as being due to מפני העם, "on account of the people," seeing the people were numerous and tough. The Torah mentions specifically that the people were numerous and by inference that the reason the Moabites detested them was because of their toughness, i.e. that they were בני ישראל, a people with access to a supernatural ally, their G'd in heaven. Had the Jewish people only outnumbered them they could have countered this by hiring armies from surrounding countries to fight together with them against the Israelites. All these factors combined to account for their calling a truce in their fight against the Midianites and appointing the Midianite Balak as their king. They sent for Bileam as a result of which 24.000 Israelites died without the Moabites having to raise a finger.
  If even a single one of the causes we have mentioned had not been present, they never would have engaged Bileam and nothing would have happened. If Balak, for instance, had not foreseen with his bird what fate was in store for himself and Midian, the Moabites would never have been willing to make peace with their natural enemies, the Midianites. The idea of sending to Midian for a prophet to curse Israel would not even have been entertained. They most certainly would not have been prepared to let their women sleep with the Israelites. After all, the Midianites had not felt confident about facing Israel in war, only the Moabites were confident because they knew that whatever Israel was going to do to them was in the far distant future (24,14). [You will note that the Moabites did not fear for their lives from verse 4. Ed.] This is why the Moabites could have remained confident about any military encounter with Israel at this time. The Moabites were quite confident about sending their women into the camp of the Israelites, as opposed to the Midianites who allowed only a single woman, Kosbi bat Tzur, to entice the Israelites into immoral behaviour. In fact we have it on the authority of <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> on 25,15 that this Kosbi was a daughter of Balak himself who was also called Tzur. If the Moabites had not been afraid of העם because of their numbers or had detested them because they had divine support they never would have made peace with Midian and accepted a Midianite prince to be king over them. To make all these points clear, the Torah informed us first about Balak seeing, Moav being afraid, and the Moabites detesting Israel. The combined reactions of the Moabites and the Midianite Balak led to the desperate decision to invite a Midianite prophet to curse the Israelites.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו, "the multitude will lick up all that is around us, etc." Perhaps the Moabites did not want to reveal to the elders of Midian the extent of their fear of the Israelites and that is why they described the presence of the Israelites in that part of the world as an ecological disaster. They spoke of "our environment" (pl) to include the Midianites as potential victims of such a disaster. The words ובלק בן צפור are what the Torah reports not part of what the Moabites told the Midianites. It is even possible that these words were also spoken by the Moabite messengers to the elders of the Midianites; they wanted to emphasise to the Midianites that inasmuch as they had appointed one of the Midianite princes as their king, the Midianites had a special interest in cooperating with them. Should anything happen to them, this would reflect negatively on Midian because of their king's origin. The Torah emphasises that Balak was king בעת ההיא, "at that time," i.e. not earlier and not subsequently. Once Bileam told the Moabites that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites in the foreseeable future, they dismissed Balak from his position and sent him home. The best proof of that is the fact that when the Torah enumerates the princes who were slain in the punitive expedition the Israelites launched after Pinchas' famous deed (Numbers 31,8), Tzur was amongst the princes listed as having been killed.
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם, He sent messengers to Bileam, etc. The Torah, or rather Balak, specified the name of Bileam's father and his place of residence in order to expedite the mission. He did not want to leave any doubt as to which Bileam he had in mind; similarly, he stated the location where Bileam was to be found so that his messengers would not lose valuable time tracking down the right person. In the event that there was another place called פתורה, he added that the one he had in mind was situated on a great river,אשר על הנהר. He added further that the land in question was his homeland, ארץ בני עמו, a place where everybody knew who Bileam was and that in the event he was not presently at home, surely the people could tell his messengers where Bileam could be found at this time.
  לקרא לו, to call him. Balak was astute enough to tell Bileam immediately that what he wanted was something that would be of benefit to Bileam, i.e. לו. He, Balak, wanted to give Bileam a chance to earn a fat fee. He assumed that this would be sufficient incentive to persuade Bileam to come at once.
  הנה עם יצא ממצרים, Here there is a people who have come out of Egypt, etc. Why did Balak say הנה "here?" Why did he say that the people "left" Egypt? The whole world knew that the only people who had ever left Egypt were the Israelites. Bileam would certainly have been aware of this. Why did Balak say הנה כסה את עין הארץ, instead of the customary ויכס את עין הארץ?
  We may understand this in light of <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,9 that when the Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites and who wanted to "outsmart" the Israelites was on the throne he had three advisors one of whom was Bileam. At that time Bileam had invoked a magic formula which was designed to permanently prevent slaves from escaping from Egypt. Balak now informed Bileam that his magic had been invalidated, that a whole nation of slaves had fled from Egypt. [this was forty years earlier and at least 126 years after Bileam had invoked this magic. Ed.] By saying הנה, Balak suggested that Bileam owed him something seeing it was Bileam's magic the Israelites had managed to invalidate. Perhaps Bileam had previously assured Balak that the Israelites would never leave Egypt. Balak continued with: הנה כסה את עין הארץ to challenge Bileam whose advice had been based on reducing the numbers of the Israelites. By contrast, Balak pointed out, "look at them now!" They cover as much land as the eye can see. Instead of their males having been killed, their fighting men now number so many one cannot even see all of them.
  והוא ישב ממולי, "and it resides across from me." Balak meant that Israel's general behaviour indicated it meant to disinherit the Moabites. According to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,7 it was the posture of the Israelites which frightened Balak. They appeared to be vctorious as soon as the opened their mouths. Balak mentioned all this in order to counter Bileam's expected response that he could curse them from his residence without bothering himself to travel all the way to Moav. Balak was also afraid that Bileam would become aware by means of his sorcery that the Israelites actually had no intention to harm or destroy the territory of Moav and that as a result of such knowledge he would refuse to come to him but simply reassure him that this people would not harm him. This is why he prefaced his invitation by describing how the people were spread out all over the area around Moav and that one could not rely on what Bileam's magic would tell him about that nation's intentions. The fact is that according to Bileam's magic sources, this people should never have left Egypt, nor should they have increased in numbers. This was reason enough for Bileam to come personally and convince himself of the true state of affairs.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועתה לכה נא, "and now please come, etc." Balak used the word ועתה, "and now," to indicate that he did not want Bileam to delay before he would come as he felt himself in danger every moment. He pleaded by using the word נא, "please," adding that Bileam should curse this people לי, "for me." By this he meant that the effectiveness of Bileam's curse should not be delayed until after the Israelites had a chance to revenge themselves on him and Moav for having called in Bileam to curse them. By using the word לי, Balak also hinted that although -according to the <i>Midrash-</i> Bileam had already blessed Balak personally so that he had no reason to fear the Israelites himself, he wanted the Israelites cursed and was not content with being blessed. In the event Bileam were to say that there was no need for this, Balak added כי עצום הוא ממני, "for it is more mighty than I." Balak had two things in mind when he said these words. 1) Israel's natural strength; 2) the matter of the blessing. He felt that Israel had received more powerful blessings than he had received from Bileam. When he went on אולי נכה בו, "perhaps we can smite it," he meant that even after Bileam would do all that he requested him to do he would still not feel confident to take on the Israelites by himself. At best, he might be able to inflict a defeat on them, certainly not to wipe them out. He might also have drawn a line between the righteous Israelites and the average ones. Of the former he expressed the hope that he could expel them from the region, ואגרשנו מן הארץ, whereas concerning the less pious Israelites he entertained hopes of defeating them, נכה בו.
  There is also a moral/ethical message in Balak's words. His words boomeranged upon himself. When he said ארה לי, "curse for me," this turned out to be "curse me." Had he not used these words his daughter Kosbi would not have been killed by Pinchas. Bileam's coming to Moav and failing to curse the Israelites also became the reason that Balak was forced to return to Midian and be killed by the sword during the punitive expedition involving 12.000 Israelites as described in 31,8. If Bileam had not travelled all the way to Moav and assured these people that they were safe from the Israelites until the distant future, Balak would have remained on the throne in Moav, secure from all the wars the Israelites would be involved in. As it was, he became the personification of Psalms 37,15: "their swords shall pierce their own hearts."
  כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך, "for I know that if you bless someone, etc." We may understand this as a reference to another statement in the <i>Midrash</i> we quoted earlier that Bileam had foretold Balak that he would become a king. Balak acknowledged that Bileam's blessing had indeed come true for him. This was something only he was aware of as he had experienced it personally. On the other hand, it was common knowledge that Bileam's curse was effective for when Sichon went to war against Moav he had hired Bileam to curse Moav (compare <i>Tanchuma</i> on this paragraph). As a result, Sichon had captured large parts of Moav. [land which the Israelites had now captured from Sichon. Ed.] We have to mention here that the reason Bileam's curses had seemed effective to people who hired him was 1) he possessed the power of the evil eye; 2) he knew when to exploit the precise moment when G'd was angry and he chose that moment to utter his curse. (compare <i>Berachot</i> 7). He did not have parallel powers to make his blessings effective for any length of time.
  As a matter of fact, a blessing by Bileam was about as effective as a blessing by a donkey. Bileam merely pretended to bless after he had observed that the horoscope of the person in question fore-shadowed that he would be successful. All Bileam did was to match his blessing to what he foresaw in that person's horoscope. When the blessing appeared to have been fulfilled, Bileam claimed credit for it as if he had been the cause and not horoscopic forces. This was precisely how he came to bless Balak and predicted that he would become king. He had consulted Balak's horoscope and found that it foretold that Balak would become a king. He had deceived Balak by letting him believe that he, Bileam, had been the cause of his becoming king.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   לינו פה, "stay here overnight." Bileam may have meant that the messengers stay overnight in his own home, and that is what he meant by the word פה, "here." He concluded by saying that he would tell them what G'd was going to say, כאשר ידבר, not what G'd had said. He hinted that by staying overnight at his home he could inform them immediately G'd would give him instructions. When he emphasised הלילה, "this night," he might have inadvertently revealed his miserly nature as he was not willing to play host to them for more than one night.
  
  Verse 9
  
   מי חאנשים האלה עמך, "who are these men with you?" Why did G'd bother to ask him? Didn't He know who these men were and why they had come? Also, why did G'd have to say עמך, "with you?" It would have been enough to say האלה "these." We also have to understand Bileam's peculiar reply. To the question who these men are he replies who has sent them. Our sages in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 765 have noted this oddity and wrote as follows: "Bileam said to G'd: 'I do not know who these people are but Balak the son of Tzippor has sent them to me, etc.'" The Yalkut means that from the way Bileam phrased his answer G'd was supposed to conclude that he was unaware of who precisely these messengers were. He certainly did not say outright: "I do not kow, etc." Why did Bileam have to add that Balak was the king of Moav? Was it not enough that he told G'd the name of the man? I believe that we can best understand G'd's question after remembering what I have written about the words "stay here overnight," that Bileam invited these messengers to sleep with him in the same room. G'd wanted to know what was so special about these people whom Bileam had invited to be present when he expected to be addressed by an angel of G'd. After all, G'd implied, this room is the one you have reserved for when I communicate with you. The word האלה implies that these people are not deserving of such an honour, much as the words מי אנכי, "who am I" in Exodus 3,11 suggest that Moses did not consider himself worthy of the task G'd wanted to entrust to him. From G'd's question it is evident that He was concerned with the honour due to Bileam vis-a-vis the Gentile nations amongst whom he was rated as a prophet. We find a statement in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,14 that G'd killed the she-ass Bileam was riding on as she was belittling him. When we look at the next verse (10) we see that Bileam understood what G'd meant and that is why he said that Balak the king of Moav had sent these men, i.e. they deserve to be honoured as they came on an errand from the king. He gave Balak's full name to indicate that Balak had already been an important prince in Midian even before his elevation to become king over Moav.
  By mentioning that Balak was king over Moav he wanted to remind G'd that the Moabites were not one of the nations which would be given to the Israelites to conquer. He was very astute in hinting at this as he wanted G'd's consent to accept the assignment and he did not want G'd to put any obstacle in his way.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   הנה העם היוצא ממצרים, "Here are the people who have come out of Egypt, etc." Why did Bileam not repeat to G'd Balak's message to him verbatim? Balak had spoken about עם, "a people," whereas Bileam speaks about העם, "the people." Balak had described the Israelites' impact on the surrounding areas with the words: הנה כסה את עין הארץ, whereas Bileam changed the words הנה כסה to ויכס. Balak had asked Bileam to curse the people using the expression ארה, whereas Bileam tells G'd that Balak had said קבה. Whereas Balak had said אולי נכה בו, "perhaps we can smite it," Bileam changes Balak's words to read אולי אוכל להלחם בו, "perhaps I will be able to make war against them." We can explain all these changes Bileam made with the help of <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,9 that Bileam made the mistake of believing that there are things which are concealed from G'd. He arrived at this conclusion because G'd asked him who these people were. Although we have already explained G'd's question in a different manner, there are 70 ways to interpret the written Torah. As soon as Bileam had been deceived into thinking that G'd' did not know everything, he felt at liberty to meddle with the exact wording of Balak's request. On the one hand, Bileam had always hated the Israelites, on the other hand he knew full well -as did every other nation- that this people was beloved by G'd. The Exodus and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian army had been proof enough of that. Bileam commenced by saying: "here is the people who came out of Egypt," a rhetorical remark, referring to a well known historical fact. Such a wording did not reveal the hostility implied in the formula הנה עם יצא ממצרים which had been implicit in Balak's remark. The difference between הנה כסה and ויכס is similar in that the latter formulation does not reveal any implied animosity towards the people who cover the earth. Bileam also omitted the word הנה because it too suggests the contrast with other nations who do not provocatively "cover" the whole earth surrounding Moav. On the other hand, the word ויכס does reflect the fear in the heart of someone who commences the sentence with these words. 
  When Bileam quoted Balak as saying ועתה לכה קבה לי אותו, "and now curse it for me," he implied that Balak was entitled to ask this as the people in question threatened his existence. He implied that although G'd had destined Ammon and Moav for Israel, the time for handing these nations over to Israel had not come as yet. At this point in time it was permissible to curse and make war against this people in order to expel them from Balak's area. A curse called קבה is quite different from a curse called ארה, the latter being of a general nature, i.e. a nation that has been cursed by ארה is accursed world-wide, whereas the curse called קבה is effective only vis-a-vis the one who did the cursing, i.e. Balak only cursed in self-defence. The words להלחם בו are also much milder than נכה בו, "to smite it." Whereas Balak had demanded that the Israelites be driven from the earth, מן הארץ, Bileam portrayed him as only having asked וגרשתיו, "so that I can drive them away" (locally). Perhaps Balak wanted the Israelites driven away from the lands G'd had promised them. He may have felt that if these people had once been humbled, they would desist from their attempt to invade the land of Canaan. Be that as it may, Bileam rephrased Balak's request in order to enhance the chances that G'd would permit him to go on this errand. He gave G'd to understand that Balak's concern was simply self-preservation, not hostility against Israel per se.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר אלוקים אל בלעם, "G'd said to Bileam, etc." Why did the Torah have to write אל בלעם? Why was it not sufficient for the Torah to write: ויאמר לו, or ויאמר אליו "He said to him?" Why did G'd have to say "do not go and do not curse?" Moreover, why did G"d have to give as the reason כי ברוך הוא, that Israel is already blessed? Our sages in the above-quoted <i>Midrash</i> write as follows: "In the event Bileam would say I will curse them from here, G'd added 'do not curse!' If Bileam were to say that in that event he would bless the Israelites, G'd told him not to bother as they were blessed already."
  I believe we have to explain the verse in accordance with what I have written about G'd asking why Bileam had honoured these people to let them sleep in the same room with him. Bileam had explained that these people were emissaries of a very exalted personage, Balak, etc. G'd now answered Bileam in the order in which Bileam had answered G'd's first question. As far as Bileam having explained the nature of these emissaries, G'd said: "do not go with them," i.e. they are not of the calibre that you should go with them. G'd informed Bileam that Balak had insulted him by sending such low-ranking emissaries. Bileam had failed to understand at the time when G'd asked him "who are these men?" G'd had meant: "are these people sufficiently high-ranking to bring you on such an errand?" Now Bileam understood G'd's meaning and he told the emissaries that G'd had refused to allow him to go with them, i.e. it was up to Balak to send higher ranking emissaries.
  The reason that G'd related with so much concern for Bileam's dignity may not only have had to do with his standing as a prophet amongst the Gentiles, but may have reflected G'd's desire to reward him for telling the emissaries at the outset that his decision would hinge on whether G'd would permit him to go with them. We know that G'd does not withhold the reward due to any individual, even the reward due to Gentiles. It is illuminating to read how <i>Sanhedrin</i> 96 describes G'd rewarding Nebuchadnezzar who was a scribe of king Merodach of the Babylonians at the time for recalling a letter addressed to King Chiskiyah in which the king Merodach had blessed king Chiskiyah before blessing G'd. When Nebuchadnezzar found out about this error he chased after the courier and recalled the latter to have it changed. Nebuchadnezzar, a servant with no claim to the throne, later on became king. In this instance too, G'd repaid Bileam for honouring Him in the eyes of Balak's emissaries when He said to Bileam: "do not go with them." When we keep this in mind we can also understand why the Torah wrote "G'd said to Bileam," instead of "to him." The Torah meant that G'd honoured Bileam by advising him not to go with such low ranking emissaries. Bileam deserved to be addressed by name. Even if the mission itself would have been approved by G'd, it was below Bileam's dignity to respond to the pleas of such emissaries.
  When G'd told Bileam לא תאור "do not curse," using the term for curse used by Balak instead of that which Bileam had pretended to quote, He made it plain to Bileam that He could not be fooled, that He was well aware of exactly what Balak's message to Bileam had been.
  When G'd added: "for it is blessed," He wanted Bileam to understand that the reason for telling him "do not go," and "do not curse," were not the same, i.e. that they were both on account of Bileam's dignity. Bileam was not to assume that if only Balak would send higher ranking emissaries he would be allowed to go with them and curse the Jewish people. G'd added that the Jewish people were blessed, i.e. that even if Balak had sent emissaries of much higher rank Bileam would never be allowed to curse this people.
  There is another way of explaining our verse; based on the fact that after all G'd knew that Bileam wanted to do evil and that eventually he would accompany Balak's emissaries. Inasmuch as G'd does not prevent man from exercising his choice, He eventually agreed for Bileam to go, allowing him to travel. I will explain the reason for this in due course. To this end G'd first told Bileam לא תלך עםהם, "you must not go with them," i.e. He forbade Bileam to travel. Had G'd only said "you must not go," He would not have left Himself an opportunity to say later on that Bileam could go, albeit subject to certain restrictions.
  G'd was careful to add the words אל בלעם, "to Bileam," to hint to him why He forbade him to go. This was because Bileam wanted to do "his own thing," i.e. he wanted to go in order to curse the people. The next time, when G'd allowed Bileam to go, He did so in order for Bileam to do "G'd's thing", i.e. for Bileam to bless the people. The word עמהם suggests that he would make common cause with the emissaries. This is what G'd forbade.
  When G'd said לא תאור ..כי ברוך הוא, "do not curse..for it is blessed," He wanted to counter Bileam's argument that inasmuch as the time had not come for Israel to occupy the lands of Ammon and Moav there was no harm in cursing the people at this time. G'd told Bileam not to curse the Jewish people at any time. As to Bileam's argument that the Jewish people were not yet on a spiritual level allowing them to occupy the lands of Ammon and Moav, G'd said that nonetheless ברוך הוא, they are blessed and must not be cursed. The term ברוך is only applied to the righteous seeing that righteousness is at the root of all blessing. G'd warned Bileam not to suspect that the reason why the Israelites had not yet been given the lands of Ammon and Moav was that they were guilty of wickedness. G'd chose to equate a righteous person or nation with a blessed person or nation, respectively.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויקם בלעם בבקר, Bileam arose in the morning, etc. Bileam may have waited with relaying what G'd had said to his guests as the news would not please them. There was therefore no point in waking them in the middle of the night. Alternatively, the Torah means to tell us that Bileam himself did not awaken from his deep sleep until morning. When the Torah wrote that he rose in the morning, the implication is that he could not rise sooner. It is also possible that the Torah meant to criticise Bileam who immediately sent back these emissaries in order to ensure that other, higher ranking ones, would take their place to enable him to go with them. The Torah may also have wanted to give us an example of Bileam's tight-fistedness in that he dismissed Balak's emissaries before offering them breakfast. This is in stark contrast to the story of the פלנש בגבעה in Judges chapter 19, where the prophet describes the art of treating guests and making them feel welcome. Bileam may be described as the root of all avarice. He told the emissaries to be on their way as he was afraid that if they were to have a meal at the local inn he would be required to foot the bill.
  לכו..כי מאן ה׳ לתתי להלך עמכם, "go..for G'd has refused to permit me to go with you." Bileam did not tell his emissaries all that G'd had told him. He neither mentioned the fact that G'd had forbidden him to curse the people, nor that the people were blessed. All that he told them was that G'd had not allowed him to go with them, implying that their rank was inferior. This is the reason that Balak immediately sent higher ranking emissaries. It is possible that Bileam interpreted the words "for it is blessed," to mean that as long as the Jewish people enjoyed G'd's blessing he must not curse them, but that there could be a time when the people would not enjoy that blessing as a result of which they would become subject to his curse. This may have been the reason Bileam did not give Balak's emissaries a final answer at this time. He hoped that by the time higher ranking emissaries would come, the people might be subject to his curse.
  
  Verse 14
  
   מאן בלעם הלך עמנו, "Bileam refused to come with us." They suspected him of being a liar, accusing him of desiring more honour than what Balak had shown him thus far. It is also possible that seeing that Bileam had promised to inform the emissaries immediately of G'd's answer but had not done so until morning, this made them assume that he told them what he wanted them to know and not what G'd had told him. Perhaps there was even a traditon that Bileam was a compulsive liar.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויוסף עוד בלק שלח שרים, Balak sent additional princes, etc. This means that he sent both the original emissaries as well as additonal higher ranking ones. We deduce this from the word מאלה, "than these." Unless the original emissaries were present with the additional ones the word מאלה makes no sense. The Torah should then have written the word מהם, "than those." The reason that Balak sent the original emissaries along was so as to prevent Bileam from denying what these emissaries had reported in his name.
  The word ויוסף may also indicate that Balak sent a larger number of emissaries than the first time. We could not have deduced this if the Torah had only written: וישלח עוד שרים רבים. I would then have understood the word רבים to mean that he did not send fewer delegates than the first time.
  
  Verse 16
  
   אל נא תמנע, "please do not be prevented, etc." Inasmuch as the first set of delegates had come to the conclusion that Bileam had declined their invitation for reasons of his own, they expressed the hope that his desire for the appropriate honour had now been satisfied. There was therefore no further obstacle that could prevent him from acceding to their request. Bileam, who was not aware that the first set of emissaries had suspected him of merely inventing G'd's prohibition interpreted the words of the new delegates to mean that he should ignore what G'd had told him and should come against G'd's will. This is why he made a point of saying that his previous refusal had nothing to do with the size of his fee or his personal honour, but that he was unable to contravene G'd's instructions. He explained that he was not free to exercise his free will in this matter.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם, "And now, you stay here also, etc." Bileam pleaded as he was afraid that these dignitaries would do what the Midianite delegates had done when they heard that Bileam was waiting to get G'd's instructions. The Midianite delegates at the time had gone home immediately without staying overnight as they anticipated Bileam's refusal (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,8). Now that the delegation was large and consisted of highly placed people, Bileam was afraid that they would not be willing to wait.
  
  Verse 20
  
   אם לקרא לך באו האנשים, "if the men simply came to call you, etc." Why did G'd describe the purpose of this delegation as in doubt, i.e. "if?" After all, G'd knew full well what was in the minds of these delegates? A more difficult question is why G'd consented that Bileam go on an errand the purpose of which was for him to curse Israel? Why, in the process, did G'd appear to reverse Himself seeing He had told Bileam previously not to go with Balak's delegates nor to curse that people? How had conditions changed since the arrival of the first set of emissaries so that G'd's decision now would not be viewed as a reversal of His previous decision?
  It appears from what the Torah reports that G'd could have dealt with this request in one of two ways. Each one of these ways contained the appearance of His being unfair in some way. If G'd were to agree to Bileam going on such a mission, the nations of the world would conclude that Bileam was totally free to make his own decisions in the matter, and they would not appreciate that just as the master controls the line by which his dog is tied so G'd pulled the strings limiting Bileam's freedom of action. It was important to G'd to demonstrate to the world at large that Bileam was unable to cause harm to anyone whom G'd did not want to be harmed. On the other hand, if G'd refused to let Bileam go altogether Bileam would conclude that G'd Himself was afraid of what Bileam would be able to do once he got to Moav, i.e. that G'd was afraid of Bileam! As a result of these two considerations G'd was very clever in resolving both possible misunderstandings. He first told Bileam לא תלך, "you must not go." In this way He had shown the world that the wicked dog Bileam was not at liberty to cause havoc wherever and whenever he wanted to. He also paid Bileam the reward due to him for having explained to Balak's emissaries that he was not at liberty to disobey G'd. The reward that G'd gave Bileam was related to G'd's foreknowledge that in the end Bileam would go to Moav with the next set of delegates. This was something that would not be to his advantage, as we know from Balak's own remarks in 24,11 that G'd had prevented Bileam from receiving the honour Balak had intended to bestow upon him. However, his very trip would lead to his being killed by the sword as we know from 31,8. Bileam was caught in Midian at the time, as he had gone there to collect his reward for the 24.000 Israelites whom G'd had killed because they had allowed themselves to be enticed by Moabite women at the suggestion of Bileam. Originally, G'd had not stopped Bileam from going because He does hold back people who are bent on their own destruction by telling them not to go. This was an additional form of reward to the one we mentioned earlier that Balak was to send higher ranking delegates.
  When Balak now sent a second delegation, G'd had to address His second fear, namely that if He forbade Bileam to go this would be interpreted as His inability to stop Bileam from wreaking havoc once he was near the Jewish people. Bileam would arrive at the conclusion that once he arrived in Moav G'd would not be able to stop him from doing what he wanted. This is why G'd said to Bileam קום לך אתם, "arise and accompany them;" G'd implied that "if" Bileam really thought that going with these delegates would be to his advantage, He, G'd did not want to stop him. The conditional "if" was a warning to Bileam that He, G'd, did not think that this journey would be to Bileam's advantage. G'd may even have hinted that Bileam should consult his charms to find out for himself if his trip augured well for him. Even this warning was part of G'd's reward to Bileam for having pointed out that he was bound by G'd's decisions. It would work to his advantage if Bileam's mind had not been made up to commit evil. However, under the circumstances, Bileam did plan to to commit evil, and he was bent on ignoring G'd's warnings. This may have been the reason G'd became angry when he went with the delegates. The fact that Bileam went with the delegates proves that he expected to profit from his trip; this was only possible if he did indeed curse the Jewish people, something G'd had forbidden him to do. We will still provide another reason which caused G'd to become angry at Bileam at this stage.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויחר אף ה׳…כי הולך הוא, G'd's anger was kindled that he went, etc. The Torah emphasises the word הוא, "he." G'd's anger was caused by the manner in which Bileam rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and did not even tell the delegates of Balak that G'd had given permission for him to go. The words וילך עם שרי מואב speak volumes. They mean that Bileam and the delegates were on the same wavelength, that they shared the same objective. Bileam made it plain that he went along on his own initiative.
  We may also glean another insight from the remarks of the <i>Zohar Chadash</i> page 168 on the words וילך שפי in 23,3. According to the <i>Zohar</i> this meant that Bileam isolated himself in order to draw down to him the forces of negative spirituality, impurity. When G'd observed that Bileam isolated himself from the emissaries of Balak this was a sign that he prepared himself to do as he pleased. The fact that he had his two lads with him would not interfere with his attempt at solitude as these lads were part of his regular retinue and he would always do "his thing" in their presence. G'd immediately realised Bileam's intention and this is what caused His anger. The words הולך הוא also convey to us that Bileam would have been ready to curse the Jewish people even if Balak had never asked him to do this and offered to pay him for his efforts. He thereby revealed his innate hatred of the Israelites and all this combined to arouse G'd's anger.
  ושני נעריו עמו, and his two lads with him. Why did the Torah have to tell us this insignificant detail? <i>Tanchuma</i> on our verse says that the Torah taught us rules of proper conduct by mentioning the fact that Bileam as befits a man of his stature did not travel without his own assistants. Even if we accept this, why didn't the Torah mention this detail before telling us that G'd's anger was aroused at Bileam, and that the ass had already been made G'd's emissary to be his adversary? We may understand this in light of <i>Berachot</i> 43 that when one travels in a threesome one will not become aware of destructive forces in one's path nor will one be attacked by such forces. In this instance, seeing that Bileam had become aware of the destructive force arraigned against him, we must understand why he did not become its victim. Our verses explain why Bileam had not recognised the danger himself as well as why he was not harmed by it. The answer is that Bileam together with his two lads formed such a threesome as is mentioned in the Talmud.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ותרא האתון, The ass saw, etc. Why did G'd allow the angel to become visible to the ass? Why was the angel allowed to take up a threatening position three times? What was the point of squeezing Bileam's legs? Why did he strike the ass? Why did G'd open the mouth of the ass? Everything which happened here appears quite mysterious.
  We may assume that the entire paragraph was designed to show us how G'd humbled Bileam seeing he had given Balak's delegates the impression that he was free to curse and that his curse against the Israelites would be effective. If Bileam had revealed to the emissaries of Balak before he set out on the way that G'd had severely restricted his freedom to curse the Israelites he would not now have been humbled. G'd paid him back by humbling him in front of the delegates and in front of the ass in a most degrading fashion. We are all aware that the composition of animals which have not been equipped with the power of speech is radically different from the composition of human beings who enjoy the power of speech. In order to suitably humble Bileam by means of an animal, G'd had to effect a transformation in the physical composition of the body of the animal in question. G'd accomplished this by means of stationing the angel in three different locations on three different occasions and by enabling the ass to see the angel in each location. In order for a creature to possess the power of speech its components must be endowed with three prerequisites. A) Since it possesses the ability to grow, something every living organism does, this component of it must be altered so that it can function even after it has been equipped with the ability to speak. B) A similar transformation must be effected in the animal's ability to move freely. C) It must be endowed with the power to verbalise its thoughts and emotions. When the angel took up position opposite the ass for the first time, the ass's basic components were altered so that they could function if equipped with the power to speak. It was enabled to see spiritual beings. When the ass saw the angel the second time its ability to move freely was altered so that it would also be able to move once it would be equipped with the power to verbalise its thoughts and emotions. After the ass had seen the angel for a third time it became equipped with the power to speak similar to a human being. As soon as this had occurred it opened its mouth, spoke intelligently and put Bileam to shame as a result. It actually put down Bileam in the presence of his assistants. The shame resulting from this occurrence was twofold and left a deep impression. 1) The ability of the animal to speak. 2) The revelation that Bileam the great prophet had been in the habit of using his she-ass as one uses a wife, i.e. as his sexual mate.
  We still have to explain why the angel had to take up position in three different locations instead of appearing three times in the same location. Perhaps the three locations in which the angel took up position corresponded to three acts of evil Bileam had committed. 1) G'd' had told him once: "do not go and do not curse;" Bileam had failed to tell Balak's emissaries that he had been forbidden to curse. This had become the cause for Balak sending a second set of delegates. This became the reason why G'd told the angel to take up position on the way. The ass was forced to turn aside, parallel to Bileam having "turned aside" part of G'd's response to him. 2) Bileam's second sin was that G'd had told him that he was to go only if לקרא לך, if it had become certain that the mission would be of advantage to him. Seeing Bileam had failed to ascertain this he should not have gone at all. He had ignored G'd's implied warning. This is why the angel took up position in the narrow passage between the vineyards and squeezed his legs as if to remind him that G'd had tried to squeeze him to the correct path by the wording of His reply. 3) Bileam's third sin concerned the fact that G'd had made His permission conditional on Bileam saying only words G'd would put into his mouth (verse 20), meaning that he would have no latitude to even slightly alter what G'd would inspire him to say. We have already demonstrated how Bileam schemed to deviate from this restriction when we mentioned the significance of the words הולך הוא, i.e. that he did not view himself as G'd's instrument but planned to have things his own way. This impression was further reinforced by the Torah describing Bileam as riding on his ass with his two attendants. The angel stationed himself in a place so narrow that the ass -and therefore Bileam- could not even squeeze by to remind him that he had sinned intentionally. G'd employed these three incidents to show Bileam that He was displeased by what he had set out to do.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויאמר אליו מלאך השם, The angel of the Lord said to Bileam, etc. We need to understand the angel's argument "why did you strike the ass three times?" It seems pretty obvious that Bileam struck the ass each time he perceived her to act disrespectfully towards him. Why did the angel have to ask? Besides, seeing that the angel said that he himself had been the cause that Bileam had been inconvenienced, why did he have to ask Bileam this question? The angel knew full well that Bileam had not been aware that the primary obstacle to his progress had been the angel and not the ass! The Torah itself testified that G'd had to open Bileam's eyes indicating that up until that moment they had been shut! Perhaps it was the angel's intention to humble Bileam so much that he would acknowledge by word that whereas his ass had seen an angel three times, he, the Seer who had claimed to be G'd's intimate, had not even seen the angel once. This would also demonstrate how insignificant had been Bileam's achievements in trying to penetrate the mysteries of how and when G'd does what He does. The words (verse 33) ותראני האתון, "the ass has seen me," were the ultimate degradation the angel inflicted when he contrasted Bileam's spiritual blindness with the ass's sensitivity to the presence of spiritual beings. These words had the effect of an arrow having been shot at Bileam's heart. This then was the whole purpose of G'd having despatched the angel.
  The angel had also wanted to demonstrate the immediate negative effects Bileam's decision to go with Balak's delegates had on his standing as a prophet. We have been told in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 that originally Bileam enjoyed Holy Spirit. As soon as he befriended Balak this Holy Spirit departed from him and the Bible refers to him as a קסם, sorcerer, (Joshua 13,22). The proof of this is the fact that he did not recognise that the angel was blocking his way. Previously he would have immediately recognised the angel as such. The angel had been despatched against him to apprise him of the fact that he had forfeited the Holy Spirit he once possessed. The operative words of the angels are כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, i.e. because he had decided to walk along that way against the wishes of G'd he lost his Holy Spirit (compare Nachmanides' comment on this verse).
  
  Verse 33
  
   כי עתה גם אתכה הרגתי ואותה החייתי. "surely NOW I would have slain you whereas I would have allowed the ass to remain alive." What is the significance of the word "now" in this verse? <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,14 on our verse claims that this verse is proof that the ass was killed. We deduce this from the sequence of the words גם אותכה, "you as well," instead of גם הרגתי אותכה. The word NOW indicates that the ass had been killed immediately before this interchange. When the angel said: "I would have let her live," he referred to what had taken place. He had not killed the first time she spoke up which would have resulted in Bileam being killed also, but had waited until the ass had revealed Bileam's spiritual blindness. The word החייתי actually refers to a new activity, i.e. "I have let her live until now." The angel pointed out that he had done something extraordinary. He had been dispatched to hurt both the rider and and the animal he rode. In this instance the rider had been saved by the action of the animal he rode. In this way the word החייתי is justified.
  
  Verse 34
  
   ויאמר בלעם…חטאתי, Bileam said…"I have sinned, etc." The word "I have sinned" referred to the angel having hinted that he had sinned by his having set out on the way. Regarding the angel's question of why he had beaten his ass, Bileam said: "I did not know." The word ועתה means that Bileam had now become a penitent. He no longer wanted to curse the Jewish people Concerrning the fact that he had set out on the way, Bileam offered that if this displeased the angel he was willing to turn back. The word לי meant that he now saw that it would be beneficial for him to go back home.
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויאמר מלאך…לך עם האנשים, The angel said: "go with the men, etc." Why did the angel say: "with the men?" Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,15 say that the angel told him that the die had been cast, that from now on Bileam belonged to the same team as these men, and that ultimately he would be deprived of any future in the world to come. I believe that this is pure homiletics; we need to understand the plain meaning of the angel's words. We need to understand further why the angel did not tell Bileam to go home as the latter had offered to do and as we would have expected. However, the angel wanted to explain to Bileam the reason he agreed that Bileam continue to travel with the emissaries. It all had to do with what these emissaries would think if Bileam suddenly went home. They would conclude that G'd was afraid of what Bileam would be able to do once he was in Moav and that on that account G'd had forbidden him to come along. Allowing the emissaries of Balak to arrive at such a conclusion would be a desecration of the name of G'd, i.e. would lower G'd's image in their estimation as I have already explained on the words הולך הוא. Perhaps the angel's instructions have to be understood thus: "go with them and do not isolate yourself in solitude." In this way Bileam would not have an opportunity to prepare himself to contravene G'd's instructions by consulting his charms. Bileam complied, as we know from the words וילך בלעם עם שרי בלק, "Bileam went together with the ministers of Balak."
  ואפס את הדבר…אותו תדבר. "However, the word which I put in your mouth, it you shall utter!" Here the angel made a new condition, something that G'd had not told Bileam outright in his dream. When G'd had spoken to Bileam previously (verse 20) He had said: "the word I shall tell you that is what you shall do!" G'd's wording at that time had allowed Bileam to plot how to get around what G'd had obviously had in mind. His own strength lay both in deed and in speech. The deeds would be the practice of magic. He also exercised his power by means of his evil eye. <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 202 draws attention to this in connection with 24,2: "Bileam raised his eyes and saw Israel, etc." This is a hint that Bileam tried to employ his evil eye against the Jewish people at that moment but that G'd covered the Israelites with His protective "shadow" so that Bileam could no longer see them. When the Torah said in 24,2 ותהי עליו רוח השם, the subject is the Jewish people, not Bileam. G'd protected Israel against the evil eye (<i>Zohar</i> volume 3, page 211.) The power Bileam exercised by mouth was his ability to curse. When G'd had said to him during the night: "it you shall do," He had meant to forbid him also to speak against the Jewish people if such words as he would say would result in deeds. Bileam had not understood this correctly as his mind was bent on finding a loophole in G'd's instructions. This is why at this point the angel told him unmistakably that he must not even utter a word against the Jewish people. This included the giving of advice designed to harm the Jewish people. Bileam did not comply with this part of the warning. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,18 writes on 23,5 "The Lord put a word in Bileam's mouth," that G'd placed an iron bar in Bileam's mouth and that every time Bileam tried to utter something evil the bar threatened to choke him. In this way G'd frustrated Bileam's evil intent. We also know that Bileam gave the advice to Balak which eventually caused the death of 24.000 Israelite males. He even endeavoured to violate G'd's instructions by putting his evil eye on the people until G'd intervened. All of these things combined provided sufficient excuse for the Israelites to kill Bileam by the sword in the course of their punitive expedition against Midian. According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 97 Gentiles are culpable both for sins committed by deed and for sins committed by word of mouth. Bileam had been warned by G'd on both counts so that he only received his due when the Israelites killed him.
  
  Verse 36
  
   ויצא לקראתו אל עיר מואב, He came to welcome him to the city of Moav. Why did the Torah have to bother to tell us where the meeting between Bileam and Balak took place? Perhaps the Torah wanted to show us that Balak did not hold Bileam in high esteem. Although Balak had heard that Bileam was on his way, he did not leave his city to prepare a welcome such as one does for highly placed visitors. He was content to await Bileam's arrival before welcoming him.
  ויצא לקראתו אל עיר מואב אשר על גבול ארנון אשר בקצה הגבול. Why all these details about the location of the border? Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that if Balak did trouble himself to go to the border of Moav which was close to his capital, he did not do so in order to honour Bileam but that he had a different reason. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,16 explains that the reason Balak went to this border was to tell Bileam that this border had been established already in times of Noach [not literally speaking as Moav was not founded till after Abraham's time. Ed.] He wanted to show Bileam how both Og and Sichon had been guilty of violating these longstanding borders. At any rate, if not for these political considerations, Balak would not have troubled himself to come out towards Bileam even this little distance.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   עתה היכול אוכל דבר מאומה? "Am I now able to say anything?" The reason the Torah quoted Bileam as saying עתה, "now," was to show us that this was his reaction to what the angel had told him when he had been expressly forbidden to be anything but G'd's mouthpiece. When Bileam repeated the words היכול אוכל he revealed the depth of his wickedness as he told Balak that he had tried 2 different ways to speak evil, but that G'd had blocked him in both instances. If only he had retained his freedom of action he would surely have cursed the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 39
  
   וילך בלעם, Bileam went, etc. The fact that the Torah does not describe Bileam and Balak as walking together in the plural, i.e. וילכו, shows that Balak did not even show his guest the honour of letting him precede him. Balak marched ahead and Bileam caught up with him, or something similar. It is even possible that in this instance the word עמו means that he was forced to walk behind.
  
  Verse 40
  
   ויזבח בלק, Balak slaughtered, etc. The Torah reveals another aspect of the low esteem Balak held Bileam in that he did not even serve him a meal before proceeding with the task for which he had been commissioned. It is possible that the Torah writes ולשרים אשר אתו, to indicate that Balak did not even send enough meat for Bileam's lads, only for the ministers of his entourage. All of this shows how little respect Balak displayed vis-a-vis Bileam. The reason for this apparent display of being a miser may have been either that Balak was afraid that Bileam would take everything for himself without sharing with the ministers as Bileam enjoyed a reputation of being avaricious. This is why Balak gave specific instructions that what he sent over was not to be Bileam's alone but was also intended for the ministers who accompanied him. This may be the reason why our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,16 claim that when Bileam saw how little meat Balak had allocated to him he threatened to send a curse against Balak's possessions on the morrow. As a reaction to this display of being cheap on the part of Balak, Bileam demanded on the morrow that Balak build an altar on which he would have to slaughter seven bulls and seven rams (23,1).
  
  Verse 41
  
   ויהי בבקר ויקח בלק…וירא משם קצה העם. On the following morning Balak took Bileam…and he saw a small part of the people. The word ויהי, as usual, also connotes something sad. The word may refer to the disagreement between Bileam and Balak over the measly portion of meat the latter had sent over on the previous day. The words ויקח בלק accordingly would refer to Balak trying to assuage Bileam's hurt feelings on the subject.
  Another meaning of these words may be a reference to Bileam's partial lameness. As a rule people suffering from such lameness have difficulty in walking in the morning and especially if they have to climb hills. The word ויהי may hint at the discomfort Bileam experienced on that morning when he had to undertake physical exertions which were most difficult for him. Balak assisted him, and this may be the meaning of the words ויקח בלק את בלעם Balak helped Bileam climb the במות, the hills.
  The word בבקר, "in the morning," may also indicate that Balak did not sleep well during the preceding night. We have a rule that kings do not normally rise till 3 hours after daybreak (<i>Berachot</i> 9). In this instance, Balak broke the rule and rose much earlier than usual. 
  Still another reason why the Torah mentioned the detail בבקר, may be connected with what we learned in <i>A vodah Zarah</i> 4. The Talmud questions what precise time is called רתח, a moment when G'd's anger is hot and Abbaye says it is three hours after daybreak. [In order to understand the significance of this let me quote from the text of the Talmud prior to this statement. The Talmud discusses Bileam's ability to divine what G'd thinks about and asks how this is possible in view of Bileam's demonstrated inability to know even what his ass was thinking about. After explaining that there was a special reason why on that day Bileam did not know what went on in his ass's mind, the Talmud even reconstructs the dialogue carried on between Bileam and his ass in addition to that reported in the Torah. At any rate, it is presumed that he was an expert at divining the precise moment when G'd is angry, something important because G'd's anger is so brief. Ed.] When the Torah speaks about בבקר, it hints that Balak and Bileam picked that moment in time when G'd might be angry at His world and a curse might be effective. <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,18 also claims that the במות בעל mentioned in our verse refer to the cult of the בעל פעור and that Bileam foresaw that the Israelites would die there [as they did in due course as a result of Bileam's advice to Balak to have the Israelites seduced. Ed.] It is well known that this cult consisted of the worshiper excreting before that idol. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 64 describes what happened in these words: "how did one serve this particular deity? One ate beets and drank beer and then excreted and urinated in front of the idol." In other words, the very worship consisted in the worshiper behaving in the most primitive and revolting fashion. In view of this, Balak wanted to take Bileam up to the hills on which this cult was practiced and at the time it would be performed. This is the meaning of the words ויעלהו במות בעל, he took him up to the hills dedicated to the "Baal Pe-or." Perhaps this was not one of the cults which Bileam worshiped and Balak tried to talk him into performing such worship.
  Still another reason for the Torah writing בבקר, "in the morning," may be related to what the <i>Zohar</i> wrote at the beginning of this portion when it described Balak's particular brand of magic and sorcery involving a bird, צפור. Balak took Bileam up to the hill at the time when this bird was known to be chirping. At such times Bileam could perform his tricks successfully.
  Let us now turn to the reason that Bileam was only able to see a small part of the Jewish people from where Balak had taken him. We have already explained that <i>Taanit</i> 9 tells us that during all the preceding 39 years protective clouds had hovered over the encampment of the Jewish people so that outsiders could not even peek at the Israelites. When Aaron died these clouds disappeared and the camp of the Israelites became visible to outsiders for the first time. This is why the Canaanite (read Amalekite dressed as Canaanites) had been able to locate them and they made war against the Israelites. Subsequently, the protective clouds returned thanks to the merit of Moses. As a result, the camp of the Israelites was once more concealed from outsiders. In view of this how is it possible that Balak showed Bileam even part of the people? Should not G'd have made doubly certain that Bileam could not see them as his evil eye was potentially dangerous to them? We must conclude therefore that the קצה העם, the small part of the people whom Bileam did see, he saw only as a result of invoking Balak's magic by means of the bird we have mentioned earlier. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 67 asks why the witches are called מכשפות in the Torah? The answer is that witches by definition reveal matters which normally are hidden. [not in my text of the Talmud. Ed.] In this instance the witchcraft consisted of revealing what the cloud had hidden. The Torah therefore tells us that even with the help of his witchcraft Bileam managed to glimpse only a small part of the nation.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בנה לי בזה שבעה מזבחות, "build me on this site seven altars, etc." Bileam was not prepared to reveal to Balak what he had in mind and why as the mutual trust had been breached. Balak carried out Bileam's request, i.e. he displayed confidence in Bileam at this time. When the Torah adds the words כאשר דבר בלעם, (verse 2) it means that he did so without delay.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויעל בלק ובלעם פר ואיל, Balak and Bileam sacrificed a bull and a ram (on each altar). It appears that the Torah refers to Bileam doing the offering and not Balak. Bileam had told Balak only to prepare the animals for him. Why did Bileam do something such as this without first obtaining permission from G'd? Had he not been instructed not to do anything other than what G'd would instruct him to do? Some commentators say that Bileam did what G'd had commanded him to do and they base themselves on Bileam saying to G'd in 23,4: "the seven altars which I have established and sacrificed, etc." These words appear to imply that Bileam had carried out G'd's instructions when building the altars and offering the sacrifices. I do not believe that such an interpretation makes any sense at all. It is inconceivable that G'd would desire the offerings of wicked people, especially so when the intent of the person offering the sacrifice was to harm G'd's chosen people. I have found the very opposite in the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 956 on Proverbs. According to that <i>Midrash</i> Bileam built seven altars and offered seven offerings to match the combined number of altars which the patriarchs are recorded as having built starting with Adam, Abel, Noach, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. We also find in <i>Sotah</i> 47 that Rav Yehudah said that a person should study Torah even for impure motives as in the course of time he would do so for pure motives. The Rabbi claims that the 42 sacrifices Balak offered were the reason (the reward) that Ruth the Moabite who became the great-grandmother of King David was descended from him.
  In my estimation the correct interpretation of verses 2-4 is that Bileam considered G'd's prohibition as applying only to actions which were in themselves sinful and designed to strengthen the forces of impurity. He did not think that it would be objectionable if he emulated deeds which the patriarchs had performed and of which G'd had obviously approved at the time when the various patriarchs had performed them. This is why he offered these sacrifices in honour of G'd. The Torah uses the definitive article when mentioning את שבעת המזבחות, to show that all Bileam had done he did in G'd's honour; Bileam did this as he wanted to see if G'd objected even to this. He demonstrated his desire to offer more sacrifices to G'd than had the patriarchs, most of whom had built only a single altar. He, Bileam, on the other hand, had built seven altars. This is the difference between the Torah speaking of שבעה מזבחות, or את שבעת המזבחות. Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,18 have already said that Bileam tried to outshine the patriarchs with the seven altars he built for G'd. Bileam's whole point was to neutralise any advantage the Jewish people might have over him by their reliance on the merits of their ancestors.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישם ה׳ דבו בפי בלעם, G'd put words in Bileam's mouth, etc. Although most commentators have already treated this verse exhaustively, they have also left some room for our comments. G'd wanted to use this opportunity to reveal part of the future and to mention the wonderful things that would happen to Israel at that time. He was particularly interested that this future be revealed to the Gentile nations by their own prophet. This is why He chose Bileam as His instrument to predict both Israel's eventual greatness and the other nations eventual downfall at the hands of Israel. When the Gentile nations would be able to note that one of their own had predicted all this it would impress them all the more. Due to the negative spiritual influences Bileam had surrounded himself with, the Holy Spirit which would enable him to foretell the future could not come to rest on <i>him</i>; <i>not only</i> this, but the words of G'd themselves are inherently sacred and not entrusted to a member of an impure nation. This is why G'd had to resort to a special stratagem so that words of holiness would not be spoken in impure surroundings. G'd constructed a barrier between the power of the speaker and the words he spoke, and the "mouth of the pig." This is what the Torah means when it writes: "G'd put a thing, דבר, inside Bileam's mouth." The דבר was the artificial barrier between G'd's holy words and Bileam's mouth. In this way Bileam's mouth was converted into a domain all by itself, divorced from Bileam the person. When the Torah continued וכה תדבר, the meaning is that with the help of this barrier in his mouth Bileam would be able to speak the words of G'd. The <i>Zohar</i> volume three page 210 writes that the word כה is an allusion to something sacred. Students of the Kabbalah will understand what I mean.
  In the event that you do not understand the nature of this separation within Bileam's mouth, consider <i>Chagigah</i> 15 where the Talmud explains how G'd had divided between different great bodies of water although they are adjoining one another without any visible barrier. The separations between these bodies of water are as thin as a hair. We are also taught in <i>Shabbat</i> 35 concerning the well which accompanied the Israelites thanks to the merit of Miriam that if someone wishes to see it he should climb Mount Carmel and look down into the sea where he would observe something that looks like a sieve. This is the well that used to accompany the Israelites in the desert.
  שוב אל בלק, "go back to Balak, etc." G'd forced Bileam to say the unpalatable things he was going to say in Balak's presence.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישא משלו ויאמר, And he began his parable and said: When Bileam noticed that G'd had neither told him what to say nor had He told him not to speak, he thought he had been given permission to speak. This is why be made ready to say what he had in his mind. At that moment G'd twisted his mouth and tongue and forced him to say something quite different. What Bileam said is introduced by the word ויאמר. We may also understand the verse to mean that Bileam abandoned his prepared parable and instead said what the Torah has recorded here. According to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,19 the words מן ארם ינחני בלק must be understood as "Balak dragged me down from a spiritually high level so that I now face destruction." According to this the word וישא may be understood to mean "he raised his voice lamenting that he had become למשל ולשנינה, an example of someone who used to be of lofty stature and now had become an example of how the mighty had fallen."
  We may also understand the verse in terms of the different levels of prophecy we discussed in <i>Beha-alotcha</i> on Numbers 12,6. We had stated there (page 1436) that there are some prophets whose powers of perception are not strong enough to be able to cope with a direct effusion of G'd's message. Such prophets receive the message in the form of a parable. Even Jewish prophets had to receive their prophecies in this fashion. It is not surprising therefore that Bileam, a Gentile, received his prophetic inspiration in the form of parables. When the Torah describes Bileam as וישא משלו, the idea is that he considered prophecy as a burden, משא. The reason for this is the extraordinary emotional stress experienced by the prophet.
  לכה ארה לי יעקב, "come and curse Jacob on my behalf." Inasmuch as there were two categories of Israelites, the righteous and the average ones, Balak had expressed his hope that he could smite at least the average Israelites, the ones described as Jacob as opposed to the righteous who are described as Israel. As to the righteous ones, Balak had expressed the hope to at least drive them out of his proximity. Bileam took his cue from what Balak had requested from him. The word ארה represents a curse of greater intensity than the word זעם, which Bileam reserved for the righteous Israelites. Even Balak had realised that it would be difficult to effectively curse the righteous Israelites.
  
  Verse 8
  
   מה אקב לא קבה קל, "how can I curse when G'd has not cursed ( first)?" The problem with this verse is that if G'd had indeed cursed Israel why would there be any need for Bileam to do the same? Balak had obviously invited Bileam to curse people whom G'd had not cursed! Besides what did Bileam mean when he added in verse 9 as justification for his curse or otherwise that he had observed the Isaelites "from the the top of rocks?" What did this detail have to do with cursing or failing to curse the people?
  In order to understand the matter properly we must first discuss the condition of the person or people who have been subjected to a curse. If the accursed had been guilty he will obviously suffer harm for his guilt even if he had not been cursed at all. If, on the other hand, the person who was subjected to a curse was innocent, and had not done anything which would make him subject to punishment at the hands of G'd, the curse would boomerang on the one who uttered it. The difference between blessings and curses is that if someone receives a blessing though he did not do anything to deserve it, seeing that the power of good exceeds that of the power of evil, the recipient of the blessing will enjoy it though he may not have done anything to deserve it. However, G'd would certainly not cause harm to a person who did not deserve to come to harm.
  The principal effect of a curse then has to do with G'd's attribute of extending His patience to the sinners and delaying their punishment. G'd's patience extends both to the righteous and to the wicked who are bent on sinning. It is one of the thirteen attributes G'd revealed to Moses and operates at all times when G'd is not angry. G'd's anger, however, is shortlived as we know from Psalms 30,6 "for He is angry but for a moment." At such a time the attribute of Justice is in the ascendancy and the attribute of ארך אפים is temporarily suspended. Similarly, when a person curses his fellow man the effect of the curse is that G'd will no longer extend His attibute of ארך אפים to the guilty person who has now also been cursed. As a result, the attribute of patience may be suspended as far as that person is concerned. If the person cursed did not have to depend on the attribute of ארך אפים, G'd's patience, in the first place, then the curse is quite ineffective against him.
  Let me explain something else. Every person who commits a sin thereby causes some blemish in the particular מדה, virtue, in the Celestial regions which fulfilment of the commandment he did not fulfil was intended to strengthen. He does not thereby destroy the entire מדה, attribute or virtue, but he causes damage to the root of his soul. The damage expresses itself in that certain spiritually negative forces which ought not to possess any hold on his soul (the sinner's) have been enabled to lay some claim to his soul. These forces now enjoy what should have been the exclusive source of life for the individual who has now sinned. If this process continues, the spiritually negative forces eventually gain a hold on the personality of the sinner. This results in his imbibing their spiritual values instead of the holy and pure spiritual values of his soul's counterpart in Heaven. This process, of course, assumes that the sinner has not done תשובה in the meantime, or has not been punished for his sin. This is the mystical dimension of what the Torah has called נושא עון, of which our sages have said that it means that G'd nourishes the accuser which was created by means of the sin committed by man. This is the force which will punish the sinner (<i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 83). This concept is based on Jeremiah 2,19: "the evil which you yourself have created will be what will discipline you." We have a verse in Isaiah 64,6: "and our iniquities have made us melt," which expresses a similar thought. The person who utters the curse sets in motion retribution long delayed because of certain attributes of G'd at a time when G'd's anger had not yet been aroused.
  Another factor we have to keep in mind is that the curse itself- something we normally perceive as abstact becomes concretised- and the destructive force it represents assumes the very "name" of the curse itself. We know this from Deut. 28,20 where G'd threatens to send the מארה, or the מגערת, "the curse or the rebuke." These are names for categories of destructive forces. The word קללה describes the category of curse resulting from the commission of a serious sin, whereas the word זעם describes the destructive force created by relatively minor sins. To sum up, when Bileam wished to curse a nation he chose the time when they were all guilty at least of relatively minor sins. Inasmuch as most people are guilty of some sins almost all of the time Bileam could expect his words to be effective. He employed his sorcery to determine if at that time most of the Israelites still suffered from sins which they had not repented or for which they had not as yet been punished. Having examined the status of the Jewish people on that basis, he came to the regretful conclusion of מה אקב, "how can I be expected to make a curse effective" seeing that the spiritually negative forces had not been able to establish their hold on any part of the collective Jewish soul, their holy roots? The Israelites were so innocent at the time that Bileam was not able to activate sins they had committed to act as a curse against them.
  Bileam had examined the Israelites on two separate levels of their relationship with G'd, i.e. their relationship to the attribute א־ל as well as their relationship to the attribute י־ה־ו־ה. The former attribute reflects the fact that G'd had changed Jacob's name to ישר־א־ל, meaning upright, honest, not crooked. The change of name had been a recognition that none of the spiritually negative forces had been able gain a foothold on the holy soul of Israel. The ineffable 4-lettered name is mentioned as an integral part of the Jewish people in Deut. 32,9 כי חלק י־ה־ו־ה עמו, "for the ineffable name has become a part of His people." Bileam therefore found out that Israel had not forfeited either of these two distinctions at that time. They had not even committed the kinds of minor sins which might deprive them of the close association with G'd's four-lettered name. Under these circumstances what possible good could Bileam's curses do? If you were to say that Bileam could have gone back to earlier times and have searched out sins the Jews had committed which would have tainted some part of their holy roots, the Torah says כי מראש צורים אראנו, that Bileam referred to his investigation of Israel's past -the צורים being a reference to the patriarchs,- whereas the ראש refers to Abraham's father Terach. Bileam found to his regret that even in Israel's distant past there were no residual sins which would now make his curse take hold.
  We may understand the meter of our verse as being that Bileam says in effect: "the reason I say that G'd is not mildly or severely angry at this people and has not cursed them in any way is not only that I have made a superficial examination of them. I have examined every aspect of this people, i.e. מראש צורים, and have come up with a blank. Not only that but ומגבעות אשורנו, (verse 9) I have even examined their maternal ancestry, their matriarchs, and I have not been able to find any kind of defect in the root of their holy soul that would allow my curse to take hold." We may be surprised at that as we know that Terach was an idol worshiper and so were Bethuel and Laban. We would have assumed that such an association would have left a mark on the holy soul of this people! Bileam answers this by saying הן עם לבדד ישכון ובגוים לא יתחשב. "They are a nation that lives in solitude and does not consider itself as part of the nations surrounding it." They do not share a common root with Terach and his ancestors, their soul is not part of that branch. Their collective soul has been hewn out of a separate "quarry," the one all Israelite souls emanate from. The words "and does not consider itself as part of the surrounding nations" includes even those nations who consider themselves closely related to the Jewish people through common ancestors. Bileam referred to Ishmael and Esau both of whom are called גוים in the Torah. The Torah mentions that Ishmael is a גוי in Genesis 17,20: "I will make him into a great nation." In Genesis 25,23 when G'd tells Rebeccah that she will give birth to twins, the Torah states that both children will develop into nations, שני גויים בבטנך, "you have two nations in your womb." However, in Genesis 21,12, G'd made it plain to Abraham that He would only consider his son Isaac as his true seed. This excluded Ishmael and Esau from being considered as true descendants of Abraham, descendants whose task it was to carry on Abraham's contribution to establishing the kingdom of G'd on earth. In view of all this Bileam could not find any way to make a curse against Israel stick, not against the average Israelites, and certainly not against the elite, the righteous. While it is true that the Israelites had been guilty of the sin of the golden calf plus that of the spies who had caused the whole nation to reject the land of Israel some 38 years ago, G'd had already said clearly that He had forgiven the people for those sins. Perhaps the reason that G'd did not display His anger against them during the last 38 years was to deprive Bileam of the opportunity to make a curse against them effective.
  It is also possible that by saying the words הן עם, "lo, it is a people," Bileam expressed his amazement at Balak's wanting to curse such a people. Bileam hinted that in view of the fact that this was a nation which would survive all other nations in solitary splendour, how could nations which were not even assured of a relatively lengthy existence in the course of human history presume to curse them effectively? How could Moav which itself was slated for extinction presume to uproot a nation whose future is eternal? When Bileam added: ובגוים לא יתחשב, this means that when it comes to enumerating the various virtues and accomplishments of other nations, Israel is not even in the same league; its merits are incomparably greater and not to be measured with the nations at large.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   מי מנה עפר יעקב, Who can count the dust of Jacob? Considering the fact that Bileam was desperate to find some way in which to make a curse against Israel stick, he had also investigated another track. That track is one often employed by the forces of the קליפה, the spiritually negative forces. It is the track of "things numbered." We have learned in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 42 that "blessing does not take hold on things which have been numbered, measured, or weighed, but only on things concealed from the eye." Clearly, the author of this saying is trying to tell us that the examples given are subject to the effects of "the evil eye" and even though they may have been blessed such a blessing may not endure. Bileam, the master of the evil eye, had examined if the Jewish people could be hurt by his evil eye due to their having been numbered. He found out that they enjoyed the blessing of not being subject to being numbered. [generally, only males between the ages of 20 and 60 are ever reported as having been counted. Ed.] G'd had promised Abraham long before he had even had a son that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth, i.e. not subject to count as one cannot count the dust of the earth. and that as a result no evil eye could invalidate any blessing bestowed upon this people (Genesis 13,16). Although this blessing had been given to Abraham, it had only been fulfilled in the days of Jacob. This is why Bileam referred to "the dust of Jacob."
  Bileam may also have meant that it would be a practical impossibility to count the whole people even if they wanted to count themselves. G'd had specifically forbidden them to conduct or submit to a headcount. Any attempt to arrive at the number of Israelites had to be conducted via either the counting of coins or some other object, but not the people themselves.
  ומספר את רבע ישראל, "or numbered the births of Israel?" We have already explained that Bileam had mentally divided the Israelites into two categories, the elite and the average Israelites. He referred to the latter as "Jacob," whereas he referred to the elite as "Israel." When he had said: "who counted the dust of Jacob," he referred to the number of average Israelites, whereas when he referred to the numbering of Israel, he meant the elite amongst the people. He was impressed to have found out that there was an innumerable number of righteous people amongst the Israelites. Alternatively, he may have meant that although the actual number of righteous was not all that impressive, their impact on the Israelite society on the whole made them appear as innumerable. The reverse is true of the wicked. Although they may be large in number, their influence may be negligible. We know this from what G'd said to King Chiskiyah who had complained about the large numbers of Assyrians facing him (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 27). G'd assured Chiskiyah that the wicked are not important in proportion to their number. The reason that Bileam referred to רבע is an allusion to the righteous who are "lying" within their tents as we know from Jacob's blessing to Issachar in Genesis 49,14: "couching down between the sheep-folds." [The author uses the word רבע and רבץ interchangeably .Ed.] Another reason may be that the שכינה רבעת עליהם, that G'd's presence is constantly "resting" uopn them. There is also a mystical dimension here, i.e. that the righteous are the cause that G'd's Unity is able to fuse with the terrestrial world.
  Bileam also alluded to the miracles G'd had performed for the Jewish people in Egypt at the time Pharaoh had decreed that all Jewish boy babies be drowned in the river Nile. At that time the Egyptians tried to keep track of eventual births by the Israelite women through counting the number of nights after the women had undergone ritual immersion. This proved to be of no avail as G'd performed numerous miracles in order to frustrate the calculations of the Egyptians. You will find details about this in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 23 and in <i>Sotah</i> 11.
  תמת נפשי מות ישרים, "May I die the death of the upright." These were Bileam's own words, they had not been inspired by G'd. We have already been told in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> (item 768) on this verse that whenever Bileam wanted to say something that would not prove harmful to the Israelites G'd did not interfere. The reason Bileam said מות ישרים instead of saying כמותם, "just like they," which would refer to the death of the Israelites is that the wicked Bileam here asked for something exceptional. We are told in the <i>Zohar</i> volume one page 122 that at the time of death the righteous are divided into two groups. In the case of the first group, the soul leaves the body and proceeds directly to the Celestial Regions without crossing any barriers in between. The second group of righteous people are not that fortunate as they have to undergo a period when they will be examined concerning any sins they had committed during their lifetime and for which they had not been punished. Even a minor sin can become the cause for the soul to experience some delay before entry into the Celestial Region to which it has been assigned. Bileam was careful to request that his soul should experience immediate transfer to the Celestial Region for which he hoped to qualify.
  On the other hand, it is possible that even these words were spoken while Bileam was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. In that event he wanted to experience death "at the hands of ישרים," i.e. the 12,000 righteous Israelites Moses would choose to conduct the punitive campaign against Midian. In the event, his wish was fulfilled.
  There is a third possibility namely that Bileam planned to become a penitent close to death so that he would have benefited by his wickedness in his terrestrial life while also "cashing in" on his repentance just before forfeiting his extra-terrestrial life. Now that Bileam, -though acknowledging by implication that his had been an extremely despicable life- wanted to delay his repentance, he was denied this opportunity. It is not unusual to hear potential penitents say that if they were assured of immediate death as soon as they become בעלי תשובה, penitents, they would opt for it. What they cannot contemplate is a continued life on earth as צדיקים, righteous people, and the demands made by life on earth on such people. Bileam did not ask to die the death of righteous Israelites, something obviously not possible; all he wanted was to die like a Gentile penitent.
  ותהי אחריתי כמהו, "and may my end (future) be like theirs" Bileam referred to the Jewish people. He was referring to the hereafter which is described as the "end (final purpose) of the world." Even the righteous are examined once more before a final decision is made if they are entitled to the ultimate happiness in that world. Bileam prayed that he would be allowed to qualify on both counts.
  According to the interpretation I have mentioned that Bileam wished that his death in this world should occur at the hands of the righteous Israelite soldiers who would conduct the punitive expedition against Midian, we must understand the words: "let my end be like theirs" in a different vein. According to Kabbalists, even the קליפות, the spiritually negative forces, contain some minute element of sanctity which is trapped inside them. It is this element which enables such forces to exist at all in our world. When such קליפות, i.e. the "owners" or better "captors" of these sparks of sanctity are killed by Israelites, the spark of sanctity is set free. It may happen that this spark attaches itself to the spiritual part of the Israelite who set it free. When Bileam prayed that he wanted to die at the hands of the righteous, he meant for the spark of sanctity inside him to become attached to the sanctity, i.e. soul of the Israelite who would kill him so that eventually he, Bileam, would become like the Israelite. Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (<i>Ari zal)</i> wrote in the <i>Sefer hagilgulim,</i> the book dealing with transmigrations of souls, that the soul of Bileam reappeared on earth in the guise of the she-ass of the pious Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair. This shows that it was rehabilitated. Although Bileam himself died at the hands of a righteous Israelite soldier, even the spark of sanctity within him had become so tainted already that it had to undergo a laborious process of cleansing until eventually it resurfaced on earth as the life-force of Rabbi Pinchas' she-ass. Having done so (and living an exemplary life under its illustrious master), it eventually qualified for a life in the hereafter.
  
  Verse 11
  
   לקב אויבי לקחתיך, "I have taken (engaged) you in order to curse my enemies, etc." Balak was furious at the blessing; whereas it was true that Bileam had warned him that he was not free to say anything, he had understood this to mean that Bileam was not free to curse, and that in the event G'd would not agree to his curse he would keep his mouth shut. It had certainly not occurred to Balak that instead Bileam would bless the Israelites. Even though Bileam had added that he would have to say the words G'd would put in his mouth (22,38), Balak had understood this to mean that in the event G'd would allow Bileam to curse he would do so with abandon. It had never crossed Balak's mind that someone whom he had hired to do him some good by cursing his enemies could actually turn around and cause him damage by blessing them. The very least he would have expected Bileam to do in such a situation was to refrain from saying anything damaging to his employer. This is what Balak meant by the additional word לי, "to me."
  והנה ברכת ברך. "and here you have blessed them altogether." We have to understand why the verb ברך is repeated here. We must also wonder why Balak gave Bileam a chance to complete his blessing of Israel and did not interrupt him as soon as he realised what was going on. He could have already clapped his hands at this stage, why did he wait until 24,10? The answer is that Balak was aware that Bileam wanted to trick G'd in order to ultimately curse the Israelites. He did this by lavishing extraordinary compliments on the Jewish people first in order to humiliate them later. When you examine the kind of blessing Bileam bestowed on the Israelites you will find that it actually contained elements of a curse as our sages in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 771 explain. This was the reason that Balak waited patiently expecting Bileam to get around to the curse. When he found out that Bileam had concluded his speech, he suddenly became aware that the blessings had not been a prelude to curses but were meant as blessings pure and simple. This is why he repeated the word ברך, i.e. the blessing was absolute, without ulterior motive.
  It is also possible that what "floored" Balak was that he heard Bileam wishing for himself a future similar to that of an Israelite. As soon as he heard this he realised that Bileam's blessing did not originate from his lips but from the depth of his heart. This is why he used the verb ברך in the infinitive, i.e. with a full mouth. If one wants to be oneself like the people one addresses, one naturally blesses those people without restraint.
  
  Verse 12
  
   הלא את אשר ישים ה׳ בפי, "Did I not tell you that whatever G'd will put into my mouth, etc." Bileam explained that Balak had erred when he thought that Bileam would not be obligated to utter blessings if G'd put these into his mouth. He was not free to shut his mouth and refuse to speak. This is why he added the word אשמר. We have learned in <i>Shevuot</i> 36 that the words ,השמר פן and אל are formulations preceding a negative commandment, and that if one ignores a commandment preceded by these words (by remaining silent) one may become liable to the death penalty. We have not heard previously that Bileam was under such a restriction. Our sages in <i>Tanchuma</i> 12 explain that Bileam said to G'd he would rather die than to be guilty of cursing the Israelites when he realised that G'd watched every move he made. This was the meaning of "may my soul die, etc." However, he acted under duress having become only G'd's mouthpiece.
  We may also understand Bileam's reply in terms of the <i>Yalkut</i> we quoted earlier that G'd put a bar in Bileam's mouth. When he wanted to curse G'd would twist the bar to make this impossible. He could only feel comfortable physically by complying with G'd's instructions. Otherwise he would become mute.
  It is also possible that he told Balak that he was hoping G'd would put His words in his mouth, and this was why he spoke about אשר ישים ה׳ בפי, "what G'd is going to put into my mouth I will guard carefully." This is the reason he did not say: "what G'd has put in my mouth." He told Balak that although G'd had put restrictions on what he could say, he looked forward to uttering G'd's holy words even under the forced conditions. He considered it a privilege to become G'd's mouthpiece.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר אליו בלק לך נא אתי, Balak said to him: "please come with me, etc." On the one hand, Balak pleaded, i.e. נא; on the other hand he was authoritative as evident from the command וקבנו לי משם, "and curse for me from there!" We can understand this apparently contradictory behaviour by Balak in terms of what is written in <i>Tanchuma</i> 13 that Balak showed Bileam the place where Israel would become ordinary, i.e. after Moses would die there. Balak did not know what caused Israel to be נפרץ, to suffer such a breach. He thought this presaged sinfulness by Israel, but he did not realise that Israel would immediately repent its conduct which would cancel G'd's decrees against them. The word נא was a plea for Bileam to be quick and to seize the moment G'd would be angry in order to curse the Israelites. Balak wanted Bileam to even express the most powerful curse possible, קבה, while G'd would be angry with them.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   קום בלק, "arise Balak, etc." Why did Bileam insist that Balak arise? According to our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,20 that Balak made fun of Bileam who had become a toy in G'd's hands, Bileam wanted to annoy him. This is why he said to him: "get up and listen!" This leaves the question why Bileam added the word ושמע, "and listen" with the letter ו at the beginning? He may have wanted to tell Balak that he should begin to listen immediately, as soon as he stood up.
  Alternatively, the reason was because G'd had told Bileam to return to Balak. Bileam interpreted this to mean that Balak had to personally hear all that G'd would have Bileam say the next time. If Bileam had said to Balak simply: "get up, listen, etc," this would have sounded as if the reason Balak was to get up was to enable him to hear what Bileam would say while he was standing. It would not have implied that Balak had to listen. All he would have to do was to be standing. The formulation chosen by Bileam made certain tha Balak understood that he had been commanded to remain standing and to keep listening.
  One could also understand the exclamation "get up" as a compliment, i.e. it was an elevation for Balak to listen to what G'd had to say (through the mouth of Bileam). Bileam also wanted to make sure that Balak's ears would be properly attuned to what G'd had to say. Balak being granted the privilege of listening to the words of the living G'd, raised him above his previous status of divining the future by means of the צפור, the bird. This is why Bileam added: בנו צפור, "the bird is his son." Up to that time, Balak hade been the "son" of the bird, i.e. the bird had been the senior, Balak the junior. These roles would now be reversed with Balak becoming senior to the צפור.
  There is yet another way of explaining our verse. We had described two evils Bileam had in mind. 1) He wanted to curse the people of Israel and would have done so had G'd not placed a bar in his mouth preventing him from saying what he wanted to say. 2) Even while he pronounced blessings he endeavoured to phrase them in such a way that they were potential curses. It required the Holy Spirit to translate these "so-called blessings" into the real thing. Bileam was aware that Balak suspected him of blessing the Israelites willingly; he wanted to demonstrate to him that this was not the case. This is why he invited Balak to listen closely so that he could detect in the very blessings Bileam pronounced details which were not beneficial at all. In this manner Bileam hoped to prove to Balak that he was acting under compulsion by a higher force. The letter ו before the word ושמע invited Balak to listen carefully to the double entendre in Bileam's blessings. He added the word האזינה in order for Balak to become aware every time the angel twisted the bar in his mouth to prevent him from cursing Israel outright.
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא איש א־ל ויכזב, "G'd is not like man who deceives, etc." Bileam described two attributes of man on two levels comparing them with parallel attributes of G'd. 1) Man makes promises to people concerning certain matters; 2) man tries to avoid becoming dependent on others in his dealings. Concerning the former, Bileam says that the essential difference between G'd and man is that G'd keeps His promises whereas man often deceives, disappoints the people who have been promised by him. Concerning the second attribute, Bileam says that whereas man may change his mind concerning matters he had planned which did not involve undertakings to his fellow man, he nonetheless is apt to have remorse, to change his mind before executing his plan. Not so G'd. When G'd decides on a course of action He will not change His mind even if such a change of mind does not involve a third party. The examples that Bileam had in mind were twofold. 1) G'd had said (to the patriarchs) that He would establish the Kingdom of Israel and deal favourably with that nation. 2) He had planned to give His Torah to His people, the people He considers holy. This latter plan was something G'd had not revealed as a promise to anyone beforehand. Bileam said that G'd does not renege on either of these two plans of His, i.e. the promises made to the patriarchs, nor to His plan to give the holy Torah to the Jewish people and to guide them to perform the commandments. If Bileam would be allowed to curse the Jewish people, G'd would have to renege on both of these two plans of His! How could He allow this to happen? [the important part of this approach is the transitive use of the word ויכזב, and the intransitive use of the word ויתנחם. Ed.]
  Why are the two words ויכזב and ויתנחם both preceded by the conjunctive letter ו? Bileam means that G'd is unlike איש and unlike אדם. It is inconceivable to suspect G'd of acting in a fashion which is despicable even if a mere human being acts in such a fashion. When man deceives or reneges this is considered a serious flaw in his character. How could Balak expect G'd to become guilty of such a character flaw by asking him to curse these people? He would have to descend to the level of human beings to even become capable of acting in such a fashion! The reason Bileam once uses the word איש and once the word אדם, is because when one makes promises to others one is perceived as important, i.e. איש; whereas when one merely plans something which does not involve making undertakings to outsiders, the term אדם is more appropriate.
  ההוא אמר ולא יעשה, "when He said something, is He not going to do it?" According to the plain meaning of the verse the subject is man. It is, however, possible to understand the verse with the subject being G'd. The meaning would be that in contrast to man, G'd merely has to utter a word and such instructions are turned into deeds all by themselves; man, on the other hand, needs to implement instructions physically in order to accomplish plans he has articulated. When we treat G'd as the subject in our verse the word ההוא refers to the G'd who was mentioned earlier in our verse. Just as G'd created the universe by merely giving verbal directives such as "let there be light," so Bileam refers to G'd's ability to say something which will automatically be done. According to <i>Avot</i> 5,1 the whole universe was created by 10 verbal directives from G'd. ודבר, ולא יקימנו, "and once He has spoken, (given a directive) the resultant action will surely endure." In this part of the verse Bileam differentiates between two different kinds of utterances by G'd each of which is automatically translated into a deed. If the utterance of G'd is אמירה, the action resulting from it may not endure; if it was דבור, however, it will most certainly endure, i.e. יקימנה. Compare Job 26,11 "the pillars of the heavens are trembling, astounded at His blast." [When G'd created the universe in 10 directives the Torah employed the word אמירה, i.e. ויאמר to describe these directives. This is why they were not yet of an enduring nature. Ed.] <i>Chagigah</i> 12 explains that the "blast" mentioned in the verse we quoted from Job means that G'd "blasted" the heavens in order to make them durable. When Bileam uses the term דבר here he refers to G'd making sure that what He brings about by such an utterance will endure on its own.
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה ברו לקחתי, "Behold, I am bidden to bless, etc." According to our explanation of 23,5 that the word דבר there meant "a thing," i.e. that G'd inserted something inside Bileam's mouth which would insulate the Holy Spirit from Bileam's unworthy mouth, he referred to this when he said לקחתי. This "thing" must have been spiritual in the sense that it was abstract. This may be what the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> had in mind when the author called it a מלאך, an agent of G'd. The author of the <i>Yalkut</i> however, does not give the same reason that we gave but says that this מלאך was inserted in Bileam's mouth to prevent him from uttering a curse. Basically, what the <i>Yalkut</i> says and what we have said amounts to the same idea. When Bileam referred to this alien presence in his mouth as הנה, "a presence of some kind," he described this presence as the source of the blessings he was forced to utter. The repeat of the word ברך means that not only did G'd put the potential blessing in his mouth but He made him utter it. The whole verse is Bileam's attempt to show Balak that he acts under compulsion. He adds: ולא אשיבנו, "I cannot even retract it."
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא הביט און ביעקב, "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob, etc." We must try and understand this by reference to a part of the <i>Zohar</i> called <i>Raaye Mehemenuta</i> volume 3 page 265 where we are told that when man sins, the sin leaves a physical impression on the part of his body with which he committed the sin. Our sages consider such parts of the body as being blemished. The meaning of the word און is the name of the physical blemish which results from the commission of a sin. Proverbs 30,20 describes the adulterous woman as saying לא פעלתי און, "I have not done any wrong." We find the same expression in Psalms 125,5: "The Lord makes them go the way of evil-doers." Bileam says that he could not detect any physical blemishes on the body of the people called Jacob which would bear testimomy to their having committed evil. We have already explained that Bileam described the "average" Israelite as יעקב, whereas he described the spiritual elite as ישראל. He meant that though, intellectually speaking, the Israelites had erred on occasion, the result never was serious enough as to leave a blemish on their bodies. Bileam took his cue from the description of the Jewish people in Song of Songs 4,7: כלך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך. "You are completely fair My beloved, you are totally free from any blemish." The sins the Israelites had been guilty of from time to time did not leave a permanent blemish, nothing that could not be cleansed by a thorough washing. <i>Shir Hashirim Rabbah</i> on Song of Songs 1,5 "I am black and yet beautiful" echoes this sentiment. ולא ראה עמל בישראל "neither has He seen perverseness in Israel." The word עמל usually means toil. Bileam means that G'd did not even find amongst the elite of Israel the kind of temporary blemish which can be scrubbed away only laboriously.
  Alternatively, the word און refers to sins of an intellectual nature, similar to Psalms 66,18: "Had I had an evil thought in my mind, etc." Bileam says that G'd does not consider the Israelites culpable for evil thoughts, only for evil deeds. Evil thoughts do not leave behind them the kind of permanent damage that evil deeds do. To make this distinction clear, Bileam uses the expression הבטה in connection with such intellectual sins as opposed to the expression ראיה. The former is a far more intensive kind of look than the latter. What may appear a serious sin at first glance, i.e. ראה, turns out to be less so on doser examination, הביט. The reason Bileam used the word און in connection with Jacob was to tell us that even the sins "Jacob," i.e. the average Israelites had been guilty of at one time or another, did not leave a permanent mark so that we can call Jacob blemished. As far as the elite, the צדיקים amongst the Israelites are concerned, לא ראה עמל, He did not even see that they had sinned by in intent, certainly not by deed. By referring to עמל, toil or burden, Bileam also wanted to convey that although the righteous Israelites perform a host of commandments they do not consider fulfilment of all these commandments burdensome. Contrast this with Psalms 73,16 where Assaph describes the attempt to understand why the wicked appear to prosper as a burdensome task, עמל. Bileam may imply what Solomon spelled out in Proverbs 8,14 that the righteous consider preoccupation with G'd's Torah as acts of courage and the fruit of insight.
  Bileam may have something even more far-reaching in mind here. He perceived that because the Jewish people, both the average ones and the elite, perform Torah and the commandments, this "compensates" G'd in a manner of speaking for all the other nations who have not as yet embraced monotheism and acknowledged the kingdom of G'd on earth. Were it not for the מצוה-performance by the Israelites G'd would have destroyed the other nations long ago and would not have displayed so much patience vis-a-vis them. According to this we translate the words לא הביט און, "G'd did not closely scrutinise the sins of the Gentile nations on account of Jacob." Similarly, "He did not even glance at the sins of the Gentile nations superficially, לא רה עמל, on account of Israel, the righteous ones amongst the Jewish people." Our sages have pointed out more than once that as long as the Jewish people observe the Torah G'd lavished His goodness and abundance on the whole of mankind. All the Gentile nations enjoy prosperity and well being thanks to the conduct of Israel. As a result of this, the mere idea of destroying Israel by means of a curse is tantamount to suicide; by whose merit would the Gentile nations continue to exist then? Yet another meaning of Bileam saying: "and He saw no perversity in Israel," may refer to the way G'd receives all the "twittering" of the righteous Israelites who are constantly "bothering" G'd about something or other. G'd does not find this tiresome; it is not burden-some, עמל for Him. Compare Maleachi 2,17: "You have wearied the Lord with your talk."
  ה׳ אלוקיו עמו ותרועת מלך בו "the Lord his G'd with him and the shouting of the king is among him." These two statements are parallel to the two statements with which the verse began. The Lord in His capacity as "King" is with the category of Israelites whom Bileam had described previously as Jacob; The average Israelite who performs the commandments out of a sense of duty and fear, and relates to his G'd as מלך, whereas the righteous who perform the commandments out of feelings of love for G'd relate to Him as י־ה־ו־ה אלוקיו. The reason that Bileam added the suffix יו to the name אלוקים was to indicate that if G'd were to subject these people to afflictions they would not use this as an excuse to turn away from Him. The expression תרועת מלך is meant to describe the awe in which the "Jacob" category of Israelites relates to Him.
  The entire verse is also a compliment to the Israelites who are the only nation G'd has chosen for His presence to dwell amongst. Not only that, but G'd has given this people a supernatural power enabling them to destroy everything they have a mind to, much like a king. The words תרועת מלך are a reminder that they do not have to invoke G'd's help but are able to do all this by themselves. The Talmud is full of examples where the righteous killed with merely a glance when the situation demanded it.
  We could also find an allusion to an earthly king in the words ותרועת מלך בו. The Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 61 describes the Romans torturing Rabbi Akiva by flaying his flesh with iron combs while he tried to end his life with the words ה׳ אחד, signifying the Unity of G'd on his lips. The meaning of the words then would be that even when Jews are being tortured by earthly kings merely for being Jews, such Jews remain loyal to their G'd to their last breath.
  
  Verse 22
  
   א־ל מוציאם ממצרים, "G'd who has brought them out of Egypt, etc." Although the Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 38 understands the word מוציא as if it were in the past tense [in connection with the benediction we pronounce before eating bread, Ed.], the fact is that Bileam used the present tense rather than the past tense about G'd orchestrating the Exodus. Why did he do this? Perhaps we can best explain this in light of the statement in <i>Pessachim</i> 116 that every Jew throughout the ages must bring himself to feel that he himself took part in the Exodus of our forefathers from Egypt. In fact, basing themselves on this statement in the Talmud, the Kabbalists are sure that each and every year on the anniversary i.e. the night of the 14th of Nissan to the 15th, people have a chance to get rid of spiritually negative influences, the forces of the קליפה which they absorbed during the year, and emerge with all the sanctity of their souls intact. Bileam therefore alluded to the annual renewal of the spiritual part of the Exodus experience that the Jewish people experience. He even provided a reason for this when he said כתועפות ראם לו, "they are for him like the lofty horns of the wild-ox." This is an allusion to G'd continuously elevating the Jewish people spiritually to ever higher levels. This process will continue until every vestige of spiritual impurity has been purged from the Israelites. כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל "for there is no enchantment in Jacob nor is there any divination in Israel." Bileam employs a double entendre; on the one hand he uses the word נחש in the sense it is used by sorcerers, on the other he alludes to the original serpent, the original temptress, seducer. Bileam claims that on both counts the Israelites are in the clear. They do not have anything to fear from either as they do not indulge in the practice of any kind of magic. Eventually, Jacob will become totally free of the evil urge, the angel of death, etc. Compare Zachariah 13,2 "I will remove the spirit of impurity from earth." ולא קסם, this refers to an impurity of a lesser degree. Bileam says that the Israelites will not even be afflicted by this and will be on a higher spiritual level than the angels. We know this from our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,20 who told us that the words יאמר ליעקב מה פעל א־ל are an allusion to the angels asking and consulting Israel about the works of G'd.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   הן עם כלביא יקום "Behold, it is a nation that arises like a lion etc." The word הן suggests that the speaker concurs with something another person has said. An example would be what we learned in <i>Shabbat</i> 119 that on Friday night when the Jew returns from the synagogue to a house in which the table is set for the Sabbath meal, also the "evil angel" who accompanies him has to answer Amen to the wish expressed by the "good angel" that this Jew should do likewise in the week to follow. [The concept is preserved in the song יום שבת קדש הוא sung on Friday night, i.e. ומלאך רע יענה אמן. Ed.] In our situation Bileam expressed the wish that the Israelites continue their virtuous ways. Bileam mentions two categories of lion in this verse. לביא refers to a lion that arises for the first time. Soldiers who are inexperienced in battle do not usually distinguish themselves for bravery the first time they go to war. Not so the lion. He displays bravery already the first time he faces an adversary. Bileam applies this quality to the Jewish people. The Jewish people proved valiant though they had a history of hundreds of years of slavery behind them. Nonetheless they overcame such mighty kings as Sichon and Og. Bileam continues וכארי יתנשא, saying that unlike other nations who gradually lose their strength, becoming exhausted by the many wars they fight, the Israelites will lift themselves up like a mature lion time and again without showing signs of age.
  Bileam may also have alluded to the fact that in addition to the strength granted them by G'd, this people enjoyed a reputation that made other people shudder at the mere mention of their name, (compare Joshua 2,24 "all the inhabitants of the country have melted before us"). The words כלביא יקום describe Israel's actual valour; the words וכארי יתנשא describe its image amongst the nations.
  לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף "it will not lie down until it has consumed its prey." Other nations interrupt warfare at nightfall, giving the losers a respite; not so Israel. Once it is at war it will continue without interruption until successful. Compare Joshua 10,12-13 where Joshua is described as commanding time to stand still in order to complete the pursuit of his enemies. Israel is not ready to lie down until it consumes part of its prey.
  ודם חללים ישתה, "and it will drink the blood of the slain (enemies)." It is human nature that the more the casualties in war mount, the more important the value of the survivors. This is so when one thinks of the enemy in terms of life or death. Not so when the Jewish people go to war. Seeing they relate to the blood of the fallen as a drink to slake their thirst with, the number of fallen does not act as a brake on their desire to kill more of their enemies.
  Bileam was specific in describing the blood of the fallen as something the Israelites would drink, i.e. absorb into their bodies, thereby confirming what we have already mentioned that the spark of sanctity which was trapped inside the fallen soldier may have been released now and may yearn to attach itself to the sanctity of the Jewish soldier who liberated it. It may thus be absorbed by the Jewish soldier drinking it. [The whole verse is hyperbole, of course, as the consumption of blood is forbidden to Jews on pain of <i>karet,</i> premature death of the sinner, Ed.] I refer the reader to what we have written on Numbers 14,9 "for they are our bread." From this verse our sages in <i>Chulin</i> 35 derive that blood is considered a drink rather than a food in Jewish law.
  
  Verse 25
  
   גם קב לא חקבנו, "neither curse them, etc." Both the word גם, "also," and the repetition of the verb קב present a difficulty in this verse. Inasmuch as Bileam had told Balak to get up and listen carefully (23,18), Balak interpreted this as a hint that Bileam actually wanted to curse the Israelites but that G'd had thwarted him, as we explained. In view of what had just occurred he said גם to express his dismay that not only had Bileam not cursed the people but had even blessed them. He referred to two possibilities of cursing when he repeated the word. Alas, Bileam had not only not named Israel as the object of a curse but had not even uttered a curse without specifically naming the victim. We may infer from Balak's words that Bileam had been looking for a way of uttering a curse without at the same time incurring punishment at the hands of G'd. He wanted to utter a curse indiscriminately, naming the victim only in his heart. This is the reason that G'd had to prevent him from even uttering a curse without naming anybody.
  גם ברך, "also blessing, etc." In view of the fact that Bileam had explained to Balak that the blessings he had uttered were forced upon him, Balak now demurs saying that if he could not curse them at least he was not obligated to bless them. Balak was under the impression that G'd twisted Bileam's mouth so that a blessing came out only because Bileam had tried to utter a curse first. He repeated the verb i.e. לא תברכנו, do not bless them, to protest even a blessing which Bileam did not mean honestly.
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויען בלעם…לאמור Bileam replied…saying, etc. What is the meaning of the word לאמור, in this context? To whom was Balak supposed to relate Bileam's words? Bileam meant that what he had told Balak previously was to make plain to Balak that he, Bileam, had to curse or to bless at G'd's whim, that he was not free to even keep his mouth shut.
  
  Verse 27
  
   לכה נא אקחך, "come on, please, I will take you, etc." The word נא in this context is merely a sort of reluctant acknowledgment of what had already happened. Balak wants to try again from another vantage point. The reason he had not yet given up hope was that he thought that the two locations from which he had shown Bileam the Israelites were opposite the righteous Israelites, the ones who had never provoked G'd's anger. He tried to find a location from where Bileam could see the whole people. He was convinced that amongst such a large number of Israelites there had to be some sinners whose presence would provide Bileam with an opening for applying his curses. Balak says "perhaps G'd will agree, etc." When he added: "and curse them for me," instead of saying "and curse them," he meant that G'd did not have to approve a curse against Israel as long as He did not prevent Bileam from speaking his mind.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וירא בלעם כי טוב, Bileam realised that it was good in the eyes of G'd, etc. In view of the <i>Midrash</i> we quoted on 22,12 that G'd had told Bileam that he should neither curse the Israelites nor bless them seeing they were blessed already and had no need for his blessing, how could Bileam assume that it pleased G'd if he continued blessing this people? We must therefore understand Bileam differently. Up until now he had been forced to bless this people although initially G'd had told him not to bless them seeing they were blessed already. In view of his experience so far Bileam had found out that G'd had turned his intended curses into blessings. Seeing this was possible, Bileam now reasoned that G'd could also do the reverse, i.e. turn his voluntary blessings into curses. On the other hand, if we add what we explained on 23,5 that it had not really been Bileam who had pronounced the blessings but an angel using his mouth as the vehicle, Bileam now concluded that there was really no point in consulting all kinds of charms, etc. but that he might as well bow to the inevitable. ולא הלן כפעם, and he did not go as on previous occasions, etc. He concluded a) that there was no point in it, b) that the charms had proved ineffective anyway. He therefore decided to change his strategy and turned his face towards the desert, i.e. to examine how the Israelites had angered their G'd while they had travelled through the desert. He hoped to find something which would enable G'd to let him curse these people.
  We may also understand the word המדבר as related to דבור, speech; in Numbers 27,3 אבינו מת במדבר the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 205 understands the word in that sense. If we follow this path Bileam referred to the fact that on each of the ten occasions on which the Israelites had angered G'd in the desert their sin consisted of what they said, i.e. דבור. Bileam was confident that amongst all the Israelites he was looking at there must have been a number who had been guilty of one or several of the rebellious comments which had angered G'd so often.
  We can also take our cue from another comment of the <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 157 in which the מדבר, desert, is described as the "home" of Satan, i.e. the angel of death and the forces at his command. Bileam looked towards this region in order to awaken the forces of Satan, etc. Satan's armies are all hostile to Israel. Bileam was careful to say פניו, "his face," using a word describing his anger. One of the means to draw G'd near is שמחה ולב טוב, joy and being of good cheer. On the other hand, one attracts the forces of Satan when one is in a vile mood, angry, etc. Bileam displayed his bad mood, פניו, in the direction of Satan to secure his help. An example of the use of פני "My (angry) face," is found in Exodus 33,14 where G'd describes His presence as dangerous to the Jewish people when He is in the frame of mind described as פני.
  There is still another way of explaining our verse. Bileam realised that only someone who is good himself is worthy to bless G'd's people, (compare Proverbs 22,9: "the generous man is blessed"); our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 38 suggest that in order to correctly understand this verse in Proverbs the word <i>Yevorach</i> "blessed," should be punctuated as if it had been written <i>yevarech</i> i.e. "he will bless." Inasmuch as Bileam was known for his avarice, he was obviously not suited to be the instrument G'd would choose to bless His people. Bileam now understood that he personally was unfit to bless the people and that the blessings which had come out of his mouth had been spoken by the angel. This is why he concluded that there was no point in heaping more sin upon himself by consulting his charms. Instead, he faced the desert, a place described in Exodus 18,5 as the place where G'd's Presence rests. Bileam made a spiritual turnabout, became a penitent, -but only in order to become worthy to bless the lsraelites.-The Torah informs us that he did not do so out of free volition, but לפנים, he did so in order to deceive G'd into believing he had done תשובה. Perhaps he did so only in order to fool the angel who had put the bar in his mouth. If he could get the angel to remove the bar, he would pronounce blessings of his own accord which were designed to cause harm to the people receiving same. According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 105 he actually did so when he said כנחלים נטיו, "as valleys stretched out, etc." (24,6). The Talmud points out that this meant that the Israelites should not have orchards and vineyards. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit invalidated Bileam's evil intention, turning these so-called blessings into the real thing.
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישא בלעם את עיניו, Bileam raised his eyes, etc." The Torah had to write Bileam's name once more as well as the word וישא, "he raised." Seeing that we have explained earlier that the Israelites were surrounded and enveloped by G'd's protective cloud so that no evil eye could harm them, the Torah had to tell us that Bileam "raised" his eyes, i.e. that he invoked the prophetic powers with which he had been equipped, in order to see what ordinary people could not see (compare verse 4: "who sees the vision of G'd…with open eyes"). The Torah describes things Bileam saw with his mental eye. His name was mentioned here once more in order to make clear that what Bileam did here he did in his capacity as a prophet designated by G'd to the Gentile nations. He succeeded in seeing the Israelites as a result of invoking these powers G'd had equipped him with.
  וירא את ישראל שכן לשבטיו, "He observed the Israelites encamped according to their tribes. He was overcome by the Holy Spirit." Bileam discovered two things of importance. 1) The Israelites were disciplined, each tribe occupying the area assigned to it, their leader at their head. The reason for this separation of the tribes was that each tribe represented a spiritual level all its own. 2) The Holy Spirit rested on the people. It is also possible that Bileam realised the truth of the statement in <i>Baba Batra</i> 60 that the reason the people qualified to have the Holy Spirit rest on them and to have become the מרכבה, G'd's chariot, as it were, was that each tribe had arranged to be a closed unit.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וישא משלו, "He began his parable, etc." Why were these two words necessary? We also need to know why he had to say: "says Bileam, etc." Who did not know that Bileam was speaking? Furthermore, why did Bileam have to tel us once more who his father was? Besides, why did he have to give details about identifying marks on his body? What did he mean when he said: "who hears the words of G'd?" If he meant to boast that he was privy to communications from G'd, why had he waited so long to do this?
  We must remember that up until this moment Bileam had uttered only words which the angel had put in his mouth; all the words he had spoken were the complete opposite of what he wished to say. Now he was anxious that G'd should agree with what he would utter, i.e. that the words he would say would be considered as if he had spoken them willingly. He was quite prepared that G'd would turn any curse he would try into a blessing. However, he wanted to make sure that if he were to pronounce a blessing G'd would not invoke His power to bless but would accept Bileam's words of blessing as they were. This was especially so if you accept our second interpretation on the words "he turned his face to the desert," where we explained that he pretended to have become a בעל תשובה, a penitent, and to thereby become fit to bless the Jewish people. The verse then may be understood as follows: וישא משלו, Bileam referred to a parable which originated with him personally, not with the angel. Once we accept this approach we can easily understand the quote from <i>Sanhedrin</i> 105 that his blessings were couched in such a language that they were actually curses as in כנחלים נטיו. These נחלים, rivulets which flow through the valley, are brooks which dry up in the summer so that they do not irrigate orchards adjoining them. The Holy Spirit corrected Bileam, adding the word נטיו, i.e. that not as Bileam meant that they would run dry, but they would continue to flow in every season. The Torah continued כאהלים נטע השם, "as aloes planted by the Lord;" actually, Bileam had not wanted to say the additional words "which G'd has planted;" he had only wanted to single out a category of plant which has a short life; G'd altered the meaning by adding the words: "planted by the Lord," i.e. enduring. In this fashion G'd added whatever was necessary to Bileam's "blessings" in order to make real blessings out of them, not hidden curses. If Bileam's words had been spoken by the angel just as previously, why would the angel phrase them so that they could be perceived as curses in disguise? It is dear therefore, that what we have here are words which Bileam spoke of his own accord although G'd added something in each case in order to blunt his evil intention.
  This then is why the Torah wrote three distinct statements to make it unmistakably clear that here we speak about Bileam initiating these blessings. 1) נאם בלעם (3 ,ויאמר (2 ,וישא משלו. It should be recorded forever who it was who thought up these words and uttered them. The reason that Bileam (or the Torah) recorded three separate words identifying the speaker may be analogous to what we learned in the <i>Mishnah Peah</i> 7,1. We are taught there that in order to be certain that a farmer is guilty of violating the law against harvesting fruit from trees he had previously forgotten (שכחה), none of the following three conditions must obtain: 1) The olive tree in question must not be known by a particular name. 2) its produce must not be of a particularly well known quality. 3) The tree in question must not be known because of its specific location. The Mishnah rules that if any of these three conditions applies to the tree in question, it is not conceivable that the owner "forgot" to harvest it when he harvested the rest of the orchard, and therefore he is allowed to pluck the olives from this tree even when this appears to be an afterthought. In our verse, the words "the son of Be-Or" identify the speaker just as the Mishnah identifies the tree. The reason the Torah did not write the usual בן, "son of," but בנו, "his son," is to remind us that Bileam's father was inferior to Bileam the son in achievements. It is also possible that all the Torah wanted to tell us was that Be-Or had only one son, Bileam. If you were to say that he did have additional sons, then the Torah meant that the only son of his who counted was Bileam. As to the specific quality of the fruit of the tree in question mentioned in our Mishnah in <i>Peah</i> the Torah writes הגבר שתום העין, the man whose piercing look would cause harm to anyone he set his eyes on. This is why he had to make it a habit to close his eye i.e. סותם עינו, to avoid killing people indiscriminately. Alternatively, his left eye was distinguished in some way. According to the commentators who understand the expression שתום העין to mean that his eye was opened, it means that when he used to open this eye he would inflict harm on the objects he looked at. Concerning the third identifying mark mentioned in the Mishnah in <i>Peah,</i> the specific location of the tree in question, the Torah wrote שומע אמרי א־ל, "the one who hears the words of G'd," i.e. that he stood in a place where the power of prophecy descended upon him.
  We now have to explain why Bileam said three times of himself that he was speaking, i.e. נאם. This may have to do with three distinct hidden powers Bileam possessed. 1) He was endowed with special powers at birth, something he inherited in his genes. 2) He acquired special powers due to certain deeds of his, just like any person who acquires psychic or spiritual powers due to a certain lifestyle. 3) G'd endowed him with certain powers in order to defuse the claim of the Gentile nations that if only they would have had a prophet such as Moses, they too would have distinguished themselves spiritually just as the Jewish people had done (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,1). Bileam intended to bring to bear all of his three powers in his speeches. Concerning the powers he had inherited by way of his genes he said נאם בלעם בנו בעור; he made a point of describing himself as the son of Be-Or instead of describing himself as "a son of Be-Or" so as to avoid the impression that his father had possessed these powers in even greater measure than he himself. He was only interested in underlining his own part in these powers. Concerning the psychic spiritual powers he had acquired on his own, he said נאם הגבר, "says the man." The word גבר is also an allusion to גבורה, heroism or bravery. When he added the words שתום העין, he may have referred to something in the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 208 that he made a pilgrimage to Azza and Azael (names of deities, fallen angels) where he acquired spiritually negative powers. There he gained insights into many mystical matters at the same time finding the acquisition of these powers very exhausting, as described there by the <i>Zohar</i>. Finally, concerning the powers G'd endowed him with, Bileam described himself as שומע אמרי א־ל. He repeated the importance of this element among his powers by adding the word ומחזה, calling attention to the fact that he enjoyed visions granted to him by G'd. He referred to two levels of prophetic powers 1) He could hear G'd's words; 2) He could see visions when addressed by G'd. When he added the words נפל וגלוי עינים, "falling down yet with eyes open," he described his reaction when receiving communications from G'd. If the communication was visual, he would fall down at the time. If it was merely aural, he was able to absorb such messages with eyes open, i.e. without having to go into a trance.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מה טובו אהליך יעקב, "How goodly are your tents O Jacob," etc. Bileam addresses both categories of Israelites in this verse. Concerning the average Israelite who studies Torah only occasionally, relatively briefly, Bileam spoke of the "tents of Jacob," i.e. temporary dwellings. Concerning the elite of the Israelites, the ones who make Torah the mainstay of their daily lives, Bileam spoke of the משכנות, the permanent residences. In the homes of the צדיקים Torah finds a permanent home.
  Bileam may also have alluded to two different time frames when distinguishing between "tents" and "residences," respectively. In Exodus 26,7 the Torah speaks of the coverings of the Tabernacle making a tent of it. When Bileam spoke of the "tents of Jacob," he referred to this element the Tabernacle represented. In Kings I 8,1 where Solomon dedicates the Holy Temple, he describes G'd as taking up residence in a permanent home, using the word לשכון for residing somewhere permanently. When Bileam spoke of the משכנות ישראל, he referred to the time when the permanent Temple would be built. The reason Bileam spoke of either dwelling in the plural i.e. אהליך and משכנותיך is that both the Tabernacle and the Holy Temple consisted of different levels of holiness in that the Holy of Holies was more sacred than the Sanctuary in front of the dividing curtain.
  
  Verse 6
  
   כנחלים נטיו, "As valleys stretched out, etc." Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 105 offer many interpretations on this verse. I believe we may do well to explain the verse in the following manner. Bileam speaks of four different groups of righteous people amongst the Jewish nation. One category is similar to the prophet Samuel who used to tour the whole land of Israel year after year in order to spread Torah knowledge (<i>Shabbat</i> 56). The second group of righteous men are the ones who made their headquarters on the Temple Mount near the Sanctuary teaching and judging. Actually, this group is not basically different from people such as the prophet Samuel except that people wishing to hear the word of G'd had to come there instead of the word of G'd coming to them. The group of people who emulate the prophet Samuel are superior to this group as they bring the word of G'd to all parts of the country. The third category of righteous people is the group who study Torah for its own sake, i.e. without ulterior motives. The group mentioned previously is superior in that it not only studies but also teaches. The fourth category of the righteous are the ones who provide the financial backing for those who study by going out to earn the money necessary to support both themselves and the people studying Torah.
  Bileam had something to say with regard to each of these four groups of righteous Jews. He compared the members of the category who model themselves after the prophet Samuel by describing them as "brooks which stretch out," to describe the way they reach out spreading their Torah knowledge. He complimented these people for being like drawers of water enabling others to drink. He described the second category of the righteous, the ones who study and dispense knowledge and justice on the Temple Mount as "gardens along the river;" a garden has been planted as a fixture and anyone who wishes can come and avail himself of what it has to offer. The fruits of this garden eventually reach all corners of the country when the people who had come there take the fruit with them. This is what the prophet Isaiah had in mind when he said (Isaiah 2,3) that "Torah emanates from Zion and the word of G'd from Jerusalem." The third category of the righteous, the ones who isolate themselves in study for study's sake but who do not interact much with the community they live in, Bileam compared to aloes "planted by G'd;" they are similar to Jacob whom the Torah described as a loner, "a man living in his tent" i.e. devoting his life to study. [The author uses the letters of the word <i>aholim</i> in the text as if they had been vocalised <i>oholim</i> "tents." Ed.] The reason Bileam used the word נטיעה, "planted" in this context is that the older these plants (aloes) become the more roots they develop i.e. their souls become ever more deeply rooted in Torah values. Finally, concerning the fourth category of the righteous the ones who provide the material wherewithal for those who study and/or disseminate Torah, Bileam describes them as towering cedars. This is hyperbole for the men of physical and spiritual stature of this world. Although they possess all these attributes they do not yield fruit as they have not studied Torah themselves.
  I have written repeatedly about the fact that the only true "fruit" is the fruit resulting from Torah study. It behooves us to study what the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 202 has written on Deut. 20,19: "do not destroy its trees." The author understands the trees mentioned in that verse as a reference to Torah scholars, whose Torah knowledge is considered as the fruit they yield. Bileam adds the words עלי מים, that these cedars grow near sources of water to explain the reason why they endure. Water is a simile for the Torah which stands by people who study it, just as water is an indispensable part of physical life. People who enable the Torah scholars to keep on studying by providing their physical needs share fully in the rewards of these scholars, as we have documented repeatedly. The entire blessing is meant to describe all of the Israelites as deeply rooted in sanctity, even the section of the population which devotes itself to the pursuit of material goals in order to share the results with the Torah students.
  
  Verse 7
  
   יזל מים מדליו, "Water will flow from his buckets, etc." We have a tradition expressed in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 28,6 that every Israelite received his personal share in the Torah [some insight not revealed to someone else at the revelation at Mount Sinai; this was why all the souls who had not yet been assigned bodies were present at that time. Rabbi Moshe Alshich elaborates on this. Ed.] This is the reason Moses called the Torah מורשה in Deut. 33,4 (compare <i>Pessachim</i> 49). The Talmud suggests that the word <i>Morashah</i> could be read as <i>Me-orassah,</i> "betrothed." The "bucket" Bileam speaks about is the common source from which all the Torah insights are derived. Moses is considered as the one who filled this "bucket" with water originally, i.e. that all these insights have been alluded to in the written Torah.
  Bileam used the word bucket as hyperbole although a bucket is hardly a highly valued tool, because he envisages a time when the Messiah comes and the 50th level of בינה, "insight" will be revealed to mankind. At that time all the preceding 49 levels of insight which have been attained by various people throughout the preceding years will be considered as having been raised from that "bucket." In retrospect then, this insignificant bucket will be perceived as having been an extremely valuable and prestigious tool. Bileam refers to that period in the future as the time when the descendants of Israel will enjoy many waters, i.e. many insights.
  וירום מאגג מלכו, "and its king will be greater than Agag." Bileam here revealed that Israel would become a formal kingdom at the time when king Agag the first king of the Amalekites ruled that nation. Saul lost his kingdom having failed to kill Agag and he was replaced by a more worthy colleague, i.e. David. The reason that Bileam described the commencement of the Jewish monarchy in terms of Agag the king of the Amalekites was only because this first Jewish king wasted his chance to kill Agag before the latter had progeny. <i>Megillah</i> 13 reveals that during the night that Saul kept Agag prisoner he succeeded in impregnating a woman who perpetuated his seed throughout the ages. The correct meter of our verse then is: "the reason that David became a greater king than Saul is the latter's failure to deal with Agag as G'd had commanded." The subject of מלכו is David. Bileam continued ותנשא מלכותו, that the kingdom of the Messiah who is a reincarnation of David will be more exalted even than that of David after Saul (Compare Ezekiel 37,24: "and My servant David will be king over them." Compare also Isaiah 52,13: ירום ונשא וגבה מאד מאד, where you have both these expressions in one and the same verse applied to one and the same person).
  Another thought Bileam may have had in mind when he spoke about the kingdom of the Israelites surpassing in grandeur that of Agag maybe a reference to the war against Amalek preceding the arrival of the Messiah. Inasmuch as all Amalekites nowadays are descended from Agag, G'd will have to defeat Agag and wipe out any memory of Amalek before His throne can be firmly established on earth (compare <i>Tanchuma</i> at the end of <i>Parshat Ki Tetze)</i>.
  
  Verse 8
  
   א־ל מוציאו ממצרים, "The G'd who has taken them out from Egypt, etc." We approach this on the basis of the tradition that when the Israelites left Egypt they had isolated all the sparks of sanctity which had been trapped inside Egypt by the forces of the קליפה, spiritually negative forces. We have explained already that holiness possesses the power to seek out and identify its branches (which had been lost temporarily). When Bileam speaks about מוציאו…כתועפות ראם לו, the subject is the Jewish people. [The word א־ל then is not to be translated as plain "G'd," but as "the divine power possessed by Israel." Ed.] These Israeliteshad taken out the sparks of sanctity previously trapped inside of Egypt by dint of their own holiness. The words: "he consumes nations which are its enemies" refer to the process which liberates the sparks of sanctity trapped inside the bodies of the pagans. These "sparks" will be absorbed by the collective "Soul" of the community of Israel. This is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 13,25: צדיק אכל לשבע נפשו, "The righteous eats in order to satisfy his soul" [as opposed to his body. Ed.]. ועצמותיהם יגרם, "and he crushes their bones." Bileam means that Israel crushes even the strongest parts of its opponents.
  וחציו ימחע, "and smashes their arrows." We may best understand this by referring to <i>Tanchuma Beshalach</i> 15 where Isaiah 24,21 is explained. The author of the <i>Midrash</i> understands the words יפקד ה׳ על צבא המרום במרום that G'd does not annihilate the army of a nation in the terrestrial world until after He has vanquished that nation's "protector" in the celestial spheres. If the nation is only "weakened" and not destroyed in battle on earth, this is a sign that its שר, "protector or representative" at the celestial court has not been vanquished. G'd only humbled such a representative prior to this representative's "client" on earth suffering a defeat. When a nation experiences what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, this meant that the celestial representatives of these kingdoms had been liquidated by G'd. Bileam refers to these celestial representatives of the various nations as "their arrows", the ones who carry on the fight on behalf of their clients in the celestial spheres. The word ימחץ may be understood as similar to Psalms 110,6: מחץ ראשו על ארץ רבה, "He crushed its head in the land which is "great" i.e. in the celestial spheres." It is a reference to the "protectors" of these various nations being vanquished. If we were to understand the word מחץ as meaning immersion or washing, then Bileam alludes to all these arrows as having been soaked in the blood of the enemies of the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 9
  
   כרע שכב כארי, "He couched, he lay down like a lion, etc." Bileam extols the prowess of the Jewish people as being evident even when the nation is in repose, unarmed, etc. The nation relies on its reputation and does not fear attack even when lying down. The reason Bileam uses two different names for lions in this verse is once again in accordance with the way he divided the Jewish people into Jacob and Israel, i.e. into the average Israelite and the elite, respectively.
  מברכיך ברוך וארריך ארור, "the ones who bless you is blessed, those who curse you is cursed." Why are the respective subjects in this verse described in the plural whereas their respective victims or beneficiaries are described in the singular? The reason is simple. Bileam did not want to bless more than a single Jew. He used himself as a model; his well known avarice would not allow him to proliferate blessings. When he appears to have used the same approach in describing the people who curse the Israelites, he limited the negative fallout for people who curse the Israelites to a single one. In other words, although many may attempt to curse Israel only one of them will wind up cursed himself. Bileam used this stratagem so that he himself would not necessarily be included if he succeeded to curse the Israelites. Possibly, he had another evil intent here. When he said "those who bless you is blessed," he meant that the blessing should be fulfilled on the person doing the blessing who would remain blessed as a result of pronouncing it. He mentioned the second alternative, i.e. that those who curse Israel will be cursed only afterwards so as to ensure that he had already secured an enduring blessing for himself by having blessed Israel first. G'd made certain that Bileam's curse, i.e. his evil intent, boomeranged, so that he himself wound up accursed both in this world and in the hereafter (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 90 where we are told that Bileam forfeited his share in the hereafter).
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויתר אף בלק..ויספק את כפיו, "Balak became angry… and clapped his hands, etc." He expressed his anger by clapping his hands together.
  ברכת ברך, "you have surely blessed." Balak meant that the blessing he heard Bileam pronounce was not the kind that was a curse in disguise. He proved this because Bileam had said that anyone who blesses Israel (in this fashion) was to be blessed himself, etc. Clearly, Balak had not understood the nuances of Bileams's words we have explained as reflecting his evil intent even here.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ועתה ברח לך, "And now, you better flee for yourself, etc." Balak decreed four penalties against Bileam. 1) He was not allowed to remain in Moav but was forced to return home (in disgrace). 2) He should make haste, i.e. ברח, "flee." 3) He should go by himself without attendants, i.e. לך "by yourself." 4) He was not to go from this city of Moav to another city or even to Midian but straight to his home, מקומך, "your place." Balak explained to Bileam that if he was forced to belittle him in this fashion though he had previously boasted about his ability to confer a lot of honour on him (22,17), this was only because G'd did not want Bileam to receive this honour, i.e. הנה מנעך השם מכבוד. Balak appears to have interpreted G'd's refusal for Bileam to curse the Jewish people as only a stratagem to prevent Bileam from being honoured.
  Bileam immediately denied this argument when he reminded Balak that he had already told the delegates that he would only be able to say what G'd would tell him, and that Balak had insisted that he should come all the same. Bileam reminded Balak that he had repeated the word כבד אכבדך, i.e. he had insisted that Bileam should come because he wanted to honour him regardless of what he would say. He also repeated the words: "your delegates whom you sent," although the words "whom you have sent" were quite redundant, because he also referred to the first set of emissaries. The word מלאכיך refers to the second set of delegates, the words אשר שלחת refer to the first set of emissaries. He added the word לאמור to remind Balak that he had not only told the emissaries what was on his mind, but had asked them at the time to make sure that they would convey this to Balak.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ועתה הנני הולך…איעצך, "And now, I am ready to go..and I will advise you, etc." On the one hand Bileam says that he will comply with the king's orders at that time. He speaks in the singular corresponding to Balak's orders that he was to leave לך, i.e. unaccompanied even by his lads. He adds the word לעמי, "to my people," to indicate compliance with Balak's orders that he was to return directly אל מקומך, "to your home." However, concerning Balak's instruction that he was to leave in a manner which reflected flight Bileam demurred. He was not scared of Balak, being a powerful enough sorcerer. It is interesting to read in the <i>Midrash Hagadol on 31,8</i> how much effort even the Israelites had to make in order to succeed in killing him. If the Israelites encountered such resistance, we can imagine how much more difficult it must have been for pagans to overcome Bileam.
  אשר יעשה העם הזה לעמך באחרית הימים, "what this people will do to your people at the end of days." On the one hand Bileam wanted to reveal to Balak what Israel would to do Moav, that they would uproot the people completely. On the other hand he realised that Balak the sorcerer with the aid of צפור might already be aware of this. He therefore meant to calm Balak by telling him that what was in store for Moav would be a long time hence, nothing to worry about at this time. The reason he had to tell Balak this was that otherwise Balak might be afraid to implement his advice to seduce the Israelite males with the Moabite women. The Moabite women would be afraid even to approach the Israelites fearing they would be stabbed to death. [after all Israel had only been forbidden to invade Moav. Ed.] Bileam therefore had to reassure Balak that it would not be dangerous for his women to try and "chat up" and fraternise with the Israelites. Bileam emphasised the word לעמך, "to your people," i.e. the people over whom you are king, the Moabites. Other nations had reason to fear the Israelites already. Balak personally was not included in the words לעמך, as he was really a Midianite. Balak was killed as one of the "kings" of Midian mentioned in Numbers 31,8 (compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,20).
  
  Verse 15
  
   וישא משלו, He began his parable, etc. I have already explained that everything Bileam said has to be understood allegorically.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אראנו ולא עתה, "I can see it, but it will not occur now, etc." Bileam again repeats the same message using different words each time. He also repeats the message about the Messiah but describes him differently each time, i.e. "star" and "sceptre." Bileam also varies the expressions with which he describes the exploits of this Messiah, i.e. מחץ, "smites," and קרקר, "destroys." The entire prophecy concerns the Messiah and is best understood in light of <i>Sanhedrin</i> 98 where the Talmud discusses the meaning of the apparently contradictory prophecy בעתה אחישנה, "at its appointed time I will hasten it" (Isaiah 60,22). The Talmud explains that the timing of the arrival of the Messiah depends on the conduct of the Jewish people. If they merit it, G'd will accelerate His timetable; if not, the Messiah will arrive at the time appointed for this event originally, a time far into the future. The fact that we are already into the sixth millenium shows you that up until now G'd did not accelerate His timetable. Bileam speaks of two possible messianic scenarios. When Bileam speaks of אראנו, "I can see it," he refers to the scenario of אחישנה, "I will hasten it." While it does not occur now, it may occur relatively soon. After all, our sages said in <i>Devarim Rabbah</i> 2,23 that if the Israelites were to become truly penitent they will be redeemed immediately even if they had spent only a single day in exile. They base this on the verse: "G'd will answer you on the DAY you are in trouble" (Psalms 20,2). Concerning the possibility that the redemption will only occur at the predetermined time, Bileam said אשורנו ולא קרוב, "I behold it though it is not soon." He commences the substance of his prophecy with the words דרך כוכב, "a star will step forth."
  The fact that Bileam repeats both the description of the substance of the prophecy and the message itself in different words can also be understood by <i>Sanhedrin</i> 98. The sages draw a picture of the process of redemption due to Israel's merits as being quite different from what it would be like if it had to occur only in order to honour G'd's timetable. In the former event the whole process would be orchestrated by Heaven, one miracle would follow another. <i>The Zohar</i> volume 1 page 119 as well as volume 3 page 212 describes these miracles in detail. If the redemption occurs only as a result of G'd's timetable decreeing that it cannot be delayed any further, it will be quite different, such as the prophet Zachariah 9,9 describes in a vision of the redeemer as being a poor man, riding on the lowly donkey. When Bileam spoke of the arrival of the Messiah as a result of Israel's merits, he described his arrival as similar to that of a star, i.e. a celestial figure making a prominent appearance in the sky. When Bileam spoke of "there arises a sceptre in Jacob," he referred to the other alternative, i.e. the Messiah arriving at the end of time. The redemption will then appear as almost a natural event, devoid of the kind of miracles G'd performed when the Israelites came out of Egypt. Daniel had a similar vision (Daniel 4,14) "and the lowliest of men He will raise up over it." A poor man riding on a donkey will be elevated to become the Messiah.
  Although, at first glance we would have expected Bileam to associate the early redemption with Israel and the delayed redemption with Jacob instead of vice versa, Bileam is true to form in his vision. If even the average Israelite, i.e. "Jacob" is deserving then the redemption will occur ahead of the original timetable set for it. If, however, G'd has to fall back on the elite, i.e. "Israel" in order to bring the redemption, it will only occur at the pre-arranged time.
  Moreover, when Bileam describes the Messiah as a star emerging from Jacob, he refers to the Messiah who is the descendant of David, whereas when he speaks of the Messiah in terms of his being a sceptre rising out of Israel, this is a reference to the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim. Here again, Bileam suggests that there would not be a need for the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim [a concept of an interim Messiah who will actually be killed. Ed.] if the Israelites would merit redemption on the basis of their moral achievements rather than G'd's timetable. We are told in <i>Sukkah</i> 52 that the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim (if he has to come) would be killed by Romilus. Bileam here informed us that if the redemption will occur as a result of Israel's merits, then וקם שבט מישראל, then even the man destined to become the redeemer from the tribe of Ephrayim, וקם, "will remain alive, and will not be killed by Romilus." The sages who have formulated our prayers (compare <i>Shaar Ha-amidah)</i> have included the prayer לישועתך קוינו השם "we trust in YOUR salvation o G'd," as a means of asking G'd's mercy so that the redeemer from the tribe of Ephrayim should not be killed in battle.
  We can understand what Bileam meant when he described the Messiah as "smiting the corners of Moav" by reference to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 44,23 where we are told that the extra three nations whose lands the Israelites would inherit in addition to that of the seven Canaanite nations, are Ammon, Moav and Edom. This is so although in the parlance of the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,18 G'd referred to them as Keyni, Kenizi and Kadmoni respectively. Bileam describes the Messiah as not only smiting Moav but as not even leaving a vestige, a corner of it. This is why he chose the word פאה to describe what would happen to Moav.
  Alternatively, Bileam may have alluded to the fact that King David would precede the Messiah by smiting the Moabites and reducing them in power so that all the Messiah would have to do would be a mop-up operation, removing the last vestiges, פאה, of them. Bileam added וקרקר כל בני שת, referring to the liquidation of the kingdom of Ammon. The reason he equated the Ammonites with the descendants of Sheth is because the very name of the Ammonites was a reminder of the shame, בשת, maybe read ב־שת, a reminder of the incest to which they owed their existence. Inasmuch as this will be the final destruction of that shameful experience, Bileam uses a stronger term for their destruction i.e. קרקר.
  It is also possible that Bileam refers to mankind as a whole, all of whom are descended from Sheth. Ammon is merely part of that group. The reason Bileam singled out only Moav by name amongst all the other nations whom the Messiah would destroy [maybe as nations, not individually, Ed.] was because they had sent for him and he was speaking to them and about them specifically.
  You may ask that G'd allocated to the Israelites only the lands of 10 nations, so why did Bileam speak about "all the descendants of Sheth?" Bileam provided the answer to this question when he continued והיה אדם ירשה, "that Edom shall be a possession." Inasmuch as the Edomites had established their rule over all of mankind, defeating Edom is equivalent to defeating all the descendants of Sheth. Bileam spoke of the collective term "descendants of Sheth," which does not mean that the concept of nations continuing to exist in the post-messianic era is excluded. Had Bileam said that the Messiah would מחץ, smite, "all the descendants of Sheth," we could have mistakenly concluded that all of mankind except for the Jews would be wiped out. Concerning all of mankind, Isaiah 65,20 says that they will all live to a ripe old age. [The prophet had previously described the new world order as including Gentiles. Ed.]
  
  Verse 18
  
   שעיר איביו, "even Se-ir his enemies." Bileam lumps Edom and Se-ir together as being one. The word ירשה implies that that which has been destroyed will not be rebuilt. Edom will not rise again from its ruins as will other nations. The reason is that these people were enemies of Israel, איביו. Compare Psalms 137,7 where the Jewish people are quoted as asking G'd to pay back the people of Edom for what they have done to them. The Psalmist pleads with G'd to destroy Edom to its very foundations. This is why Bileam predicts that Edom's defeat will be much more severe than that of the other descendants of Sheth.
  וישראל עשה חיל, "and Israel will do valiantly." Bileam means that the destruction of Edom and the descendants of Sheth will enable the Israelites to perform deeds of valor. Destruction of the Gentile nations and Samael liberates the sparks of sanctity trapped inside many of them. This in turn enables Israel to perform deeds of valor in "repatriating" these sparks of sanctity who had been stained while inside the bodies of the Gentiles. The expression עשה חיל suggests that one repairs something, rehabilitates it.
  
  Verse 19
  
   וירד מיעקב, "and someone from Jacob will exercise dominion, etc." According to Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Bileam referred to Yoav, David's commander-in-chief. Rashi understands the verse as a reference to King Messiah. I believe that Rashi is correct. If Ibn Ezra had been correct this verse should have preceded the verse predicting the downfall of Edom, as the wars under the leadership of David and Yoav against Moav certainly preceded the downfall of Edom. Edom's downfall is always equated with ushering in the age of the Messiah. Rashi's explanation means that although Bileam had already described the defeat of all the descendants of Sheth, i.e. of all mankind, he wants to tell us that Bileam here gives notice that there will be numerous survivors of the war against Edom and the descendants of Sheth. However, none of these survivors will ever again establish an independent state as previously but they will be ruled over by Jacob.
  והאביד שריד מעיר, "and shall destroy the remnants of the city." Bileam means that not only will these nations not again attain the degree of independent statehood presided over by a king, but they will not even attain enough independence that would warrant their appointing a שריד, a governor of sorts.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ראשית גוים עמלק ואחריתו עדי אבד, "Amalek was the first of the nations, but its end will be utter destruction." The word "the first" refers to the first nation Israel has been commanded to destroy (compare Exodus 17,14) where G'd orders the Israelites to record this commandment in a book (before the Torah had been revealed at Mount Sinai) and where G'd promises to wipe out the memory of Amalek. This occurred shortly after the Exodus when Amalek attacked the Israelites in no-man's land without provocation. At that time, the Amalekites left the battlefield and went home. Later on, in the days of Saul, the Israelites almost wiped out Amalek completely except for their king. In the days of Mordechai the Jews killed over 75.000 of their enemies, presumably mostly people descended from Amalek. When Bileam refers to אחריתו, "the end of Amalek," he refers to the messianic era when the Messiah will wipe them out completely.
  Another way of explaining this verse may be as follows. The word ראשית does not describe something chronological, but is derived from ראש, head, i.e. "first in importance." There was a time when the people of Amalek ranked very high amongst the nations. Nonetheless, the time would come when it would be utterly destroyed. It is part of the everlasting glory of Israel that it will be the nation which destroys Amalek. Bileam continues in verse 24 by describing other nations which will experience destruction at the hands of third nations, such as Tzim at the hands of the Kittim, etc. It will be to Israel's advantage that these various nations will be destroyed.
  
  Verse 21
  
   וירא את הקיני, "He saw the Kenite, etc." This is a reference to Yitro. In order to understand Bileam we must first refer to <i>Baba Batra</i> 15 where we are told that the איתן of whom Bileam speaks here is Abraham. Abraham was the first proselyte; all subsequent proselytes are not only known as his spiritual descendants but are even named after him. According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 27,6 Yitro converted to Judaism. This is why Bileam said of Yitro (Keyni) "your dwelling is with Abraham (Eytan)." He meant that Yitro's future would be parallel to that of Abraham's future. ושים בסלע קנך, "and although you have set your nest in a rock," Bileam reminds the Kenite that he has another point in his favour, namely that Yitro gave his "nest" i.e. his daughter Tzipporah to Moses as a wife. Bileam compared Moses to a rock because he was strong in Torah knowledge and had the authority of a king at the same time. Moreover, the word סלע does occur as hyperbole for Torah according to <i>Tikkuney Ha-Zohar</i> 21.
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי אם יהיה לבער, "how long before it will burn?" Bileam trains his mind's eye on what will befall the Kenite saying: "how long will it be until even the Kenite will burn?" אשור תשבך, "Ashur will take you into captivity." This is a reference to Sancheriv king of the Assyrians taking the Kenite into captivity.
  
  Verse 23
  
   מי יהיה משמו א־ל "Who shall live after G'd has appointed him?" Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 offer two interpretations on this verse. I recommend that you look at them. Personally, I prefer to understand this verse with the help of an introductory comment by the <i>Zohar</i> which I have referred to frequently. The purpose of exile is to enable the Israelites to isolate and rescue "sparks" of sanctity which are trapped in the land in which the Jews are exiled. This concept is alluded to in Kohelet 8,9 את אשר שלט האדם באדם לרע לו, "a time when man rules over man to his detriment." Solomon means that such rule will boomerang to the detriment of the pagan ruler himself. This will occur when the spiritually valuable element trapped within the ruler will be taken from him so that he will be exposed exclusively to the spiritually negative forces within him. We have explained repeatedly that the only factor which keeps a wicked person alive is the presence of a spiritually positive force trapped within him. Having said all this, we may now turn to our verse. Having previously referred to the fact that the Kenite would be exiled, the Torah (Bileam) continues the theme of exile, referring to the Israelites themselves experiencing exile. Bileam bewails the future of the nations who host Israel during its exile, predicting that all of these nations will be laid waste by G'd. The word אוי refers to the nations with whom G'd will deal by means of retribution seeing that most of them have hosted Jews as exiles. The Jews in these various countries will extract all the spiritually positive forces which alone have been reponsible for such people remaining alive.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויקם בלעם וילך Bileam rose and went on his way, etc. The only reason the Torah tells us this detail is to inform us that he did not even go to his inn before setting out homeward bound. Nonetheless the Torah had to add the extra words: "he returned to his place" instead of merely saying: "he went to his place," to tell us that he went with his head held high, not like a fugitive. Had the Torah only written: "he arose and went," I would not have known if he went maintaining his usual posture. The Torah also informed us that Bileam went back to his home as he had been told to do by Balak. When the Torah adds that Balak went on his way (at the same time), this is to tell us that he did not see Bileam off.
  It is also possible that the words: "and also Balak went on his way," may indicate that he already lost his position as king at that time as the Moabites no doubt had heard of the failure of Bileam's mission. Under the circumstances, there was no further need for them to have an alien as king over them. This would also account for the fact that he was killed in Midian during the Israelites' punitive campaign against that country.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישב ישראל בשטים. Israel abode in Shittim, etc. What need was there for the Torah to write this introduction? <i>Tanchuma</i> on our verse explains that the location was a cause for the seduction to succeed. As long as the Israelites had dwelled in the desert instead of in or near populated areas there had not been a single incidence of unchaste behaviour. The Torah may have indicated that this place was singularly apt to arouse the animalistic instincts in man. The immediate cause may have been that the Israelites took strolls in the neighbourhood of their camp and encountered Moabite women. The Torah's emphasis on וישבו may be because instead of merely going for a stroll they made themselves at home there. The root of the word שטים occurs in Numbers 11,8 where the Torah describes the daily stroll to pick up the manna with the words שטו העם ולקטו.
  ויתל העם לזנות אל בנות מואב, The people debased themselves to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav. The word ויחל may be understood as profaning oneself. The word זנות implies the straying after alien deities. The reason the Torah coined the unusual construction אל בנות, instead of עם בנות, or something similar, has been explained by <i>Tanchuma</i> to indicate that the daughters of Moav did not offer themselves to the Israelites without conditions, but demanded that these first commit an act of obeisance to one of their deities. The Torah hints by the word אל that the Israelites who became guilty of this extracurricular sex had first bowed TO something that the daughters of Moav customarily bowed to. The Torah makes a point of describing the Israelites who became guilty of this aberration as only העם. The spiritual elite, who are customarily referred to as Israelites, was not involved.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ותקראן לעם, They called to the people. The reason the Torah had to repeat the word לעם having previously described the people involved as העם is that not all of these people went for strolls so that they encountered the Moabite women. Our verse indicates that the Moabite women went out to seek out Israelites who had not gone strolling in the neighbourhood around their camp. An alternative explanation could be that they wanted to involve the Israelites in a group activity thus breaking down each Israelite's inhibition against committing sinful acts. They were invited to partake of the meals prepared by the Moabite women in honour of their idols.
  לזבחי אלוהיהם, to the sacrifices of their gods. Although the <i>Midrash</i> had described the worship of the <i>Baal Pe-Or</i> as consisting of the worshiper excreting and urinating in front of that deity so that slaughtering of meat was certainly not part of this, it is possible that the meat was not really part of the rite but was part of a celebration in their god's honour. On the other hand, eating a lot may have been intended to ultimately result in excreting a lot in front of that idol.
  ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "and Israel was joined to <i>Baal Pe-Or</i>." The words ויצמד ישראל לבעל פעור "Israel joined itself to <i>Baal Pe-Or</i> mean that the reason for Israel bowing down to the idol was the peculiar power of this idol exerted over people who worshiped it. [apparently even the elite was now involved. Ed.]
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישוב חרון אף השם, so that the fierce anger of G'd may turn away, etc. G'd's anger had to be turned away even after justice had been done because whereas the courts in this world can only convict people who have been warned by accredited witnesses and who have committed their sin in the presence of these witnesses, others, equally guilty, had not been dealt with. If G'd were allowed to remain angry He would give permission to the angel of death to kill all those sinners who had not been warned or whose deed had not been witnessed by their peers. If G'd's anger could be turned away, these people would remain alive at this time.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וידקר את שניהם, He stabbed them both. We can understand that Pinchas had a legal excuse to kill the Israelite who indulged in sex with a Gentile woman; however, what right did he have to kill the woman? There is no known <i>halachah</i> which excuses such a deed! If Pinchas suspected that Kosbi was married and as such had made herself guilty of adultery, who has ever heard of executing someone on the basis of such an assumption? Perhaps Pinchas applied the law applicable to animals to Kosbi. We have learned in Leviticus 20,15 that when humans and animals indulge in mutual sex even the animal has to be executed. We are also told in Ezekiel 23,20 that the flesh of Gentiles is equated with the flesh of donkeys. 
  If you were to ask that if it is so why didn't the Israelites execute Kosbi seeing she did not belong to a nation whom the Israelites had been forbidden to kill, [such as the Edomites and Moabites? Ed.] the answer may be that they had not yet offered peace to the Midianites. [Jews must extend an offer of peace and surrender to an adversary other than an invader before going to war against such people (Deut. 20,10) Ed.] While it is true that in the event, [at the beginning of the punitive campaign against Midian. Ed.] we do not find that the Midianites were offered a choice of surrender or even "transfer," this was after G'd had given specific instructions (28,17) to harass the Midianites. Alternatively, the Israelites may not have known the identity of the woman in question believing her to be a Moabite; in that event they were under stricture not to harm the Moabites. She may even have worn Moabite style garments in order to hide her true identity. The fact that the Torah describes her as a Midianite does not prove the Israelites were aware of this at the time.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לאמר, to say, etc. To whom was Moses to tell this? He did not have to tell Pinchas as in that case why did the Torah write in verse 12: אמר, "say" if he had already been told all this by Moses? Besides, the sequence of the whole chapter shows that Pinchas had not yet been told of his reward.
  I suppose that G'd wanted Moses to tell the entire people that not only had Pinchas not acted highhandedly and they had no cause to hate him for having killed one of their princes, but that thanks to Pinchas' deed the whole nation had benefited immediately. Moses also explained to the people that Pinchas had only succeeded in what he did because he had heavenly assists as outlined in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 82. We will get back to this later in greater detail.
  
  Verse 11
  
   פנחס בן אלעזר, Pinchas son of Eleazar, etc. Why did the Torah have to give us Pinchas' full genealogy here? [the same genealogy has been recorded only 4 verses previously. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah wanted to give his ancestors an honorable mention in this way. Moreover, it is likely that G'd wanted to heal the residual bad feeling that might have existed against Aaron who at the time when he made the golden calf had inadvertently become the cause of many Israelites dying prematurely (compare Exodus 32,35 "G'd smote the people who had made the calf which Aaron had constructed). Now a grandson of Aaron had come and saved many more Israelites' lives than Aaron had ever even indirectly caused to be lost. This is why G'd Himself goes on record saying: "I have not consumed the children of Israel in My jealousy." In order to make all this clear, Aaron had to be mentioned by name. We have been told in <i>Tanna de bey Eliyahu</i> chapter 13 that Aaron rehabilitated himself through teaching the Israelites Torah and performing good deeds. From this you see that in the eyes of the Israelites Aaron had been considered as responsible for the death of those Jews at the time of the episode of the golden calf. The Torah therefore tells us here that Aaron's grandson completed this task of Aaron's rehabilitation posthumously.
  השיב את חמתי, "has turned away My wrath, etc." The Torah may have mentioned this to teach us that once G'd's wrath has been aroused it requires a new merit on the part of His creatures to assuage the attribute of Justice. At the very least, we can assume that this is what Moses thought. G'd explained to Moses that in this instance it had been Pinchas' deed which had succeeded in turning away His wrath. The very word השיב in the causative form teaches that G'd's anger did not abate on its own.
  מעל בני ישראל, "from the children of Israel, etc." This means that once G'd's anger had descended upon them Pinchas succeeded in removing it from the children of Israel. This is a great compliment to Pinchas. In addition the Torah defines the act which Pinchas had performed as one that caused G'd personally a sense of wellbeing seeing that as long as He was angry and jealous it had caused Him sadness and distress.
  בקנאו את קנאתי בתכם, "when he displayed jealousy on My behalf amongst them." Both the apparently superfluous words קנאתי, "My jealousy," and בתכם, "amongst them," are very deliberate. These factors each contributed to giving Pinchas the power to turn away G'd's wrath. 1) Pinchas displayed his personal jealousy on behalf of G'd by endangering his life on account of G'd's honour. This idea is expressed by the suffix ו at the end of the word בקנאו. 2) His jealousy was purely on G'd's behalf, he had no ulterior motive. When man performs a מצוה for absolutely pure motives without the slightest consideration of how the performance of such a good deed might benefit him personally, this is the most beloved מצוה- performance that exists in G'd's eyes. This is why the Torah defines Pinchas' jealousy as "MY jealousy." 3) Pinchas did not do what he did in the confines of his house with no witnesses, but he performed the deed publicly in full view of his whole nation. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 82 describes that Pinchas was surrounded at the time by the whole tribe of Shimon who had surrounded the tent in which Zimri cohabited with Kosbi. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote: "in their midst."
  ולא כליתי, "and I did not consume totally, etc." Why did the Torah not abbreviate this report by writing thus: "בקנאו את קנאתי השיב את חמתי ולא כליתי, "when he was jealous on My behalf he turned away My wrath so that I did not totally wipe out, etc.?
  The Torah wanted to demonstrate that once G'd's anger had been aroused at בני ישראל, the elite of the Israelites, it could not be turned away without the presence of the three factors in Pinchas' deed we just enumerated. As far as saving the Jewish people from total annihilation, it is possible that G'd would have allowed a small portion of the Israelites to survive even if Pinchas' deed had not comprised all the three elements we described. The prayer of a righteous man such a Moses might have sufficed to accomplish this. However, if the Torah had only mentioned that Pinchas turned away G'd's wrath, without adding that G'd did not annihilate the whole people, I would have concluded that all that the action of Pinchas accomplished was the prevention of the complete annihilation of the people.
  
  Verse 12
  
   לכן אמור, "Therefore, 'say,'" etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word לכן, "Therefore," seeing it goes on to explain in verse 13 "because he was jealous for his G'd?" We are forced to understand the word as an oath. We have learned in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 6,4 on Exodus 6,6 that this word is always to be understood as a form of oath. The <i>Midrash</i> uses as its source Samuel I 3,14, ולכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, "And this is why I have sworn an oath concerning the house of Eli, etc." This still leaves us with the question why an oath was required in this instance. Presumably, the oath was needed to reinforce the covenant of peace in the event that Pinchas' children should turn out not to be deserving of the covenant G'd had concluded with their father.
  We may also be able to explain this verse on the basis of what we learned in <i>Zevachim</i> 101 that prior to the incident with Zimri Pinchas had not yet been appointed to the priesthood, as, although he was around at the time Aaron and his sons were anointed, he himself had not bothered to be anointed. After he performed his deed of jealousy on behalf of G'd he was appointed to the priesthood. Pinchas could have acquired the priesthood either as an act of forgiveness or as a gift from G'd. In the former event, his deed prompted G'd to forgive him for having failed at the time to have himself anointed. If we see in his appointment now a gift from G'd, we may view it as something entirely new. Just as Aaron and his sons were appointed to be priests, though Amram Aaron's father and his brothers had not been priests, so Pinchas' appointment was something quite new. There is a halachic difference between priesthood acquired as an act of forgiveness and priesthood acquired as a gift. In the fomer case, the priest need not perform an act of קנין, a symbolic act of acquisition of the priesthood; however, someone who had not had a previous claim to the priesthood and was awarded same as a gift must perform such an act of קנין.
  Receiving the priesthood as a gift carries with it two disadvantages which the person who receives the priesthood as an act of forgiveness need not worry about. If the priesthood was attained via G'd forgiving Pinchas for an act of negligence in the past, then, if Pinchas were to be appointed High Priest at a future date he would not have to face any challengers. Any challenge would be dealt with as had the challenges against Aaron becoming High Priest. If the priesthood were to be granted only as a gift, the priest in question could face challenges to his promotion just as did Aaron before G'd had intervened. Such a challenge would be reinforced by the fact that Pinchas had killed. A priest who has killed is supposedly unfit to perform his priestly duties. People would claim that inasmuch as the status of the priesthood granted as a gift is limited to the recipient of that gift becoming an ordinary priest, such a priest does not qualify to compete for the office of High Priest. This is not so when a potential priest regains his former status through the act of G'd's forgiveness. Seeing that he had been in line for the office of High Priest before he had forfeited it through negligence, G'd's forgiveness reinstates such a potential priest in his former status. As a result of these considerations, obtaining the priesthood by way of an act of forgiveness from G'd is superior in three ways to obtaining it as a mere gift. 1) No formal act of acquisition is needed. 2) One need not worry about potential challengers to one's promotion. 3) It is an enduring status transferable to one's children and grandchildren as something hereditary.
  In His wisdom, G'd decided to accord Pinchas the priesthood as a gift in order to demonstrate that he did not become a priest merely through a hereditary claim to the priesthood instead of a claim based on moral excellence. By appointing Pinchas as priest directly, G'd elevated the meaning of Pinchas' priesthood, made it into something which he could point to as a mark of personal distinction. This is why the Torah describes G'd as saying: "Here I give to him My covenant, peace." In view of our having pointed out that such a gift by definition may not be transferable to one's children, G'd had to reinforce the gift by an oath, i.e. the word אכן, in order to make the appointment as enduring as if it had been acquired through an act of forgiveness. This is why G'd had to add לו ולזרעו אחריו "to him and his descendants after him." The "peace" included that no one would challenge Pinchas' claim to the priesthood and the office of High Priest when the time came. I have pointed out on a previous occasion that the word כהונה is the name of a certain category of souls known as such in the region where the souls are at home. G'd assured Pinchas that his descendants would always receive souls drawn from the pool of souls known as כהונה. This is the mystical dimension of the expression כהונת עולם.
  
  Verse 13
  
   תחת אשר קנא לאלוקיו, because he displayed jealousy on behalf of His G'd. This verse provides the reason why G'd decided to give the priesthood to Pinchas as a gift rather than in his capacity of being the son of a priest. By pointing out that what Pinchas had done, he did on account of his G'd, G'd repaid him by elevating him to the priesthood as an act of honouring him personally. He did this by demonstrating that Pinchas did not have to rely on his ancestry, i.e his father and grandfather the High Priests in order to become a priest himself. ויכפר על בני ישראל, he atoned on behalf of the children of Israel. This means that he re-established peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven that G'd in turn called off the angel of death. Inasmuch as Pinchas had caused G'd to call off the angel of death from his people, his people made a pact of peace with him. Inasmuch as the benefits the Israelites derived from Pinchas' calling off the angel of death from them, in other words a benefit extending from generation to generation, Pinchas' elevation to the priesthood was also one that extended from generation to generation, i.e. כהונת עולם.
  A moral/ethical approach to our verse could be based on the statement in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 114, that the prophet Elijah who would usher in the messianic age would be none other than Pinchas (his re-incarnation). Our verse would provide the reason why it would be Pinchas who would perform this task in the future. We are told that the principal function of the prophet Elijah at the time preceding the arrival of the Messiah will be to bridge the generation gap between fathers and sons and vice-versa, harmonising their mutual relationships (compare Maleachi 3,24). In addition to that we have learned in <i>Edioth</i> 8,7 that Elijah would increase שלום, harmony in the world. You will observe that in our paragraph the Torah describes Pinchas twice as being jealous, once in verse 11 and once more in our verse here. The Torah alludes to the jealousy the original Pinchas displayed on G'd's behalf during the time the Israelites were at Shittim, whereas the second reference is to the jealousy the prophet Elijah (Pinchas) displayed during the reign of King Achav when he described himself before G'd as a <i>Kannai,</i> a fanatic on G'd's behalf (Kings I 19,14). There too we find that he repeated the word קנא, "was jealous." At that time, Elijah alluded to the fact that this was already the second time he had played this role of being jealous on behalf of G'd. The Torah therefore mentions here that G'd granted him G'd's covenant of peace.
  What is the meaning of that covenant? The word שלום is to be understood as "complete, whole." The first covenant G'd concluded with the first Jew Abraham in Genesis 15, 1-21 contained the promise that Abraham's descendants would take possession of the lands of 10 nations all of which are named in that chapter. Even at the time when the prophet Elijah was active on earth for the first time, the lands of no more than seven of these nations had been given to the Jewish people. When G'd said in our verse הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, He hinted that Pinchas/Elijah would preside over the completion of the part of G'd's promise to Abraham which was still outstanding. The vision of Maleachi includes the vision of Isaiah 11,7 and 9 concerning a period when the lion will lie down with the lamb without harming it, etc. In the latter verse Isaiah predicts that from that time onwards "nothing evil or vile shall be done, for the land will be filled with devotion to the Lord, etc. etc."The reason that in our verse G'd does no longer speak of Pinchas' descendants is that when Elijah will return at that time it will be Pinchas' final appearance on earth, his task will not have to be completed by his offspring. The Torah mentions that the covenant G'd concludes with Pinchas also comprises the priesthood, giving a reason for this second covenant which is an everlasting one. By using the introductory word תחת, the Torah refers to Pinchas as also qualifying for this latter covenant on account of two things he had done or was still going to do, i.e. the jealousy he would display on behalf of G'd during the reign of Achav when the Israelites worshiped the Baal and abandoned their G'd. The reason that the Torah added the word לאלקיו here is that it alludes to the sin of idol worship. We know from Deut. 6,15 that the sin of idol worship arouses G'd's jealousy. When Elijah demonstrated the miracles of G'd on Mount Carmel in Kings I 18,39, he did not conclude until the people had exclaimed that the Lord G'd is the true G'd. This is the reason why when Elijah will appear once more prior to the coming of the Messiah it will be during a period which the prophet Maleachi described as a time when "G'd and His name will be one," the mystical dimension of "the Lord G'd is the true G'd."
  The word ויכפר, etc. also refers both to the future and to the past. The Torah means that just as Pinchas had atoned for the Jewish people in Shittim, so Elijah would atone for the Jewish people in the future. Basically, this is the function of the priest, as we know from Leviticus 4,20 et al.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושם איש ישראל, And the name of the Israelite man, etc. If G'd was so interested in our knowing the names of the people Pinchas slew why did the Torah not report this at the time it reported Pinchas' deed in the last <i>Parshah?</i> If the Torah had mentioned these names at that time it could have saved at least a half a sentence here!
  G'd has made it a rule not to belittle even the wicked unless there is a compelling reason. We know that in the case of the person who collected wood on the Sabbath and who was subsequently executed the Torah did not reveal his name at all (Numbers 15,32-36). In our instance the Torah revealed the names well after the occurrence because there was a compelling reason but not until after G'd had praised Pinchas for what he did and we have learned of the beneficial effects of his deed. Having recorded that G'd not only approved of what Pinchas had done but rewarded him publicly, the Torah explained that Pinchas had taken very great personal risks as the two victims involved were very highly placed individuals. When the persons for whose sake one displays just jealousy on behalf of G'd are aristocrats, higly placed, this makes the act of sanctifying G'd's name even more meritorious. Although in the process of mentioning their names, the Torah publicly displayed its contempt for the sinner, it only followed approved practice as we know from Proverbs 10,7 "the memory of the just is a source of blessing whereas the name of the wicked will rot." Perhaps the positioning of the names of the victims at this point was meant to hint that if these two individuals had not been so highly placed, Pinchas' deed would not have sufficed to turn away G'd's wrath and bring about atonement for the entire people. When Samael saw to what extent a man like Pinchas despised someone guilty of sleeping with a Midianite, his own power was weakened. Had the individuals in question been ordinary people Pinchas could not have accomplished as much through his display of jealousy on behalf of G'd as the personal danger to which he exposed himself at the hands of the victims' surviving relatives would have been much less.
  Perhaps the reason the Torah did not mention the name of the victims in 25,6 where we would have expected it was that at that point Pinchas had not yet carried out his deed but had only planned it. As long as he had not carried out his plan it would not have been seemly for the Torah to reveal the names of prospective victims. Once Pinchas had completed his deed the names of the wicked had to be mentioned in order to publicise them.
  המכה אשר הכה, that was slain, who was slain, etc. why was the verb "was slain" repeated here twice? Besides, why did the verse commence by mentioning the nationality of the Jewish victim before mentioning the occasion, whereas when the Midianite woman is named the occasion is mentioned before her nationality is mentioned?
  All this can best be explained by reference to <i>Berachot</i> 18 where we are told that the wicked are referred to as dead even while they are still physically alive. The reason for this is that the power of evil, which is another word for the power of death already clings to the wicked. I have mentioned repeatedly that the name people are known by is the name of their soul. G'd placed a variety of "names" on earth as the Talmud in <i>Berachot</i> 7 says about Psalms 46,9: ראו מפעלות ה׳ אשר שם שמות בארץ, "come and see what the Lord has done, He has wrought desolation on earth." The Talmud suggests that we do not read the word <i>shamot</i> in that verse with the vowel <i>patach</i> but with the vowel <i>tzeyreh</i> so that the meaning of the word desolation is changed to "names." When a human being sins his soul becomes tarnished or injured in that the evil he did clings to it. This is the real meaning of Proverbs 10,8 that the "name" of the wicked will rot, i.e. his soul will rot. This explains an enigmatic story in the Talmud <i>Yuma</i> 83 where Rabbi Meir is described as examining people's names and thereby arriving at conclusions about their character. When he and his colleagues arrived at a certain inn they asked the innkeeper his name. Rabbi Meir concluded after hearing the man's name that he was a wicked person. In our situation, a Jew who sleeps with a Midianite woman causes his soul to become tarnished; this is what the Torah means when it describes the name of the Israelite as being מכה, struck by a fatal blemish even before Pinchas had a chance to inflict bodily death upon him. The words אשר הכה, teach that for all practical purposes the man had already been fatally injured prior to Pinchas stabbing him. When the Torah wanted to tell us about what happened to Zimri's soul, it wrote: "and the name of the man who had been struck etc." The idea is that from the moment he committed his abominable act his soul had already sustained a fatal injury. The reason the Torah emphasises: "Israelite," is to tell us that a Jewish soul could not survive an act of such a wilfully committed abomination. As to the physical killing of Zimri's body, the Torah refers to this by the words אשר הכה, "who was struck." The reason the Torah wrote אשר הכה את המדינית, "he who was struck down with the Midianite woman," was to inform us that the soul of the Jewish man was struck down because of his intimate association with the Midianite woman." The act of sleeping with her constituted a fatal blow to his soul.
  The Torah also alludes to another point when writing את המדינית. When the Torah describes how the wife of Potiphar tried to seduce Joseph (Genesis 39,10), we read that Joseph refused לשכב אצלה, להיות עמה "to sleep beside her and to be with her." Our sages in <i>Yuma</i> 35 comment that the words לשכב אצלה refer to Joseph sharing her life in this world, whereas the words להיות עמה refer to Joseph's refusal to be her companion in the world to come. If we take this comment as our cue, we can understand the words הכה את המדינית as telling us that the Israelite's being smitten meant that he would not be with that woman in the hereafter. We must assume that Zimri died before becoming a penitent as Pinchas stabbed him while he was engaged in the act. This answers the question why the word: "he was struck" was repeated in the Torah's description of events. It also explains why the word איש ישראל had to precede the report of his being struck to teach us that the name, i.e. the soul had been struck before the body was killed. When the Torah got around to mentioning the name of the Midianite woman, the fact that she was struck is mentioned only once, as she did not have a soul rooted in holy domains that she could be deprived of. She was also not especially mentioned prior to what happened to her as she was considered as dead already while she was fully alive; essentially what happened to her was nothing new, except that her death became manifest. We have mentioned on repeated occasions that the names of the various cults which the pagans practice are the names of spiritually negative forces, קליפות.
  There is yet another way of approaching our verse, based on a kabbalistic approach. It is based on the principle that "sparks" of sanctity which have become exiled for one reason or another to one region or another, are not to be perceived as lost forever. Eventually, somehow they will find their way back to their holy origin. When the Torah speaks of the "name of the Israelite man," this is a hint that even after such a self-debasing encounter as he had indulged in with the Midianite woman the Torah still refers to Zimri as איש ישראל, "an Israelite man." This teaches that he had not been totally uprooted from his holy origin. The word המכה refers to what Pinchas had done to him. By adding the words את המדינית, "with the Midianite woman," the Torah indicates that rather than having been smitten with perdition of his soul he had only been smitten with losing his Midianite partner, i.e. that particular evil partner he had acquired. As a result of their physical union her characteristics had clung to his soul. This act of clinging to his soul is described by the term הכאה, a fatal blow. This teaches that by becoming Pinchas' victim Zimri's soul was released from the negative spiritual force his soul had absorbed from Kosbi. His death acted as his atonement, converted the damage into something transient rather than enduring. As soon as he and she parted company physically, Zimri's soul no longer bore the imprint of that fateful association.. His death purified his soul. This explains why the Torah could refer to him as "an Israelite man" only after he had been killed. If this approach is correct in terms of our השקפה, please accept this as my interpretation of this verse.
  
  Verse 15
  
   המדינית, The Midianite, etc. The reason the Torah describes Kosbi with the letter ה for a definitive article is proof that she must have been the only Midianite woman who sacrificed her self-respect in order to seduce an Israelite. This may also account for the fact that in 25,6 the word המדינית is written with the letter ה at the beginning although we had not heard of that woman previously. In fact, if the Midianite women had participated in mass seduction there can be no doubt that G'd would have commanded that they be killed during the punitive campaign against Midian. The Torah only reported the people as debasing themselves by sleeping with the Moabite women (25,1). There was a good reason why the Midianite women did not do what the Moabite women did. It was not that they were morally superior, but the Moabites had been given an assurance that the Israelites would not touch them. No such assurance had been given to the people of Midian. The reason that Kosbi was different was that she was Balak's daughter and as such had a personal interest to do what she could to help her father achieve the downfall of the Israelites.
  I have found support for my theory in <i>Tanchuma Mattot</i> 4 where it is claimed that Tzur, one of the kings slain in the punitive expedition against Midian was Balak; he had been demoted because he had allowed his daughter to cheapen herself by sleeping with an Israelite. According to our theory that Kosbi was Balak's daughter this all makes sense seeing that there had been only a single Midianite woman who had been described as a seductress. It is more than likely that the one Midianite woman who had reason enough to do this was a daughter of Balak. She followed Bileam's wicked advice. It is possible that Kosbi was the very first woman to follow Bileam's advice and that the Moabite women were not willing to demean themselves until they had seen the king's daughter do this. It is quite true that I have written that Balak was demoted by the Moabites seeing that they had nothing to fear from the Israelites, Bileam having told them that any confrontation between them and Israel would occur far into the future. Nonetheless, Balak immediately followed Bileam's advice before he returned home to Midian. When the Moabites saw this they followed suit and slept with the Israelites. Were it not for this fact it is hard to understand why king Tzur's daughter should have been so different from all the other Midianite women.
  I have found a <i>Midrash</i> in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on Mattot in which the words הן הנה in Numbers 31,16 are translated as "these are the well known ones, etc." This means that Moses and Eleazar knew the women who had been taken captive so well that they were able to pinpoint which one of them had seduced which Israelite. If so, there must have been numerous Midianite women who participated in the seduction of the Israelites. We would then have to say that whereas all the Moabite women cheapened themselves, only the ordinary Midianite women participated in this wholesale seduction; the aristocrats amongst the Midianite women did not demean themselves in this fashion. Seeing that Balak was the only one who allowed his daughter to demean herself by sleeping with an Israelite, they demoted Balak as a punishment. If we follow this approach the letter ה at the beginning of the word המדינית means that she was the only aristocratic Midianite lady who had demeaned herself. According to the aforesaid there is proof for what we wrote at the end of <i>Parshat Balak</i> that the Israelites did not know these women as there were many Midianite women amongst the Moabites and they did not dress according to their local custom but tried to misrepresent themselves by wearing clothes belonging to the other nation. This was the reason the Torah in 25,1 mentioned the Israelites as fraternising only with the Moabites. They did not realise that Midianite women were masquerading as Moabites. Had they known this, the soldiers staging the punitive expedition would not have taken the women captive but would have killed them at once.
  במדין הוא, her father was a head in Midian. This description is somewhat difficult. If the Torah meant to tell us that Tzur was the head of the whole nation of Midian it should have written ראש בית אב למדין instead of במדין. The prefix ב only tells us something about location not about stature and position. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Tzur lived in Midian? Where else would he live? Perhaps the intention is to counteract an impression created when the Torah described Balak as a king, whereas Tzur was described as head of a nation within Midian. The Torah wanted to tell us that Balak did not remain king of Moav but had already been expelled and had returned to his homeland by the time the Israelites were commanded to harass the Midianites. Moreover, the words במדין הוא may be a subtle hint that at the time that his daughter slept with Zimri, Balak had already returned to his home in Midian. Compare my commentary on 24,25.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   צרור את המדינים, "harass the Midianites!" Why did the Torah write both: "harass, and smite them?" Our sages in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 21 were aware of this and said that although normally the Israelites are bound by the injunction in Deut. 20,10-19 to offer people whom they planned to attack peace, and offer them a chance to emigrate or surrender before actually attacking them, not to destroy their fruit-bearing trees, etc., in this instance these injunctions were lifted. The nation had shown itself to be so debased that no special consideration had to be shown to it. We must also understand what the Torah meant when speaking of "revenge" in 31,2 where the details about the punitive campaign are introduced. We would have expected the reverse, i.e. that the Israelites would consume the booty of their enemies as described in Deut. 20,14. Surely, this would have been more in the nature of revenge and the Midianites would have experienced more distress when they saw themselves losing all their possessions. Does not the Torah describe a people who has been cursed as being consumed by its enemies (Leviticus 26,16)?
  Another difficulty is the justification offered by the Torah in verse 18: "for they have been harassing you, etc." Why did the Torah have to spell out the reason? According to those of our sages who stated that the injunction not to destroy the fruit-bearing trees had been lifted, the Torah felt compelled to justify this. According to <i>Tanchuma</i> the words כי צררים are to be understood as a reference to what the Midianites were about to do to the Israelites and the command to wage war against them first was an illustration of the halachic principle that if someone intends to kill you, don't wait, but kill him first. I believe this is a homiletical explanation.
  I believe that the key to the correct interpretation of this episode is the fact that G'd gave the command to harass the Midianites not at the time it was to be implemented but sometime before it. The implementation was commanded only in 31,2. In other words the command we deal with in our verse does not address itself to the time of the act of revenge.
  We must therefore assume that what G'd had in mind with this command was the rehabilitation of the Israelites. We have already written at length on Leviticus 18,3 that the urge to engage in illicit sex is a natural urge, difficult to combat especially when fantasy is supported by visual contact with the object of one's desire. It is extremely difficult to control one's fantasies. If someone has indulged his fantasy and has actually had forbidden sex, he cannot expect the atonement process to begin until he has rid himself of his desire, and has banished his fantasies. I have commented on this already in connection with Genesis 4,7 where the Torah told us that sin couches at the door and man displays a hankering after it. At the same time the Torah assured Cain that he could master these impulses. In the situation of which the Torah speaks, the Israelites who had not actually indulged in sex with the Moabites had certainly fantasized about doing so. Many of the elite even had become צמוד, attached, to <i>Baal Pe-or</i> as the Torah told us, i.e that they suffered from this powerful desire to commit the sin (compare 25,3). G'd intended to cure the Israelites of the pull exerted on them by this sin in order to remove the plague from them. We know from Deut. 4,3 that the plague did not come to an end until all the people who had worshiped the <i>Baal Pe-or</i> had died. It is quite clear that in that verse in Deuteronomy the Torah did not speak about the 24.000 who were reported as having died in Numbers 25,9. The 24.000 people mentioned there were all from the tribe of Shimon. According to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20 [I have not found this. Ed.], these people died because they wanted to kill Pinchas. The text says that they were killed because they worshiped the <i>Baal Pe-or.</i> This proves that not only the 24.000 people mentioned in 25,9 died. Verse 18 in our chapter proves the same point when relating the pestilence to <i>Baal Pe- or</i>.
  It seems dear that the principal issue that caused Pinchas to kill Zimri was not the fact that he had committed idol worship of the <i>Baal-Pe-or,</i> but his sleeping with a Midianite woman. Moreover, the plague occurred because of the people who indulged in sexual intercourse with the Moabites, and the Torah says that Pinchas atoned for the children of Israel, i.e. that his deed led to the arrest of the plague so that it did not kill the entire nation. Some of the people who were saved by Pinchas' deed had entertained idolatrous thoughts, others had engaged in illicit sex, something that G'd does not overlook. G'd now advised the Israelites to harass the Midianites, etc. The idea was to implant in the Israelites a hatred against the people who had caused them to commit their respective sins. They were also to develop a revulsion against anything that appeared good and permissible which these people had to offer to the Israelites such as the fruit of their orchards, etc. They had to realise that anything which originated with people such as the Midianites was disaster in disguise. Psalms 139,21 teaches us that David taught himself to hate people who hated G'd. The word משנאיך, "those who hate You," in that verse may be read as משניאיך, "those who cause You to be hated." People who cause us to hate G'd's statutes and who cause us to violate them are no different from people who tell us outright to hate G'd. <i>Shabbat</i> 114 elaborates on this theme. G'd's stratagem was to create within the Israelites a positive revulsion towards the thought of committing the sins which had caused the debacle at Shittim. Once the Israelites had trained themselves to hate sin, their affinity to G'd would become something natural and the process of atonement could commence.
  This is basically what the word צרר in our verse is all about. The Israelites were to develop a feeling of צר ואויב against the Midianites. They were to perceive them as oppressors and enemies. As a result, they would develop feelings of hatred against them and anything which emanated from them. This is one path of repentance and it paved the way for ignoring the general injunction of not destroying the adversary's fruit-bearing trees or his water supply. The reason the Torah phrases this commandment in the present tense, <i>tzaror</i> instead of as an imperative <i>tzeror!</i> is to ensure that the feeling engendered amongst the Israelites towards the Midianites would be an ongoing one. The Torah goes on instructing "you shall smite them," i.e. in the future, not immediately. The Torah continues with כי צררים הם לכם, "for they continue to harass you," to make certain that the Israelites' hatred against the Midianites not be based on the casualties the Israelites had suffered already through the Midianites. If that were all, how could the campaign contribute to the rehabilitation of the sinners who were the victims and who had already died? The enmity had to be based on the ongoing machinations of the Midianites to entrap the Israelites into worshiping <i>Baal Pe-or</i> and in indulging in acts such as had been performed by Kosbi. The Israelites had to hate the cause of the sin not merely the sin itself. The reason the Torah singled out Kosbi was because she represented the additional allure of aristocracy plus the fact that she had engaged in her seduction publicly.
  It is quite possible that the reason the Torah repeats the fact which we all know already namely that Kosbi was the daughter of the most important Prince of Midian, was to stress that when the Moabite women would observe their princess they would follow her lead in seducing the Israelites by demeaning themselves just as their princess had done. The Torah adds the nuance אחותם, "their sister," meaning that though they themselves were of Moabite origin whereas Kosbi was a Midianite, they considered her as their "sister" ideologically if not biologically. The Torah continues המכה, "who had been slain," to allude to her martyrdom for the cause. She had sacrificed her life for the advancement of the cause of the Moabites as if she had been a biological sister of the Moabites. ביום המגפה, on the day of the plague. This is a reference to the plague which occurred on account of the sin of <i>Baal Pe-or</i>. This teaches that the plague occurred immediately after the sin was committed; the plague was in addition to the 24.000 of whom the Torah reported that they died because they were all members of the tribe of Shimon on account of their threatening Pinchas. At any rate, the thrust of the whole paragraph is to instil the hatred against the Midianites based on purely moral grounds which alone could guarantee that the campaign against them would not only succeed but would not involve casualties by the Israelites.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי אחרי המגפה It was after the plague had stopped, etc. Why was the beginning of this paragraph written as if it were the conclusion of the previous paragraph, with the dividing symbol פ separating it from chapter 26? If you reflect on what I have written previously you will find that this makes perfect sense. The position of our verse at the end of the previous paragraph reflects the Torah's instruction that only by complying with the command to harass the Midianites in the manner we have explained could the Israelites rehabilitate themselves for having entertained idolatrous thoughts, i.e. the worship of <i>Baal Pe-or</i>. Only then would their positive relationship towards G'd become a natural one. Once this had been accomplished, ויהי אחרי המגפה, they would have put the plague behind them. The true disappearance (instead of mere arrest) of the plague occurred as the result of penitence along the lines G'd had indicated. This is why the new paragraph had to begin in the middle of the verse, as it were. [In editions of the Bible based on the church's divisions into chapters and verses, our verse is part of chapter 26 instead of being verse 19 in the last chapter as it ought to be. In either event, the verse is interrupted by the symbol פ which always indicates that what follows has to be a new line in the Torah scroll. Ed.] You may still ask why the Torah did not make this line a verse by itself? The reason is that the Torah also wanted to link our verse to the subject which follows, i.e. that G'd had decided that the time had come to conduct a new census amongst the 12 tribes exclusive of the tribe of Levi whose members were not to share in the distribution of the land of Canaan.
  Another reason why this verse is positioned so peculiarly and why it seems as if slashed in half, may have to do with a comment by <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 773. The <i>Midrash</i> relates our verse to Psalms 94,18 in which Moses is the speaker. According to the <i>Midrash</i>, the nations of the world protested to G'd for having shown preference for the Jewish people by giving them the Torah. G'd countered asking that they produce proof that they were entitled to equal treatment on the basis of their ancestry. These nations were unable to establish the paternity of the men with whom their mothers had lived with any degree of certainty. As a result, G'd told them they had no claim to special treatment. Now that the Israelites had become guilty of "sleeping around," the nations challenged G'd once more about this, claiming Israel had lost its moral "crown." G'd therefore punished by death all the Israelites whose sins had undermined the image of the whole nation. The meaning of the verse in Psalms then may be that wiping out these people whose foot had slipped was an act of kindness by G'd for the remainder of the nation. In view of this, we can understand why our verse was positioned where it was and why it was also the natural introduction to the count of the Israelites. When the Israelites had been counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, we explained the term שאו for numbering as implying moral excellence on the part of the people being numbered. Only when the Israelites were counted again and everyone had been able to point to his father with certainty was the accusation by the Gentile nations that the Israelites were not morally superior disproved. The verse in Psalms mentioned by the author of <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> means that though Israel had slipped morally, this was only temporary, i.e. מטה רגלי; now that they had repented, G'd's kindness had restored them to their former morally lofty position. The plague, which was related to their moral descent as per chapter 25, now enabled their moral rehabilitation as per the count in chapter 26. The verse therefore is the conceptual bridge between the two paragraphs.
  Still another reason for the unusual positioning of this verse, or rather half this verse, may be related to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 21,7. We are told there that when the people left Egypt and they were entrusted to Moses' leadership, he received them after they had been counted. Now that Moses was close to death and he had to give back the people who had been entrusted to him, he also had to count them before handing them over to a new leader. Thus far the <i>Midrash</i>. Now we understand the meaning of the words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה …שאו. Had the Torah only commenced with verse 1 in chapter 26 instructing Moses to count the people without the half verse "it was after the plague" preceding it without a full stop, we would have assumed that the only reason for this count at this time was what the <i>Midrash</i> had said. By placing the words ויהי אחרי המגפה where it did, the Torah supplied an additional reason for the count, i.e. that it symbolised the rehabilitation of the Jewish people in the eyes of G'd.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וידבר משה..בערבות מואב, And Moses spoke…in the wilderness of Moav, etc. Why did the Torah have to write that Moses addressed the people "in the wilderness of Moav?" If the location really was of the essence to our understanding what Moses had to say it should have been mentioned when the commandment was introduced, i.e. in verse 1. The reason may be connected to the <i>Midrash</i> we have quoted that Moses had to hand over the people entrusted to him after they had been counted. You will find that whenever counts took place the location is mentioned by the Torah. When we heard about the number the Israelites comprised at the time of the Exodus, the Torah supplied the location, i.e. Ramses. When the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers we were told that it was in the desert of Sinai. So it may be no more than natural that here too the Torah decided to supply the location for where the count took place. It was here, near the river Jordan opposite the town of Jericho that the loyal shepherd of the Jewish people, Moses, completed his mission. The Torah mentioned that it was after the plague to show that in spite of the plague which had cost so many Jewish lives the total number of Israelites had not shrunk but had considerably increased when we remember that at the first count the whole tribe of Levi had been included and the number given by the Torah was "approx 600.000." This was a testimony to Moses's leadership who could prove he had not lost any of his sheep. This then is the reason why the Torah did not write the location in verse 1. The location was not related to the count but to the fact that Moses used the count to complete his mission and "hand over his flock" to G'd or to a new leader.
  You might argue that the introduction שאו את ראש suggests that G'd did order a census, quite independently of the considerations we have mentioned; the answer is that the words שאו ראש were not intended to demand a census. After all, even if it turned out that the number of the Israelites had shrunk considerably, who would attribute this to their leader? What comparison is there between a shepherd entrusted with sheep and a leader entrusted with people? We would answer that the count now represented the same idea as the one after the golden calf episode. We had been told at the time that when a pack of wolves have attacked a flock, the shepherd counts the remaining sheep to determine the amount of damage he sustained. When many Israelites had died as a result of the golden calf episode, G'd wanted to count how many had survived. In this instance too, many Israelites had died as the result of the debacle at Shittim so that a count to establish how many had remained alive was called for. Moses exploited this opportunity to do his "own thing," i.e. to demonstrate that he had not lost any of "the sheep" under his care. By mentioning the location in connection with what Moses said (verse 3) instead of in connection with what G'd said (verse 1) the Torah was able to make this point. Alternatively, Moses added verse 4 to show that the count was not his own idea but that he carried out G'd's instructions by conducting it.
  
  Verse 4
  
   מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, from twenty years old and up, etc. Why doesn't the verse tell us the subject matter this number is relevant to as it had done in verse two? Did Moses expect the Israelites to guess the significance of this number? If that were to be assumed, why did the Torah trouble itself in verse two to provide the information that people fit for military service were to be counted? According to what I have explained on verse three that the number (census) and the location i.e. the wilderness of Moav, were interconnected seeing that the objective of the census was to demonstrate that the number of Israelites had not diminished during the years Moses had been in charge, even the younger members of the people ought to have been counted in order to establish Moses' claim. What good would it do the people if the numbers of men fit for military service had not decreased but the number of potential soldiers had decreased due to the families being smaller or mostly girls being bom? Perhaps someone really thought that all the Israelites were counted on this occasion in order to prove Moses' claim that the people were at least as numerous as when Moses had taken over. To prevent us from arriving at that conclusion, the Torah repeated that only males above the age of twenty were included in this census. The reason Moses did not count people younger than twenty was "as G'd had commanded Moses." Had the census been up to Moses' discretion alone, Moses would not have bothered to count the Israelites at all, neither the men of military age nor the ones younger or older. By writing the words: "as G'd commanded Moses," the Torah states that the entire census was G'd's idea. This being so, there was no reason to include any age category in such a census which had not been included in a previous census.
  ובני ישראל היוצאים מארץ מצרים, and the children of Israel who took part in the Exodus from Egypt. It is quite unclear what the Torah intended with these words. Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that the Torah meant that many of the people who were being counted now had actually taken part in the Exodus. Even if he is correct, why would the Torah consider it necessary to tell us about this at this point? Moreover, who needed Rabbi Ibn Ezra to tell us this? It is quite clear that many of the people who were below the age of twenty at the Exodus must have been included in this census! After all, the decree that the generation of the Exodus were to die in the desert after the debacle with the spies had applied only to people who had already reached the age of twenty either at the time of the Exodus or at the time the spies came back with their report! Perhaps it was the intention of the Torah to inform us that the result of this census produced a number equal to that of the census at the time the Israelites left Egypt as opposed to the number which resulted at the time the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. At that time the total amounted to 603,550 whereas this time the total was 601,730. In other words, the number was slightly lower than it had been some 38 years ago. The message then would be that Moses was not obligated to hand over to Joshua the same number of fighting men he had been able to muster at the time when he counted them earlier. The important thing was that he could show that he did not hand over fewer men than at the time of the Exodus. The census did prove this. [You will recall that I pointed out that the number at the Exodus included at least approx. 20.000 Levites so that Moses handed over far more men than he had at the time. Ed.] Another meaning of the words in question may be this: The number i.e. the census of Israelites on this occasion followed the same pattern as it had when they left Egypt, i.e. according to the houses of the respective tribal heads; Reuben according to the families of Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Carmi. Similarly, Shimon according to its tribal heads, i.e. Nemuel, Yamin, Yachin, Zerach and Shaul. This was in contrast to the count at the beginning of the Book of Numbers where the families of the tribes are not featured separately at all.
  
  Verse 5
  
   משפחת החנכי, the family of Chanoch. <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on our verse (item 773) quotes Rav Idi who says that whenever you have the letter ה at the beginning of a name and the letter י at the end this is a sign that the person named was a son of the person who claimed to be his father. The string of such names here proves that the Israelites practiced marital fidelity. [The two letters discussed here together form the name of G'd i.e. י־ה so that what Rav Idi means is that G'd associated His name with the names of these families. Ed.]
  Having read Rav Idi's comment, we need to understand why these two letters appear in the reverse order, i.e. ה־י instead of י־ה. We may understand this with the help of some introductory remarks based on <i>Tikkuney Hazohar</i> 10. We are told there that the overall pool of souls of the Jewish people originates from an area beneath the throne of G'd which is called <i>Heychal Kodsho,</i> the Sanctuary of His Holiness. This aspect of G'd is called in our parlance א־ד־נ־י. Our halachic codifiers such as <i>Tur Shulchan Aruch Or Hachayim</i> 5 have told us that when someone utters the name of G'd during his prayers he must think of each single letter in the name of G'd he utters. When he utters names which we are permitted to utter and which are spelled in the prayerbook with the letters א־ד־נ־י, he must think of G'd in terms of His sovereignty. When he encounters the name of G'd spelled י־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being eternal. When he encounters the Ineffable Name, i.e. י־ה־ו־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being supremely powerful. He should also think of G'd as multifaceted as portrayed by the various ways His name appears in print. We have a verse in Psalms 11,4 where the ineffable name of G'd appears both before and after the words היכל קדשו, "the Sanctuary of His holiness." In that instance you will find that the letter ה at the end of the name of G'd before the expression היכל קדשו and the letter י immediately after the expression היכל קדשו form the reverse of the usual י־ה, i.e. ה־י just as in the sequence of the name החנכי. These two letters then may be viewed as the seal of the היכל קדשו, and together they represent the two letters י־ה which form the name of G'd most often manifest in our lives ever since the destruction of the Temple.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   הוא דתן ואבירם, "the same Datan and Aviram, etc." What did the Torah want to teach us by referring to Datan and Aviram at this point? If the Torah merely wanted to tell us that these two were the same Datan and Aviram we have encountered in connection with the rebellion of Korach, we knew this. It was hardly likely that two members of the tribe of Reuven both named Eliav each had two sons called Datan and Aviram. Moreover, their names did not need to appear here at all. None of the other families who had died before this census were mentioned in this sequence. Furthermore, why was the Torah so long-winded in telling us how these two brothers "incited in the company of Korach against Moses and Aaron when they incited against G'd?"
  I believe that the reason the Torah recalls what these brothers had done was to inform us that they had been the cause of Korach's rebellion. It was G'd's wish to publicise the names of the wicked people who had orchestrated the evil in question. By writing אשר הצו, the Torah stresses that these two incited others both against Moses and Aaron as well as against G'd. Rashi explains the verse in the same sense. Once we have heard that these two caused the whole Israelite community to sin, it is quite possible to blame them also for having incited Korach. Although the Torah wrote (Numbers 16,1) "Korach took, etc.," which sounds as if Korach had initiated whatever he did, this may have occurred after something the brothers Datan and Aviram had already done, and that they had incited him. When the Torah repeats here once more what it had written in Numbers 16,32 that "the earth opened its mouth and it swallowed them and Korach," it may be that these two were the root cause why Korach and family were swallowed by the earth and why the 250 men who offered incense were burned to death at the time. The Torah also suggests here that but for the two demagogues Datan and Aviram the Israelites who had gathered threateningly against Moses and Aaron would have done תשובה.
  The best proof for our theory is the fact that Moses is described as trying to placate only Datan and Aviram when he sent messengers to call them for a chat (Numbers 16,12). When they refused to come, Moses even went to look them up (16,25). The reason was that Moses felt that these two were at the bottom of the whole rebellion. Once we accept this, the death of all the people who perished can be attributed to Datan and Aviram. This results in our being able to find some excuse for both Korach and the 250 men who offered the incense. You find that the Torah wrote in Deut.11,6: "and what He has done to Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their houses, and their tents and every living thing which followed them." Moses attributed the entire debacle exclusively to Datan and Aviram. Having explained this, we can now understand the scholar in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 110 who holds that the company of Korach does not qualify for life in the hereafter as referring only to Datan and Aviram. The contrary opinion who holds that Korach and company will enjoy life in the hereafter and who base themselves on Samuel I 2,8 that "G'd lowers people to Sheol and brings them up again," must be understood as referring to Korach and companions exclusive of Datan and Aviram to whom the verse does not apply.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ובני קרח לא מתו. However, Korach's sons had not died. It is somewhat surprising that the Torah informs us about this fact here instead of in the story about Korach or in connection with the count of the Levites where we should have been told about which Levites had died. If you accept what we have written it is evident that the Torah chose this occasion to reveal who was the root-cause of Korach's uprising, i.e. Datan and Aviram. If so this was the place to inform us about some other redeeming quality of Korach, namely that his sons were righteous and did not join their father in his rebellion or that they retracted in time. At any rate, whereas Datan and Aviram and all their "houses," i.e. their offspring perished, Korach's sons did not. This is another factor which supports the theory that Datan and Aviram had been the instigators all along.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לשאול משפחת השאולי, "of Shaul the family of the Shaulites." Rabbi Yochanan is quoted in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 21,3 as having said that Zimri had 5 names, one of which was "Shaul son of the Canaanite." It is difficult to understand that the Shaul mentioned here could have been Zimri seeing we have the principle (<i>Yuma</i> 38) of שם רשעים ירקב, "let the names of the wicked rot;" if so, why would G'd associate His name [i.e. the letters ה and י surrounding the name שאול Ed.] with that of such a wicked person? This especially since the Torah has already referred to his Canaanite connection! One of the ways we suggested as appropriate to understand 25,14 אשר הכה את המדינית, had been that Zimri was struck only while in the company of Kosbi. He did not share his afterlife with her. This would explain why at this stage, i.e. after Zimri was dead already, G'd could associate His name with Zimri's because the latter was in עולם הבא by this time. Perhaps the following words in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 21,3 lend even more weight to what we have just said. The <i>Midrash</i> explained the name שאול to mean that he had "lent himself out to commit a sin." Seeing that loans are subject to return to their origin, Shaul returned to his erstwhile status after his death.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לאזני, "to Ozni, etc." Rashi says: "this was the family of Etzbaun, and I do not know why he is not called by the same name as he appears in Genesis 46,16." Thus far Rashi. I do not see why he had to invent something without giving a reason for it, especially when we have no tradition concerning this amongst the writings of our sages. Moreover, you will find the following comment in <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> item 4 on our <i>Parshah:</i> "When you examine the list of the children of Gad you will find seven names although Etzbaun does not appear seeing he was missing having followed Bileam's advice." According to the <i>Midrash</i> then, Ozni must have been a different family which originated with Gad but did not appear in the list in Genesis 46,16. This in itself would not be unusual as surely all the tribes had more families than the ones enumerated here, but these were known by the family names of their more numerous brothers. When these sub-categories became numerous they in turn were given separate names. I have found the following in the <i>Pessikta:</i> Ozni is identical with the Etzbaun mentioned in Genesis 46,16. The name is derived from "Atzit" and "he-ezin." Thus far the <i>Pessikta.</i> Accordingly, it was a proper name and the Torah did not care listing the same person here under a different name. Rashi must have been divinely inspired having guessed what the sages have stated [which he did not quote because he had no access to these writings. Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   בני יהודה, the sons of Yehudah. This whole paragraph (19-22) is full of allusions to the history of the Jewish people. The reason the Torah has chosen to present us with these hints when enumerating the family members of Yehudah is because Yehudah is symbolic of the Jewish people as a whole. We have learned already in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 98,6 that when one used to ask a Jew who was a member of a certain tribe to identify himself he would describe himself first and foremost as a Yehudi, not as a Shimoni or Reuveni, for instance. When our verse starts with the words בני יהודה, the Torah has in mind the descendants of Yehudah, not just his actual sons. Er and Onan respectively are allusions to the premature destruction of both the first and the second Temple. This idea is alluded to in Song of Songs 5,2: "I am asleep but my heart is ער, "awake." This means that while the first Temple was standing G'd was very much "awake," watching over my fate. Onan is an allusion to the second Temple. The Torah refers to it as Onan, an expression denoting אונאה, deception, as many of the holy vessels such as the Holy Ark, etc. were missing during the entire period of the second Temple's operation. 
  The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare <i>Shabbat</i> 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in <i>Yuma</i> 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred.
  The Torah concludes verse 19 by mentioning ארץ כנען, to remind us that these sins were committed on holy soil and that the souls of people who died on such soil because of such sins were returned to the domain of Samael, otherwise known as Canaan. There is also an allusion of a more comprehensive nature here. It is that the reason the Israelites did not hold on to ארץ ישראל permanently was that they never completed the command to drive out or kill the Canaanites completely. Allowing the Canaanites to co-exist with them in the same land enabled the remaining Canaanites to seduce the Israelites into worshiping idols and adopting many of the abominable practices of that nation.
  The Torah introduces the sons of Yehudah here with the word ויהיו, a word which usually is a prelude to something painful, some negative experience. The painful experience our verse alludes to is the destruction of the Temple and the exile and persecution which occurred as a corollary of the destruction of the House of G'd. Hail to people who have never had to taste the bitter experience of exile. You will note that the expression ויהיו is not mentioned in connection with any of the other tribes except Yehudah and regarding one of the families of Benjamin, i.e. Bela. The reason for this will be explained in due course.
  The Torah writes למשפחותם, according to their "families," as the destruction of the Temple affected all the families of the Jewish nation wherever they were, negatively. Anyone bearing the name Yehudi viewed the Temple's destruction as a personal disaster, i.e. וי היו, they were in a state of mourning.
   The reference to Shelah is an allusion to the redeemer who will redeem the Jewish people from their final exile. His name is called שלה. Although when Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his death bed he called the same Messiah שילה (with the extra letter י), this detail does not change the name materially. If you will take a close look at the names recorded here and compare them with the ones in Genesis chapter 46, you will find numerous changes in the spelling. Perhaps the formula שלה is a form of the possessive as it belongs together with the words ויהיו בני יהודה i.e. "inasmuch as all of Israel has to mourn on account of what happened to the Temple and to look forward with fervent hope to the coming of the Messiah." We have a parallel for this in the Talmud where Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi was asked by the Messiah if the Israelites were truly aware of his pain and were sick on his account. The <i>Zohar</i> in <i>Parshat Beshalach</i> comments on Isaiah 52,8: קול צפיך נשאו קול….בשוב ה׳ ציון, "the voice of those who wait for you raise their voice (still further)." Here too the expression ויהיו means that all the families are saddened, שלה, on account of the Messiah who has not yet come. When the verse continues speaking of משפחת השלני, "the family of Shelah," this refers to the generation in whose time Shelah (Messiah) will appear. That whole generation will then be called by the name of the Messiah in commemoration of that event.
  There may be an additional message in the fact that the Torah added the letter נ when speaking of the family of Shelah, i.e. השלני. Normally only the letters ה or י are used in adding the possessive clause to such names. We must refer to <i>Shabbat</i> 32 where the Talmud explains Zachariah 8,23 אשר יחזיקו עשרה אנשים מכל לשונות הגוים והחזיקו בכנף איש יהודי to mean that in the days of the Messiah 10 people of each of the 70 nations will hold on to the fringes on the garment of a single Jew begging to be allowed to go with him, etc. The same idea is hinted at in the word השלני. All the nations of the world will claim שלו אני, "I belong to him," i.e. to the Messiah."
  לפרץ משפחת הפרצי. This is an allusion to the authority wielded by a Jewish king who may infringe on fenced in private property in order to make a roadway (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 20). The verse tells us that the descendants of Peretz will all be kings, enjoying the right to be פורץ גדר, to tear down fences in order to claim a right of way. We are told in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 113 concerning messianic times that every Jew will be considered as a prince. This is supported by Isaiah 49,7: "kings will behold them and rise up (in their honour)." The word פרץ is also an allusion to the great פרצה, "breach," which the Messiah will make amongst the Gentile nations.
  לזרח משפחת הזרחי; this is a reference to what is written in Isaiah 60,2 וכבוד ה׳ עליך זרח, "and the glory of the Lord will shine upon you." The prophet goes on in verse 19 of the same chapter: "your light will shine continuously" (not by day only, or by night only, but continuously, forever more). In other words, the family of Zerach will be instrumental in assuring us of G'd's eternal light.
  It is also possible that the entire paragraph refers to three manifestations which will occur during the messianic period. 1) the arrival of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim as we learned in <i>Sukkah</i> 52. 2) The Messiah of Davidic origin will reveal himself. 3) The final stage of the redemption when G'd personally and directly will rule over us. The name Shelah is a reference to the advent of the Messiah descended from Ephrayim; the Torah hints that he will be smitten and die as a result of the sins of the Jewish people. The word שלה then must be understood as similar to Samuel II 6,7: ויכהו שם על השל, G'd killed him there (Uzzah) because of the sin." [he had tried to steady the ark instead of letting the ark steady him, an inadvertent sin. Ed.] The word פרץ refers to the Messiah from the house of David who would make a פרצה amongst the Gentile nations. and who would avenge the blood of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim. Concerning G'd's eternal rule over us, the Torah wrote לזרח, alluding to G'd's light which would shine forever from then on. 
  The reason the Torah writes the word ויהיו in connection with פרץ though he symbolises the Messiah from the house of David, is that the arrival of the Messiah will be accompanied by many painful episodes, so much so that some scholars who lived during the time of the Talmud expressed the wish not to be alive during that time. The expression בני פרץ, allude to two separate phenomena which will originate through the arrival of פרץ, i.e. the arrival of the Messiah. One is that G'd will build the "courtyard of the King," i.e. third Temple, and the Jewish people will all be members of His entourage. This is what is meant by the words לחצרון משפחת החצרוני. [the word חצרון is related to חצר, courtyard. Ed.] The second result is alluded to by the words לחמול משפחת החמולי, i.e. that G'd will relate to us at that time with all the pity (חמלה) possible.
   When the Torah writes אלה משפחות יהודה, "These are the families of Yehudah," it is a hint that they would experience both the pleasant and the unpleasant aspects of the redemption. לפקדיהם, refers to the fact that being numbered contained positive and negative elements (compare <i>Zohar Chadash</i> volume 1 page 160. [I do not have a Zohar Chadash on Pinchas. Ed.]) Our paragraph mentions two kinds of numberings.
  The Torah speaks of 76,500 fighting men who were counted amongst the tribe of Yehudah. [The author indulges in fanciful speculation of the time of the redemption based on the numbers of the tribe of Yehudah. The speculations have proven irrelevant. I do not propose to go into detail. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   בני יששכר, The members of the tribe of Issachar, etc. Inasmuch as the tribe of Issachar is distinguished by intensive Torah study, the Torah alluded to this in its very name, יש שכר, "there is a reward," i.e. this tribe more than any other qualifies for reward. Any benefit secured in this life other than reward for Torah study is not worth the name, as it is transient. Our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 28 tell us that one needs to recite a short prayer when leaving the house of study in which one acknowledges that whereas both the secular people and the Torah scholars invest a great deal of effort in their respective pursuits, the former waste their efforts, whereas the Torah students do not labour in vain. The reason is simple. All comforts and riches in this life are transient, do not accompany man to the hereafter. The reward called שכר which one receives in return for Torah study does endure and one can take it with him to the hereafter. By using the word שכר the Torah also indicates that everything in the world which G'd has created, He created only for the sake of Issachar, i.e. the people studying Torah. We find this thought already in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 1, i.e. that the word בראשית ברא implies that G'd only created the universe for the sake of Torah, i.e. the people who study it. Another allusion contained in this verse is related to what we learned in <i>Uktzin</i> 3,12 that in the messianic future (or even later) G'd will make every righteous person inherit 310 "worlds." The author of that Mishnah bases this on the numerical value of the word יש, from the promise in Jeremiah 31,16 יש שכר לפעולתיך, "there is a reward for your accomplishments."
  When the Torah continues: לתולע, etc., the Torah utilises the names of the respective families of the tribe of Issachar to describe the conditions which need to be met by the Torah student to qualify for the reward we have described. We are taught in <i>Avot</i> 6,5 that Torah knowledge can be acquired via 48 different paths. The meaning of the name תולע alludes to two of these paths. 1) The student must develop the characteristics of a noble, elegant person, עדין. Our sages in <i>Moed Katan</i> 16 describe David as having possessed this virtue and that is why he was called עדינו העצני (Samuel II 23,8). [This is a completely homiletical interpretation of that whole verse by Rav who describes David as having made himself as delicate as a worm when studying Torah. Ed.] The second aspect of the meaning of תולע is that one needs to make oneself as insignificant as a worm whose only power is its mouth. These two virtues combined represent the ultimate simile for humility, especially when applied to a mighty warrior such as David. If one possesses this virtue one has no need to cultivate any of the other 48 qualities mentioned in that Mishnah.
  The Torah goes on לפוה משפחת הפוני. We must first explain why the Torah saw fit to add the letter נ in the word הפוני, although this letter is not one found in the name of G'd. We would have expected the Torah to write הפוי. We suggest therefore that the Torah wanted to allude to the other qualities mentioned in the above-mentioned Mishnah in <i>Avot</i> 6,5 which are recommended for the student who wishes to acquire Torah. One of them is מיעוט שיחה, a minimal amount of unnecessary conversation, plus other such suggestions. By referring to פוה משפחת הפוני the Torah alludes to the mouth seeing the word פוה is related to פה, mouth. The Torah added the letter ו which is the mystical dimension of the עץ החיים, "the tree of life," the activity the mouths of the members of the tribe are busy with when studying Torah more than the mouths of secularly oriented people. The fact that this letter ו appears next to the letter ה suggests the mystical dimension of good characteristics combining within the persons studying Torah. The words משפחת הפוני suggest that one needs to divest oneself of all extraneous concerns, even from idle talk, if one wants to attain the maximum Torah knowledge and observance one is capable of achieving. I have found a comment by Rabbi Moshe Alshich on Exodus 28,31 according to which the mouths of Torah students are in the same category as the holy vessels used in the Temple. This is because of all the things that are sacred nothing is more sacred than Torah. Once the mouth has become a holy vessel it must not be abused to serve secular matters, even if the conversation one conducts is not slanderous or otherwise concerned with forbidden matters. This is precisely what the Torah hints at with the word לפוה, i.e. that any conversation not related to Torah should be avoided. As to the expression משפחת הפוני, the latter נ converts this word into פנות i.e. the turning aside or clearing out of all matters which interfere with the mouth being used for disseminating Torah.
  The Torah continues לישוב, which suggests "sitting," i.e. that in order to study Torah in depth one has to sit down, one cannot study haphazardly a few minutes here and a few minutes there. This too is one of the 48 methods described in the Mishnah as a way to acquire Torah. Sitting down enables one to also activate other qualities useful in the acquisition and retention of Torah.
  The Torah continues with the fourth son of Issachar לשמרן משפחת השמרני. The word שמרני suggest שמירה, "observance," something that the Torah student is even more duty-bound to be careful with than the average Jew. A sage in <i>Yuma</i> 86 was asked to give an example for the sin of חלול השם, a desecration of G'd's name. He answered: "if I were to buy meat and not pay cash on the spot." This gives us an inkling of how circumspect a Torah scholar has to be in every single one of his actions. We read in <i>Chovat Halevavot</i> in the fifth section of the chapter dealing with repentance that the pious people in former generations used to rather forego seventy things which are permissible in order to avoid violating even a single thing which is forbidden.
  When the Torah continues: אלה משפחות יששכר לפקדיהם, the word פקדיהם is meant in a positive sense. The Torah describes the פקידה as 64,300. [The word <i>Pekidah</i> has a dual meaning; in addition to numbering or appointing, the plain meaning in our verse, it also means keeping something in mind, Ed.] The Torah hinted at two potential achievements here. 1) The terrestrial world can be fit to be the carrier of G'd's Presence, שכינה. This is alluded to in the number 64 being only one less than the numerical value of the name of G'd spelled א־ד־נ־י. The number 64 is the numerical value of the attribute of Justice, דין. Our task is to "sweeten" this attribute by means of Torah study so that we close the gap between what is represented by 64 and to achieve what is represented by the number 65 (compare <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 9). This is based on Deut. 22,6: "and the mother (bird) is sittting on the chicks (eggs)." 2) the attainment of life in the hreafter which is alluded to in the Mishnah by the mention of 310 worlds. In our verse this is alluded to by the words אלף ושלש מאות, 1300. [I believe the idea is that we are to imagine the number א=1 inserted within the number 300 making a total of 310. Ed.]
  Before explaining the reason behind all this, let me first examine the statement of Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi in <i>Uktzin</i> 3,12 according to which the righteous will inherit 310 worlds. If the Rabbi meant to emphasise the number, why did the word in the Bible (Proverbs 8,21) which Rabbi Yoshua uses, i.e. יש, list the number ten before the number 300? It would have been more convincing if Solomon had written שי instead of יש! I have heard a beautiful explanation about this. The number 310 actually comprises 4 worlds, i.e. the worlds of אצילות, בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. Each one of these words contains or is dependent on the number 10, i.e. the 10 emanations [each emanation is divided into ten parts also. Ed.]. Rabbi Yoshua wanted to tell us that the righteous will enjoy the harmony in four different worlds. However, not every righteous person will enjoy this harmony in equal measure. All the righteous will experience all there is to experience in the lower three of these four worlds. When it comes to the highest of these worlds, the עולם האצילות, however, different souls of the righteous will experience only a fraction of the potentially ten parts of harmony to be experienced in that domain. Each of these parts is again divided into ten, so that Rabbi Yoshua assures the righteous that the minimum of the possible total of 400 "worlds" that each of the righteous will attain is 310, i.e. the total available in the lower three worlds and not less than one tenth of the potential attainable in the עולם האצילות. We need to appreciate further that the "tenth" part which one attains in the highest world is by itself worth more than all the spiritual achievements one has attained in the three lower worlds combined. This is what Solomon alluded to when instead of speaking of שי he spoke of יש, i.e. to remind us that the ultimate tenth one has attained in the fourth world is superior to the 300, i.e. 3×10×10 in the lower three worlds. In view of the aforegoing the אלף (1) which precedes the number 300 in the word אלף ושלש מאות, alludes to the small part of the potential available in the עולם האצילות and is parallel to the letter י in the word יש in Proverbs 8,21. The number 300 may be understood at its face value. The idea that every emanation is divided into ten parts itself so that every "world" is comprised of 100 units is found in <i>Tikkuney Ha-Zohar</i> chapter 69. This then is what is alluded to in the letters שכר in the name יששכר.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   בני זבלון, The sons of Zevulun, etc. The verse alludes to Zevulun's particular contribution and to that tribe's spiritual achievements. The name סרד containing the same letters as the word סדר, "order or arrangement," means the same thing as סדר, just as the Torah on occasion reverses the order of the letters in the word כשב, "sheep," and spells it כבש. The idea is that Zevulun arranges all the material needs for Issachar so that the latter can study Torah without interruption. אלון is an expression for strength, i.e the oak tree; Proverbs 3,18 describes Torah as the tree of life for those who grasp it and support it. <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 25,1 elaborates that instead of speaking of the people who study Torah, Solomon spoke of those who support Torah, i.e. מחזיקים בה. Seeing that Zevulun supported Issachar's Torah study financially, the Torah alludes to this with the letters in the name of one of his sons אלון.
  
  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
  
   וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd spoke to Moses to say. Moses was to tell Joshua and the elders that Joshua would lead them into the land to take possession of it. The word לאמור in this instance does not refer to the people at large. If this were not so, the word לאלה in the next verse would not make sense.
  
  Verse 53
  
   לאלה תחלק הארץ בנחלה, "To these the land will be shared out as an inheritance, etc." On the word לאלה our sages in <i>Baba Batra</i> 117 comment as follows: Rabbi Yoshiah holds that the subject of the word are the people who participated in the Exodus. He bases himself on the additional data in verse 55 לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, 'they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.' How do I then fulfil the instruction of the Torah which wrote לאלה, i.e. 'to these' i.e. to people present now at this time? The word is meant to exclude people who were not yet 20 years of age at the time they left Egypt." Rabbi Yonathan holds that the land was distributed only to the people who actually set foot in the land, i.e. the men under the leadership of Joshua. He bases himself on the word לאלה. As to the meaning of the words לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan feels that in this instance the Torah applied yardsticks other than the normal ones to the laws of inheritance. Usually the living inherit the dead; in this instance the dead inherited the living. Thus far the statements of these two scholars.
  I have seen a <i>Baraitha</i> in the <i>Sifri</i> which offers a third approach to our verse. The word לאלה is understood to exclude the unworthy members of the Jewish people, the wicked. As proof they cite the sons of the spies and the people who had complained against Moses and G'd on various occasions. In order to bring the approach of the Baraitha into accord with that of Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed to the people who participated in the Exodus, we have to translate the word לאלה as כאלה, i.e. "to people such as these righteous ones who make up the nation as of this day." Just as only the righteous ones who left Egypt share in the inheritance, seeing they and their children died already, so also at this time only Israelites who were righteous would receive their share of the land. It would appear that this exegesis which denies the wicked their share in the Holy Land is not at odds with our own approach (that of Rabbi Yoshiah) that the word was intended to exclude the people who were below the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. The word לאלה simply excludes anyone who does not meet the standards, be it because he was too young or because he was too wicked.
  I have noted that Rashi explains the word לאלה as reflecting the approach of Rabbi Yonathan i.e. not to those who are below 20 even though they had reached that age before the actual distribution took place. This seems hard to understand. After all, Rabbi Yonathan already exploited the exegetical value of the word ואלה to inform us that the land was distributed according to the present number of Israelites as distinct from the number of Israelites (of comparable age) who participated in the Exodus. By referring to the line לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan had already proved that the number of people present now were not the only criterion in determining who was to get how much. How then can Rabbi Yonathan use the word לאלה to teach us also that youngsters under the age of twenty did not participate in the division of the land?
  I am certainly not prepared to quarrel with Rashi regarding the principle that people under twenty were not included in the lottery for distribution of the land even though Rabbi Yonathan did not say so specifically. It is possible that the word לאלה could supply us with two separate למודים, exegetical insights. However, it does not necessarily have to be so. It is equally possible that the word only excluded the principle that the key to the distribution were the people who had participated in the Exodus. What we have to examine is why Rashi did not follow the accepted way of understanding Rabbi Yonathan's words.
  I have seen a comment by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who explains the words of Rashi and did not even mention the difficulty there is in Rashi's commentary when we consider the words of the Baraitha. I claim that Rashi was perfectly aware of the thrust of Rabbi Yonathan's interpretation. However, Rashi thought that the words לאלה prove conclusively that the land was to be distributed only to people who were alive at that time and who had reached the age of twenty. It was the latter detail Rashi wanted to tell us as something new. Rashi took for granted that the land was to be distributed only to people who actually would enter the Holy Land.
  במספר שמות, according to the number of names. The Torah means that the number of families which have been enumerated in chapter 26 were to be the basis for the distribution, i.e. 57 families. Each of these 57 families was to be given a tract of land commensurate with the size of the family. This can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan. According to Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed basically to the people who left Egypt the land should have been distributed between 63 families instead of between 57 as we have learned from <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 21 that 6 families of those enumerated at the time of the first count no longer appeared in the count. According to Rabbi Yoshiah the tribes of these 6 families would be accorded their share instead. It is, possible however, that even Rabbi Yoshiah would agree that the words "according to the number of families" would refer to the families who participated in the Exodus. [I believe there is a misprint here and it should say that even Rabbi Yonathan agreed that only the words במספר שמות refer to the people who participated in the Exodus taking part in the distribution. Ed.]
  
  Verse 54
  
   לרב תרבה נחלתו, "to the more numerous you will give a larger share in his inheritance, etc." <i>Baba Batra</i> 117 has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "according to the theory of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who partook in the Exodus, this verse makes sense; however, how does one explain these instructions according to the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only the generation who was counted in the wilderness would share in the distribution of the land? What purpose was there for the Torah to distinguish between the numerous ones and the less numerous ones?" Whereas Abbaye is not reported as having furnished Rav Pappa with an answer, this question is not so serious that no answer could have been found in the very text itself. Moreover, these words (Rabbi Yonathan's) were not the ones of an Amora (teacher of the Talmud) but of a Tanna, a teacher of the Mishnah. As an Amora, Rav Pappa was not allowed to challenge the words of a Tanna, hence it was not urgent to answer a question which would not result in changes of the halachah even if it went unanswered. We have a principle that whenever the Talmud concludes a question with the word קשיא (as in this instance), there is an answer but it did not suit the editors to provide it at this point.
  According to my commentary that the words במספר שמות mean that the land should be distributed amongst the 57 families enumerated in the count here in our <i>Parshah,</i> the words לרב תרבה mean that they were not to make 57 equal shares according to the number of the families, but that they were to consider also the size of the respective families before distributing land to each family. A family comprising 20,000 souls was to receive a share twice as large as a family comprising only 10,000 souls.
  Furthermore, if we adopt Rashi's approach that Rabbi Yonathan included only people who were counted -meaning they had reached the age of twenty- at the time of the present census, the following situation could arise. Suppose a father had ten sons each above the age of 20 at this time, and another father had 8 sons, 4 of whom were above the age of twenty the other 4 being younger. By the time they all entered the Holy land the first father had lost 4 of his sons because they had died, whereas the other father's sons by then had all reached the age of 20, the last mentioned family would have received a larger share than the family which had ten eligible sons at this time. To prevent such a mistake from being made the Torah wrote לרב תרבה, i.e. that the determining criterion was the respective number of eligible sons a family comprised at the time the commandment was given, i.e. at the time of this census. Any change in the status of the family between now and the actual time of distribution was to be disregarded. Perhaps Rashi's commentary was designed to answer this question before it was even articulated.
  איש לפי פקודיו, each one according to those that were numbered of it, etc. <i>Sifri</i> on this verse comments as follows: "the land was distributed to the tribes in accordance with their present number." This does not contradict what I have written that the words "according to the number of names" refer to the 57 families enumerated in this count. The distribution of the land between the tribes on the one hand and the families on the other may have proceeded along the following lines: The land was divided up into 12 sections, one each for each tribe. These sections in turn were divided up into 57 parcels. A tribe which comprised 2 families would receive 2 parcels whereas a tribe comprising 4 families would receive 4 parcels of land. According to Rabbi Yoshiah each parcel would be sized in accordance with the number of families at the time of the present census, whereas according to Rabbi Yonathan it would be sized according to the number of families at the time of the Exodus. As to the question that if the families were the decisive factor, why was the number of tribes relevant to the distribution at all, the answer is that each tribe was accorded a parcel in accordance with the lottery, something that would not be the case if the only factor determining the distribution would have been the total number of families. Without the lottery families of different tribes might wind up being situated next to each other instead of their parcel of land being situated within the tribal area allocated to each tribe separately.
  <i>Baba Batra</i> 121 raises the point that the scholars were not certain whether the land was distributed in accordance with the number of tribes or in accordance with the number of individual people. They tried to answer this by reference to the verse in our portion where the Torah said "be they numerous or few" meaning that it was not divided in accordance with the number of individuals over the age of twenty (verse 36). They quoted a <i>Baraitha</i> according to which the land of Israel will be divided up amongst 13 tribes in messianic times, whereas in Joshua's time it was divided amongst 12 tribes. Thus far the Talmud there. The Talmud apparently was unaware of the <i>Baraitha</i> we mentioned in the <i>Sifri,</i> where this point is derived from the words איש לפי פקודיו. It is reasonable to assume that the scholar in the Talmud who said that in the future the land of Israel would be shared out between thirteen tribes also based his opinion on these words.
  According to Rabbi Yonathan who holds that the division was based on the people actually entering the land, we still need to find out if he referred to people over twenty only or if he meant that even youngsters who had not attained that age were qualified to receive a separate share in the land. The Torah therefore had to write the words לפי פקודיו to let us know that only men over the age of twenty were assigned separate shares.
  
  Verse 55
  
   לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the tribes of their respective fathers, etc. According to the view of Rabbi Yoshiah this verse merely demolishes the apparent meaning of the word לאלה. It tells us that the word לאלה was not meant to apply to the people counted in the wilderness of Moav but rather meant כאלה, that the people to be given land were to be כאלה like the ones who were counted at the Exodus, i.e. the ones who were twenty and over. Rabbi Yonathan, however, holds that although in the first instance the people who had been counted now were to inherit the land, they in turn would confer rights of inheritance on the people who had participated in the Exodus as has been explained in the <i>Baraitha</i> in the <i>Sifri.</i> The exact wording there is as follows: Assuming one (family) would inherit 1 acre and another (family) of the same בית אב, branch of this tribe, 3 acres by applying the yardstick of the number of 20 year olds in the families at present, then the combined amount would be inherited by the previous generation (the dead) of this family. This inheritance in turn would now be allocated on an equal basis to the younger generation so that both families of the younger generation would receive 2 acres although one family was more numerous than the other at this time. [Our example assumes that there had been only two sons of the family which participated in the Exodus. Ed.] By following this approach the word ינחלו "they will inherit" at the end of verse 35 becomes very relevant as it refers to the people who had now been counted not inheriting now, but only via their fathers. This also explains why the Torah wrote תחלק הארץ, "the land will be divided," instead of writing "they will divide the land." The same consideration also prompted the Torah to write the words תרבה נחלתו in the future tense. Also the expression יותן נחלתו "his inheritance will be given," instead of יקח נחלתו "he will take his inheritance" points to the explanation of Rabbi Yonathan that the generation of the people who left Egypt were the key to the distribution of the land is correct. Our verse teaches then that up until this point the Torah speaks about what Joshua is to do at the time he will make the Israelites inherit the land. From this point on, however, the people who do the inheriting have to consider their share in terms of לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the members of the family groups who had left Egypt.
  
  Verse 56
  
   בין רב למעט, be they numerous or few. We have already referred to the discussion in <i>Baba Batra</i> 122 about how the division was to proceed, if according to the number of individuals or according to the number of tribes, and we have mentioned that in the future the land would be divided between 13 tribes. In addition to that the Talmud stated that the key to the division was the monetary value of a piece of land, not just its size. Rabbi Yehudah adds that the amount of land needed to grow a bushel of wheat in the tribal area of Yehudah was one fifth of the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of wheat in the Galil. <i>Rashbam</i> comments on the words בין רב למעט that every tribe had to accept the piece of land allocated in the general הגרלה, lottery, regardless of whether they thought they ought to have received a larger share due to the number of men over 20 in that tribe, as all the tribes received equal shares. The difficulty with this approach is that there is no need to accept such a simplistic view based on the text seeing we have a <i>Baraitha</i> according to which the words בין רב למעט are understood to refer to the relative distance from Jerusalem of the various parcels of land allocated to the tribes, i.e. that land close to Jerusalem was considered worth more than land which was a long way from Jerusalem. According to the <i>Baraitha</i> the word רב would refer to land close to Jerusalem being worth more.
  In addition, an examination of the text by the Talmud leads us to conclude that the Talmud is self-contradictory. At the outset the Talmud understands the words to mean that the lottery had to be accepted and there was no compensation for the apparent injustice if a tribe with a large population had drawn a smaller parcel of land in the lottery. The parcels of land were equal in size. In the course of the Talmud's discussion, when it emerges that the words בין רב למעט refer to the distance of the land from Jerusalem, it is clear that the principle of each tribe inheriting equally was not accepted, and would be rectified in the distribution of the land in the future when 12 equal shares would go to the 12 tribes and the ruler would receive the thirteenth share. How could the same words in our verse be used to support both theories?
  Furthermore, once we accept the principle that the land was divided into 12 equal shares to the 12 tribes, the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Rabbi Yonathan would apply to each tribe as the numbers varied between the first count and the census in our portion. If all this were correct, why does the Talmud in <i>Baba Batra</i> 118 raise the problem of the complaints of the tribe of Joseph in Joshua 17,14? If the land had been divided according to the present number of men over 20 why would the tribe of Joseph complain? They received an allocation in accordance with their number. Their complaint would only make sense if their allocation was based on the number of men they had at the time of the Exodus; if the land was distributed according to the present census why did they complain? The Talmud answers that they complained that too many of their number had turned twenty between the present census and the actual distribution and many of those had no father who would have qualified in their stead at this time. I do not understand the problem. Seeing that according to all opinions all tribes received an equal amount of land, i.e. everyone is agreed that the tribe of Joseph received an amount equal to that of each of the other tribes, their complaint would be equally justified regardless of whether we accept the principle of distribution according to Rabbi Yoshiah or that according to Rabbi Yonathan. We are forced to conclude therefore that the Talmud bases the complaint of the tribe of Joseph on a lottery which allocated differently sized parcels of lands to different tribes according to both the view of Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonathan. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the tribes all received the same amount of land, it was the tribe of Yehudah who should have complained as they were the most numerous and had not received more land than the least numerous tribe. The result of such a distribution would have been that Yehudah who numbered 76,500 fighting men received one parcel of land whereas the two tribes Menashe and Ephrayim who numbered only some 8,700 men more received double the amount of land!
  As a result of these considerations I have concluded that the Talmud never meant to imply that the 12 tribes each received the same amount of land as described by <i>Rashbam</i>. The correct interpretation of the Talmud's paragraph starting with the words תא שמע is that the words בין רב למעט mean that the Torah confirms that indeed some tribes received a larger share of land than did others. The reason for this was that the distribution was by lottery. This was the major reason why the lottery was necessary in order to head off complaints. If you even envisaged the possibility that the land was distributed in accordance with the number of people in the present census, what point was there to engage in a lottery at all? Why would the Torah have to mention:- "be they many or few?" The meaning of these words is: "regardless of whether the tribe in question is numerous or small in number the distribution will be based on the lottery concerning the location of their land allocation." The second <i>Baraitha</i> where we are told something about the distribution of the land in the future means to clarify the matter still further by telling us that the lack of consideration for numbers refers only to the fact that the basic consideration is the number of tribes and not the number of individuals in the nation. Such clarification was necessary as one could have argued, based on the wording of the Torah, that the only thing the words בין רב למעט prove is that the land was not going to be distributed on the basis of the individual number of people in the nation, but that it would still be possible to adjust the size of the tribal allocations according to the number of families. This is why the Talmud quotes the <i>Baraitha</i> that even in the future the basic approach to the distribution of the land will be the number of tribes. There would be 12 distinct areas, [like provinces, Ed.] but that the tribal areas would not be identical in size but there would be larger areas (which presumably would be drawn in the lottery by the more numerous tribes) as well as smaller tribal areas. All this is in agreement with the <i>Sifri</i> on the words איש לפי פקודיו which I have mentioned earlier.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד, The daughters of Tzelofchod approached, etc. The reason the Torah writes the additional word ותקרבנה and was not satisfied with writing ותעמדנה in verse two is that before appearing before Moses they consulted with each other and had become convinced that they had a valid claim. למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, "of the families of Menashe the son of Joseph, etc." This means that they consulted the elders of their tribe for reasons of common courtesy. Perhaps when the Torah wrote בנותיו this is a hint that they based themselves on the expression איש לפי פקודיו, "each man according to the number that had been counted (in his family)." Sifri on that expression interprets the word איש as excluding women. The daughters of Tzelofchod challenged that ruling. ותקרבנה, "they approached;" this tells us that actually they were quite bashful, hesitant to appear before Moses himself. Once they had consulted with the משפחות מנשה they shed their veil of timidity and stood upright facing Moses. According to the opinion that we are dealing with a mutilated verse and that they found themselves unable to face Moses, we must interpret that after they turned to the elders of their own tribe they developed sufficient self-assurance to face Moses directly.
  בנות צלפחד בן חפר, the daughters of Tzelofchod son of Chefer. We must analyse why the Torah lists their genealogy here instead of contenting itself with what we have already been told about them in 26,33 where the Torah mentions Tzelofchod and his five daughters by name. Our sages in <i>Sifri</i> have indulged in homiletical comments. Perhaps we can see here the reason that the daughters all combined to seek counsel. They had read the regulations and had examined them just as did the Talmud in <i>Baba Batra</i> 118. The Talmud there claims that if we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who had participated in the Exodus, the complaint of the daughters of Tzelofchod made sense. Why should they be deprived of their father's share merely because their father did not leave behind a son? If we accept the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only people who were part of the present census were included in the distribution of the land, what did the daughters of Tzelofchod base their claim on? There had never been a member of their family who could have staked a claim in the first place and had forfeited it in the interval? If they would have had a brother who was a minor he would not have received a share either! The principle of the sons returning their share to their fathers who had participated in the Exodus and who in turn would now share it out amongst their surviving sons could not have been applied in their case? Thus far the Talmud. What the Talmud meant was that even according to the view that the distribution of the land was based on people who now entered the land, the operative clause in the Torah was לשמות מטות אביהם, "according to the names of the tribes of their fathers." This meant that the sons of Chefer (including Tzelofchod) would "return" their share of the inheritance to their father who had been a participant in the Exodus and who in turn would parcel out his share amongst his heirs so that the daughters of Tzelofchod would share the inheritance also. This is precisely the argument used here by the daughters of Tzelofchod, i.e. if the distribution is to be handled according to the view that the people who participated in the Exodus are the primary heirs, they, Tzelofchod's daughters, should receive the share of their father as well as that of their grandfather Chefer who had been amongst the men leaving Egypt at the time of the Exodus. If, on the other hand, the land was to be distributed primarily to the people who were now about to enter the Holy Land, then they based their claim on the fact that the sons of Chefer (excluding their father) had to first return their shares to Chefer who in turn would allocate his share to his various sons, including Tzelofchod who had died in the meantime. They should therefore be allowed to participate in the shares allocated to their uncles as representatives of their father.
  בן גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה, son of Gilead, who was a son of Machir who was a son of Menashe. Our sages in the <i>Sifri</i> already explained that just as their father Tzelofchod was a firstborn, so the ancestors mentioned were all firstborns of their respective fathers. In view of this it is clear that the daughters also insisted in inheriting the double share their father had been entitled to by reason of his being a firstborn. <i>Sifri</i> also comments that the reason the Torah mentions all these antecedents of the daughters of Tzelofchod was to inform us that all of them were righteous people. Rashi comments in a similar vein adding that when people are mentioned by name without their specific accomplishments being detailed this means that they were righteous. The reason the Torah introduces the names of the daughters with the conjunctive letter ו preceding the word אלה, "these," is to tell us that just as the aforementioned people were righteous so these daughters of Tzelofchod were also all righteous in their own right.
  ואלה שמות בנותיו, and these are the names of his daughters, etc. The word בנותיו appears superfluous as all the Torah had to write was ואלה שמותם, "and these were their names," seeing that the words "daughters of Tzelofchod" have already been mentioned in this verse. 
  In order to understand what the Torah had in mind with its phraseology it pays to observe that the names of the daughters do not appear in the same sequence on the various occasions when the Torah mentions them. In Numbers 36,11 the order is different from the order in which the Torah lists these names here. <i>Baba Batra</i> 120 states that whereas in Numbers 36 the names appear in chronological order, here in Pinchas they appear in order of their relative intelligence. <i>Rashbam</i> explains the reason for this as being that when they married, i.e. in chapter 36, it was appropriate to list their names chronologically; here where they had to face Moses in negotiations it was appropriate to list their names in order of their relative intelligence. I do not agree with <i>Rashbam</i> for a number of reasons. 1) How do we know that just because the Torah tells us who these girls were married to that they were married in chronological order? 2) If the reason they were listed in a different order in our <i>Parshah</i> is that we were to be informed who was the more intelligent, why did the Torah not list their names in 26,33 in chronological order just like in 36,11? Surely in the context in which the Torah mentions their names in chapter 26 their relative intelligence was quite irrelevant! 3) The wording of the Talmud itself presents a difficulty. The Talmud speaks first about the order in which these names are listed להלן, i.e. in chapter 36, whereas it then speaks about the order in which they are listed כאן, i.e. "in our context in <i>Parshat Pinchas</i>." The fact is that the word להלן which means "there" may just as easily refer to the previous time the Torah listed these names, i.e. in chapter 26 where the marriages of these girls is not an issue so that there is no compelling reason to believe that the list is in chronological order.
  I feel therefore that the chronological order of these daughters is the one listed when the tribe of Menashe was counted in chapter 26 as well as in our chapter here. In chapter 36 where the Torah tells us who these girls were married to, they appear in the order of their intelligence. This is the reason the Talmud uses the word להלן. The reason is that the Talmud described them as righteous in not having married until they found compatible partners although they had the whole tribe of Menashe to choose from. They demonstrated their righteousness by not marrying until they had found someone compatible. The Talmud uses the word להלן to remind us of the difference between then and the time they appeared in the count of the tribe of Menashe. The word applies to their having been listed prior to their getting married. This was the appropriate way to introduce people of whom we hear for the first time. In our verse, however, they are listed in order of their relative intelligence. This was the only time they were listed in that order. When the Talmud applies the word וכאן to the order in which they are listed in our verse this is perfectly appropriate then.
  This will also enable us to solve the problem we had as to why the Torah had to write ואלה שמות בנותם. In this instance the Torah used the stratagem of naming them in the order of their birth. If the Torah had merely written ואלה שמותם and I would have looked at the list, I would have assumed that here they were listed in order of their intelligence, something that was simply not so. By repeating ואלה שמות בנותיו the Torah reminded us that they are listed in order of their births. You will find a similar extra word in chapter 26,33 where the Torah wrote: ושם בנות צלפחד, "and the names of the daughters of Tzelofchod" although there was no need to repeat the name of their father whose name had appeared earlier in the same verse. While it is true that also in 36,11 the Torah bothered to mention the name of Tzelofchod apparently needlessly, his name appearing at the end of verse 10, the difference is that in 36,11 the name of their father appears after their names, whereas both in chapter 26 and chapter 27 the name of the father appears before that of his daughters. I have already explained in connection with Genesis 6,10 about the three sons of Noach that when the name of the father appears before the names of his children we are entitled to assume that the names of the children are listed in order of their births.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותעמדנה לפני משה, They stood before Moses, etc. I have explained the argument between Rabbi Abba Chanan and Rabbi Yoshiah on Numbers 9,6 concerning the question if one accords honour to a learned student in the presence of his teacher or not. I also mentioned there why these two Rabbis also disagreed concerning the meaning of our verse here (see my translation page 1396). When you review what I have written there you will understand why the Torah here mentions the presence of Eleazar, the princes, and the entire congregation although they certainly could not be expected to know an answer which even Moses did not know. The principal reason for the presence of this whole assembly of people was to ensure that they would all hear Moses' reply firsthand on an issue as sensitive as the right of inheritance of women.
  The <i>Zohar</i> on Balak comments as follows: The Israelites were guilty in the desert of having spoken out against Moses. They thought that Moses was full of hate or bore a grudge and this is why they approached him when he was in the presence of Eleazar, the princes and the heads of the various families. These words suggest that the reason that the daughters of Tzelofchod made a point of confronting Moses in the presence of all these people was that they were afraid Moses would harbour some feelings of hatred against them because of the sin their father had committed which had resulted in his having been executed. According to the <i>Zohar</i> the words וכל העדה refer to the heads of the community as it certainly would not have been within the power of these girls to assemble the whole people on account of their complaint or enquiry.
  Nonetheless we must try and understand how the <i>Zohar</i> could impute such base motives to either Moses or even the daughters of Tzelofchod. Why would girls who have been described as righteous by the Talmud assume that Moses had hatred in his heart against them or their late father? Perhaps all the <i>Zohar</i> had in mind was to describe normal human reactions. The <i>Zohar</i> itself writes that we learn from the example of the daughters of Tzelofchod that if one is afraid of the outcome of litigation one should ensure the presence of other people while one's case is being heard. Our sages in <i>Baba Batra</i> 119 already said that these girls were both extremely intelligent and pious. This means that they were quite certain that Moses would not rule unfairly because of any negative feelings he might harbour against them or their late father. It is possible that they were afraid that Moses would rule that just as the people who had complained in <i>Parshat Beha-a-lotcha,</i> as well as the spies who had forfeited their inheritance in the land because they had raised their voices against Moses and against G'd, Moses would rule similarly against them on account of the sin of their late father. To forestall this they assembled all these people so that they could side with the claim of their late father in order that Moses should not decide against them. It is also possible that these girls were astute enough to do what they did in order to cause Moses to disqualify himself from judging the case seeing there was a suspicion that he was prejudiced in the matter. According to the <i>Zohar</i> this was the reason why Moses left the matter to G'd. He could have given a ruling immediately had he wanted to. Personally, I believe that Moses was fully aware that these girls were entitled to a share in the land, but he wanted to teach the other leaders the lesson that if a judge is suspected by an interested party of being prejudiced against a claimant he must disqualify himself in the matter. Alternatively, Moses felt that the attitude of the girls was not much better than those of the מתלוננים in Numbers 10,1 so that he preferred to let G'd give the ruling Himself.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אבינו מת במדבר, "our father died in the desert, etc." The reason they said: "in the desert," was to emphasise that he did not die in Egypt because he was not worthy of the redemption. They wanted to establish immediately that their claim was based not only according to the opinion that the people who participated in the Exodus inherited the land but also according to the view of those who held that those present at the last census would inherit the land. Concerning those who held that the decisive factor was participation in the Exodus, they said that their father died in the desert, i.e. after the Exodus. By using the word במדבר, they also implied that he was amongst those whose death in the desert had been decreed by G'd as a result of the debacle with the spies when G'd had said (Numbers 14,29) "your carcasses will fall in the desert." This teaches that a) he had been over twenty years old at the time of the Exodus, and b) that he had not died as a result of a specific sin which carries the death penalty. According to those who held that the land was distributed in accordance with the people who participated in the latest census, they hinted that even those opinions were based on the inheritance first "returning" to the previous generation who had participated in the Exodus and that as a result they would be entitled to participate in the distribution.
  Furthermore, according to <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 157 where we were told that the desert was the domain of Samael/Satan and this was the reason people who committed sins were punished promptly, they indicated that had their father committed his particular sin in any place other than the desert his punishment would have been delayed giving him a chance to rehabilitate himself in time. In other words, they said that the only reason he died prematurely was that he was in the desert at the wrong time.
  Another way at looking at the word במדבר is to recall that the root of the word is דבר, speak. The daughters wanted to convince Moses that they harboured no enmity against him seeing that it was public knowledge that their father had spoken out publicly against G'd and Moses. This is why G'd had killed him; it was therefore quite impossible to imagine that they, the daughters, would hold Moses responsible for their father's death and would be afraid that he in turn might be prejudiced against them in their demand to share in the land distribution. As proof that their father's sin had not been that of the people who had followed the majority report of the spies, they stated outright that he had not died as part of the עדה, the ten spies whom G'd had described as an "evil congregation" in Numbers 14,27. According to <i>Sifri</i> the term עדה רעה also included the people reported as complaining in Numbers chapter 11, as well as the supporters of Korach. Tzelofchod had not been one of any of these, the daughters said. They emphasised that בחטאו מת, that their father had died on account of his individual sin, not connected to any of the instances of communal disobedience against Moses' leadership. Perhaps this is the reason they insisted on saying what they had to say in the presence of the princes and the congregation. They wanted to show that they fully relied on Moses to judge their case truthfully, without prejudice. This is why they said the word לאמור before commencing their speech. The word לאמור refers to someone saying something. The daughters indicated that their father's sin consisted of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person although apart from this one grievous mistake he was perfectly righteous.
  If we follow this approach we can also solve a difficulty raised by <i>Tossaphot</i> in <i>Baba Batra</i> 118 commencing with the words ולמאן דאמר לבאי הארץ. Tossaphot ask that from the discussion in the Talmud it emerges that according to the view that the primary claimants to distribution of the land were the people who had been counted in the present census, the daughters of Tzelofchod did not receive the share that their father was entitled to in his own right, but they received only the part which their father had claimed being the firstborn son of Chefer. If so, ask Tossaphot, what was the meaning of: "he died because of his own sin," seeing his sin or his death was not relevant to their claim? After all, even the sons of the ten spies who had died at the hands of G'd all inherited on the basis of their grandfathers' claim! According to our approach, however, there was a good reason for what these daughters of Tzelofchod said. They had to emphasise that their father's situation had been different from that of all the other people who had been described as an evil congregation. If you do not accept our approach one may answer the question raised by Tossaphot by saying that the daughters were not aware that the penalty suffered by the spies did not include that their sons could not stake a claim based on their grandfathers' entitlement. They had thought that with the death of these ten spies both their own as well as their sons' claim to any share in the land had expired. This is why they had to make the point that their father's sin did not fall into such a category.
  ובנים לא היו לו. "He never had any sons." They did not say אין לו, "he does not have (or he will not have)." This is best explained according to the view expressed in <i>Yevamot</i> 62 that grandsons are equivalent to sons." They applied this principle also to granddaughters and that is why they had to be careful with phrasing the reference to Tzelofchod not having sons in the past tense only. They did not preclude that he would have grandsons in the future, the ones which his daughters would bear and who would also be known as "his sons."
  
  Verse 4
  
   למה יגרע, "Why should his name be lost, etc?" We need to understand this claim on the basis of a statement in <i>Baba Batra</i> 116 in the Mishnah that the daughters of Tzelofchod received three separate shares of land in the distribution; 1) the share of their father who had participated in the Exodus; 2) part of the inheritance which their father shared with his brothers of the claim of Chefer; 3) the additional share Chefer had claimed being a firstborn. Thus far the Mishnah. In our verse the daughters of Tzelofchod address three points. By saying למה יגרע, they referred to Tzelofchod's personal share in the inheritance; by adding תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו, "give us an inheritance amongst that of our father's brothers," they referred to Chefer's share in the inheritance seeing that Chefer himself had participated in the Exodus. The words בתוך אחי are the reference to the double share which Chefer had been entitled to as a firstborn. This interpretation is possible only according to the view that the land was distributed basically to the people who participated in the Exodus. According to the view that the primary claimants were the people of the last census, Tzelofchod personally had no share as he was not present at that census. We must therefore explain our verse in accordance with what we learned in <i>Baba Batra</i> 118. The Talmud has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "I can understand Joshua 17,5 'Ten districts fell to Menashe, apart from the lands of Gilead and Bashan which are across the Jordan.' The ten shares are made up of 6 בתי אבות and four shares of their own. These four are arrived at by 1 district being Tzelofchod's share, the second one being the share of Chefer; the third one being the extra share of Chefer who was a firstborn, the fourth one being his share amongst the inheritance of his brothers. However, if we accept the view that the land was distributed primarily to the people who were part of the last census there should have been a total of only eight districts, i.e. the six pertaining to the number of בתי אבות in the tribe of Menashe and two of their own (the two shares Chefer inherited being a firstborn). Abbaye answered that Tzelofchod had two brothers (who died after their father Chefer so that they had already inherited Chefer's share). Thus far the discussion in the Talmud. We have established therefore that even according to the view that the distribution was based primarily on the people present at the most recent census, the daughters of Tzelofchod had a valid claim to two inheritances comprising a total of four shares. Accordingly then: the words למה יגרע referred to the inheritance belonging to Chefer their grandfather through the stratagem of the dead inheriting the living; the words תנה לנו introduce their claim to the share of Tzelofchod's brothers which Tzelofchod had staked a claim to after Chefer died but before he died. Those shares had been allocated to him after they had first "gone back" via Chefer. [The discussion in the Talmud is based on G'd's decision that where there are no sons the daughters inherit instead. Ed.]
  There is another way of explaining the words of the daughters of Tzelofchod as being appropriate regardless of whose view we adopt concerning the key to the distribution of the land. They said למה יגרע שם אבינו, "why shall the name of our father be lost, etc," instead of saying למה תגרע נחלת אבינו, "why shall the inheritance of our father be lost?" Furthermore, why did they repeat: "for he has no son," when they had already explained in the previous verse that Tzelofchod their father had never had any sons? <i>Baba Batra</i> 119 explains the wording these girls chose as follows: "The daughters of Tzelofchod were very astute; they made certain that they presented the facts of their case as they appeared at that time. Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok said that at this particular time Moses was busy explaining the laws of the levirate marriage. The passage in the Torah (Deut. 25,5) which introduces that subject commences with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו "when brothers dwell together and one of them dies and he has no son, etc." The daughters of Tzelofchod argued as follows: "If you want to treat us as the sons our father never had, give us his share in the land; if not, treat us as you treat a brother who dies without children and whose widow makes certain that his name (and property) lives on by means of the levirate marriage to a surviving brother. Let our mother marry a brother in-law." Their reference to the name of their father becoming lost was well calculated then. Should Moses retort that the levirate marriage solution applies only when there are also no daughters, the daughters of Tzelofchod countered that in that case they demanded to be treated as if they were sons of Tzelofchod. This argument makes sense regardless of whether we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah or the view of Rabbi Yonathan regarding the key to the distribution of the land.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם, "Moses submitted their claim for G'd to adjudge." It is possible, that Moses used the last mentioned arguments of these daughters and wanted to know from G'd if to treat these girls as the missing sons or if to treat their mother as a potential candidate for some kind of levirate marriage in order to preserve the name of their father. Moses hoped that in the event G'd would deny them an inheritance, He would at the same time give him a reason why the principle underlying the levirate marriage legislation did not apply to them, i.e. why their mother could not marry a brother-in-law and the son born from such a marriage would inherit Tzelofchod's or Chefer's inheritance.
  Another way of explaining Moses' action may be based on something reported in the name of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni in <i>Baba Batra</i> 119. This rabbi said that Moses was fully aware that the daughters of Tzelofchod were entitled to inherit land in the Holy Land. What Moses did not know was if they were also entitled to inherit a second share in lieu of the share their grandfather had inherited by reason of his being a firstborn. Actually, the whole paragraph dealing with the laws of inheritance should have been written by Moses; the reason it was written as a result of the claim presented by the daughters of Tzelofchod was because these daughters were very meritorious so that they became the catalyst of this legislation being presented at this point. Moses also knew that the מקשש עצים was guilty of the death penalty seeing the Torah had written that he who desecrates the Sabbath is to be executed (Exodus 31,15); he only did not know which of the four death penalties he was to apply. The reason that portion was written as a direct result of the sin of the מקשש was to teach that if the Torah wishes to confer an entitlement on someone it chooses as an example people who are the beneficiaries of that entitlement. Similarly, when there was an immediate need for the Torah to legislate guilt it chose a person who was guilty under the heading of that legislation to be the catalyst for revealing this legislation. Thus far Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni. <i>Tossaphot</i> comment that although the whole legislation about inheritance had not yet been divulged, Moses knew all about the argument the daughters of Tzelofchod presented, i.e. that they wished to be treated either as sons or that their mother should be allowed to marry a brother-in-law.
  This sounds very puzzling. We have learned in <i>Zevachim</i> 115 that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael argued about the order in which the written Torah was recorded. Both Rabbis agree, however, that both the general rules as well as their applications were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. According to what we just read in <i>Baba Batra</i> it sounds as if portions of the Torah had not been revealed to Moses even in the last months of his life after Aaron had died already! Why else would the Torah describe the daughters of Tzelofchod as appearing in the presence of "Eleazar The Priest?" [This would mean that Aaron died without being aware of a crucial part of the written Torah. Ed.] We have no problem with the part of the Baraitha which discusses the guilt of the מקשש, the man who gathered firewood on the Sabbath, as this occurred either during the first year or the early part of the second year that the Israelites were in the desert (compare <i>Sifri</i> section 1 item 113). We could say therefore that G'd had told Moses at Mount Sinai what the penalty of the מקשש was, as the Israelites were still camped around the Mountain at the time. Where did G'd tell Moses about the right of daughters to inherit the double portion of a deceased father who was a firstborn?
  We must conclude that Moses heard all general rules as well as all detailed הלכות at Mount Sinai, including the details about the laws of inheritance and that he even knew about the daughters receiving the part of the inheritance which Tzelofchod or Chefer had come by only by dint of being firstborn. When the Baraitha described Moses as not knowing if the daughters were entitled to that share also, this applied only to this exceptional inheritance of land in the land of Israel. The problem was whether a person who had stood to inherit from someone who personally had not owned, i.e. possessed the land in question, was to be treated as ראוי or as מוחזק, i.e. as a potential rather than as an actual heir. The rule about inheriting a double share applies only to property left by the father when the father had possession of it at the time of his death; if the father's assets were in the form of outstanding loans for instance, the sons are considered as only potential heirs and the firstborn enjoys no special privilege. The fact that Moses did not know this detail is not to be construed as a deficiency in knowing the laws of the Torah. This evaluation is confirmed by what the Talmud basing itself on the statement of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni asks Rava who holds that possession of the land of Israel by Israelites who have never set foot in it is still considered as actual possession. The Talmud asks that seeing we have Rava's statement what doubts did Moses entertain? The Talmud answers that the interpretation of the verse from which this concept is supposedly taken is the subject of the debate. The Torah writes in Exodus 6,8: "and I will give it (the land of Canaan) to you as a heritage." This means that if the word מורשה means heritage, i.e. ירושה, then the firstborn will be entitled to a double share in it. However, it is possible that the correct translation for the word מורשה is that it is a land which you may pass on to your children, etc. The latter meaning implies that only after the Israelites had actually taken possession of the land could they in turn bequeath their shares to their children. If the latter interpretation is correct this would reflect what is written in Exodus 15,17: "You bring them in and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance." According to the Talmud these words, spoken during the song of thanksgiving for G'd having led the Israelites through the sea of reeds, were in the nature of a prophecy not understood at that time by the people who uttered it. [The exegetical detail is that the word תביאמו means "You will bring it (or them)," whereas we would have expected the Israelites to sing: תביאנו, "You will bring us." Ed.] The concensus seems to be that the wording מורשה means that it will become your inheritance for you to pass on as an inheritance as well as an immediate inheritance and that Moses was aware of the dual meaning of the word מורשה. At any rate, all of these considerations make sense only if the section dealing with laws of inheritance had already been revealed to Moses. If not, how could the Talmud have described Moses as being in doubt when and how the legislation applied seeing that the whole legislation had not yet been revealed?
  We can prove from the Talmud that the laws of inheritance as they applied to the land of Israel, i.e. if one's claim to it is merely potential or if the Israelites were already considered as in possession of it, had been mentioned in the Torah already. This is what the Talmud meant when it stated that the Israelites prophesied without being aware of what they prophesied when they said the words תביאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך in the Song in Exodus 15,17. The only thing is that even Moses had not paid attention to the implication of what is written there. Let us now examine carefully what the Torah had in mind here. The words ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם refer to the claim for the share of the firstborn; concerning this enquiry G'd answered (verse 7) והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, "you are to transfer their father's inheritance to them." The word והעברת is in itself an allusion to the firstborn as we encounter this expression in Exodus 13,12 in the legislation concerning the firstborn. Although we find that the Torah spells out details of the legislation here this does not mean it had not been divulged at Sinai already. According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 59 we have similar examples when the Torah records the law of circumcision in Genesis chapter 17 or the law about the גיד הנשה, the sinew of the femoral vein, in Genesis chapter 32. The Torah saw fit to record details of a certain law in connection with its being observed in fact, although, legislatively speaking it was promulgated only at Sinai (compare <i>Chulin</i> 100). What remains to be clarified is where the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves alluded to the claim for the share of the firstborn which alone prompted Moses to submit their claim to G'd. Perhaps there was not even any need for them to spell this out. We have a rule that if the judge is aware that a litigant has a valid claim to something he either did not know about or had forgotten to mention and the judge is in some doubt about such a claim being valid, he has to submit it to G'd for a decision. It is also possible that when the daughters said: "why should the name of our father be lost," they meant that Moses should consider it as if their father himself was about to cross into the land of Canaan and was now presenting his claim. Moses would understand then that the subject under discussion was the additional share which the firstborn is entitled to. This is why the Torah said that Moses presented משפטן, the doubtful part of their claim, i.e. the claim to the share of the firstborn.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לאמור, G'd told Moses to say, etc. The reason G'd said לאמור was to make certain Moses would not think that when G'd told him that the daughters of Tzelofchod had a valid claim he was to keep this information to himself and need not reveal it. It is even possible that the word לאמור implies that Moses was not only to acknowledge the daughters' claim to them but that he was to tell the whole Jewish people about it. This is why the Torah did not write לאמור להן "to tell them." It is also possible that seeing the Torah writes ואל בני ישראל "and to the children of Israel you shall say" in verse 8 the Torah wanted to reveal that what G'd had told Moses prior to verse eight did not need to be mentioned except to the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves. The word לאמור in our verse then applied only to the daughters.
  
  Verse 7
  
   כן בנות צלפחד דברות, the daughters of Tzelofchod are correct in what they said. The Torah needed to write the word כן in addition to handing down the legal decision. By writing the extra word כן, G'd expressed appreciation of the logic demonstrated by the daughters of Tzelofchod when they had presented their case by basing it on either the law of inheritance or the law of the levirate marriage.
  G'd also may have written this word to indicate that He appreciated their piety and that was why He had Moses tell them of the decision separately, i.e. לאמור, not merely by including them as part of the general rules about the order of inheritance the Torah recorded here.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   וראיתה אתה "and when you have seen it, etc." G'd did not limit Himself to the previous words וראה את הארץ, "and view the land, etc," in verse 12. The Torah wanted to indicate that Moses was enabled to see the land by means of a miracle, i.e. his power of vision was expanded. What Moses beheld could not be seen by ordinary man who is equipped to see only with the help of sunlight; rather it was required that G'd put at Moses' disposal the light which G'd had hidden after Adam had sinned, the light created on the first day of creation (compare <i>Sifri</i> volume 1 item 136). This is also the light G'd put at Moses' disposal in Deut. 34,1. where He showed him the whole of the land of Israel.
  גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרון, "also you, just as Aaron was gathered in, etc." This is best explained by reference to <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> at the beginning of <i>Parshat Massay.</i> We are told there that when Aaron was about to die he told Moses that had he known death was something so pleasant he would have wanted to die even sooner. The Torah wrote גם אתה "also you" immediately next to the word ונאספת, "you will die," in order for Moses to understand that his own death would be just as pleasant as that of his brother Aaron had been. When Moses would realise the nature of his death he too would wish that he had died even sooner. An additional meaning of these words is that G'd wanted Moses to do what all righteous people are supposed to do before they die, namely to acknowledge that G'd's justice as applied to them was fair. The person who is about to die should welcome G'd's decision that he die at that time. By saying: "also you will be gathered up to your people," G'd hinted that Moses should acknowledge the justice of G'd's decree in letting him die at this time and at this place. The classic example for this type of attitude is King David in Psalms 31,6 where he said: "I place my spirit in Your hand."
  The Torah continues "just as Aaron was gathered in," to reflect a further comment by the <i>Yalkut</i> there who quotes Moses as having asked his brother Aaron at the time if he accepted the need to die. When Aaron had replied in the affirmative, Moses said to him: "let us ascend the mountain. Immediately following this suggestion Moses and Aaron (and Eleazar) ascended the mountain. Thus far the <i>Yalkut.</i> This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "as your brother Aaron was gathered in." The reason for all this was that G'd did not want to let a righteous person die without first gaining his consent. This will also afford the person about to die to fulfil the commandment in Deut. 6.5 to love G'd "with all your soul."
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וידבר משה אל השם, Moses spoke (sternly) to G'd, etc. In view of our always having said that the term וידבר reflects "tough" talk, it seems most unseemly for Moses to have addressed G'd in such a fashion. Moreover, how are we to explain the word לאמר? To whom was G'd supposed to relay Moses' words? Perhaps Moses argued that he did not see why he had to die at this time. He did not mean this egoistically, but felt that he should be allowed to go on living for the sake of the Jewish people. We will explain Moses' words in detail. This would account for the fact that the Torah describes his words as דבור. In view of the fact that Moses' entire speech reflected only his loving concern for his people the purpose of his words was not in consonance with our first impression when we read the word וידבר. To make sure we do not misunderstand, the Torah added the word לאמור, i.e. "watch the words and not the tone of voice."
  
  Verse 16
  
   יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, "Let the Lord, the G'd of the spirits appoint, etc." 1) Why did Moses choose this most unusual way of describing G'd's virtues? 2) Why was Moses so long-winded in describing the functions of a leader of the people such as אשר..יצא…ואשר יבא? 3) Why did he add "let not the Lord's congregation be as a flock without shepherd?" Whatever possessed Moses to imagine that but for him the Jewish people would remain leaderless and that G'd would abandon them?
  We have to explain the whole matter in the following vein. [I have to paraphrase the author's words here. Ed.] The fact that G'd has equipped all of us with both a free will and unequal levels of intelligence makes it an almost foregone conclusion that each one of us reacts, -i.e. uses this freedom of will- differently when confronted with identical data. In other words, it is in the nature of things that no two people react identically to what happens around them. In discussing the effect on the victim when one visits the sick, the Talmud <i>Nedarim</i> 39 claims that each visit by a friend removes 1/60th of the sick person's sickness, provided the person who visits him is of (similar) or identical age. This latter statement suggests that unless two people share the same <i>mazzal,</i> horoscopic influences, they cannot really expect to have a definitive impact on one another. Unless two people are on the "same wavelength," the empathy which one shows to the other does not really leave sufficient encouragement to be a healing influence. In view of what we have just said it is clear that the 600,000 people Moses was in charge of comprised 600,000 different personalities. How could they be expected to be fused into a uniform, like-minded congregation? The reason that Moses was able to find a common denominator with each one of them, i.e. "to tune in to the wavelength of each Israelite," was the fact that his soul was the root of all their souls (compare <i>Tikkuney Hazohar</i> chapter 69). This is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 63,11: "G'd remembered the days of old, Moses His people." Compare what we have written on Numbers 11,12 in connection with the words: "Have I conceived them?" This was the reason that Moses was so concerned that no one but he would be able to truly understand these people and lead them.
  This is also the reason why G'd commanded that the judges to be appointed for the people should be of their respective tribes. A judge who grew up amongst the tribe of, say Issachar, would be more likely to understand what motivations governed the actions of another member of his tribe than a judge who was a Levite, for instance. For considerations such as these, Moses reacted to the news that he was about to die by asking G'd יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, that G'd in His capacity of understanding the immense variety of spirits, i.e. personalities of the people, should appoint someone who could "tune in" to all these various spirits. When Moses said that such a leader "should go out ahead of them and ….lead them," he referred to the ability of the people to agree with the initiative of their leader. At the same time, Moses said: "and who will come home with them," i.e. that the leader should also be able to align his thinking to their thinking. He must be capable of accepting suggestions by the people. The reason Moses phrased all this in what sounds like an autocratic manner, i.e. harping on what the leader would do all the time, was that he himself had occupied the position of king amongst the Israelites. Moses added that if the Israelites would not have such a leader, they would be no better off than a flock without a shepherd. Moses' words to G'd could be summarised as follows: "I am prepared to do what You have told me; however, I cannot die with my mind at ease (as You promise me) unless I know that You have appointed a new leader who possesses the qualities I have mentioned. If not, the people will, for all practical purposes, be like a flock without a shepherd." Reading between the lines of what Moses said we may conclude that subject to his request being fulfilled he was just as willing to die as was his brother Aaron seven months earlier.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why did G'd say to Moses: "take for yourself?" What did G'd mean when He said of Joshua that he was איש אשר רוח בו, "a man possessed of spirit?" Is there then any man devoid of spirit? Besides, what precisely is the significance of וסמכת את ידך "you will place your hand?" What will this achieve? We must understand the whole verse in terms of Moses' request to G'd previously, as we explained. When G'd said to Moses: "take for yourself," the meaning is: "I want to put at rest your fears. If you will appoint Joshua the Israelites will have a leader who has a similar spirit to yours, i.e. his soul emanates from a background not much different than yours." This is why G'd underlined that Joshua was a man אשר רוח בו. He shares many of the psychological factors which predominate in this generation. G'd ordered Moses to place his hand on Joshua to transfer some of the qualities of Moses' soul to Joshua. At the end of the instruction (verse 20) G'd adds: "in order that the whole congregation of the children of Israel will hear." Seeing these words are next to the words "and you transfer from your authority to him," they mean that Moses transferred some of the properties of his soul to Joshua, i.e. that he too would become a root of their combined souls. This would ensure that the people would accept Joshua's authority over them. When the Torah refers to the "whole congregation of the children of Israel," it refers to the spiritual elite of the people as being pleased with the new leader Moses would appoint now.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   על פיו יצאו, "at his command they will go out (to war), etc." This was a reference to Moses having said that a leader must be capable of commanding the people to follow him, i.e. ואשר יוציאם. All of this would occur after Eleazar had obtained G'd's approval through consulting the <i>Urim VeTumim,</i> the breastplate of the High Priest whose letters would flash in answer to questions posed to G'd.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויעש משה כאשר צוה ה׳ אותו, Moses did as G'd had instructed him, etc. The reason the Torah mentions something so obvious as Moses complying with G'd's instructions, is only to tell us that he did so promptly after having been so instructed. It also means that had Moses not specifically requested that G'd appoint a suitable leader now, G'd would not yet have given such instructions. Seeing that Moses' death was not that near at hand, and that there was no immediate need to appoint Joshua, Moses' conduct was a credit to him.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויסמך את ידיו, he placed both his hands, etc. The word ויצוהו in our verse is derived from צות, team, association; the Torah tells us that Joshua became part of the leadership team, or in a more abstract sense that he now was able to radiate some of Moses' royal authority along the lines I have explained earlier on the word וסמכת. כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה, as G'd had said by means of Moses. This part of the verse makes sense only in connection with the way we have explained the word ויצוהו, as Moses had not been commanded to place both his hands on Joshua. Besides, why would the Torah not have written: "as G'd had said to Moses, instead of ביד משה?" The meaning therefore must be that Moses was the instrument through whom this הוד, royal authority, was transferred to Joshua. The word ויצוהו is also an allusion to Royalty as our sages have taught us in connection with Samuel I 13,24 where the prophet records: ויצוהו ה׳ לנגיד, "G'd gave him (Saul's replacement David) authority over His people. Another nuance that we can derive from the word ביד משה, is that G'd had said for royal authority to reside in the hand of Moses in lieu of the anointing oil (used to crown kings of the tribe of Yehudah formally.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   צו את בני ישראל, "command the children of Israel, etc." Why did the Torah choose to record this paragraph of offerings in this of all places, i.e. after the appointment of Joshua instead of in <i>Parshat Emor</i> where all the other sacrifices offered on the festivals are recorded? After all, it is quite clear that the offerings listed here had been part of the regular schedule of sacrifices ever since the Tabernacle had been inaugurated over 38 years earlier whereas Joshua had been appointed only in the 40th year?
  Perhaps the reason is that he Torah wanted to inform us that in the event that Joshua would want to offer daily burnt-offerings or the additional offerings on the festivals on his own, i.e. from his own funds, he would not be allowed to do so although he personally represented the community as the Talmud demonstrates in several instances. The Torah therefore recorded this legislation here to make certain that these offerings will be perceived as communal offerings paid for by the contributions of the whole community to the fund set up for this. This is the meaning of "command the children of Israel!" The Torah repeats this command by writing ואמרת אליהם, "and say to them," to point out that unless this detail is complied with the sacrifice is invalid. The Torah wrote אליהם instead of the customary להם in accordance with what I have explained on וירא אליו (Genesis 18,1) that when the word אליו or אלהם is used it suggests that the people so addressed should subordinate their own ego. [I suppose the exegetical aspect is that the letters אל also mean "don't." Ed.] I have seen a comment in the <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on our verse that the Israelites had assumed that the daily communal sacrifices were part of their wanderings in the desert and that as soon as they would be settled in the Holy Land this practice would be discontinued. G'd therefore recorded this legislation here to show that these sacrifices would be continued also after the conquest of the land of Canaan under Joshua.
  את קרבני לחמי לאשי, "My food which is presented to Me as a burnt offering, etc." The convoluted language is due to the daily communal offerings consisting of three parts. 1) The offering of the sheep as the sacrifice. 2) The two tenths of an epha of flour which accompanied it as a gift-offering. 3) The drink-offerings consisting of a quarter Hin of newly pressed wine. With respect to the animal, the Torah speaks of קרבני, "My sacrifice;" with respect to the meal-offering (gift) the Torah speaks of לחמי, "My bread." Finally, with respect to the drink-offerings, the Torah speaks of ריח ניחחי, "sweet savour unto Me." The reason is that the drink-offering is poured onto the foundation of the altar descending into the hole called שיתין, and only its smell is noticeable on the altar. In each of these instances G'd uses the suffix "MY" to indicate that all of them are His and remain within His domain as proclaimed by David in Psalms 24,1: "The earth and all that is thereon belongs to G'd." The reason that G'd appended this possessive suffix even to the word אשי, "My fire," is that even the fire belongs to G'd. Israel should remember that whatever they offer to G'd as a sacrifice is really G'd's in the first place.
  This was the reason which made G'd write the word תשמרו, "observe, i.e. take care to perform this commandment;" failure to offer these sacrifices means that when we use any part of the universe for our own purposes we are actually stealing G'd's property; we are violating a negative commandment. G'd adds the words להקריב לי, "to present for Me as an offering." This means that even when doing this we are only offering to G'd's presence a small part of His possessions by presenting them to Him. The vast majority of His possessions remain His, however.
  The Torah also alludes to a mystical dimension of sacrifice per se. Its purpose is to bring closer to G'd's Essence things which are "branches" of sanctity extant in the universe and as such are part of G'd Himself. This is the meaning of the word קרבני with the suffix י, i.e. "the sacrifice is something which brings sanctity close to Me." The means by which this occurs is that My bread is offered to Me as fire. When it rises in the form of smoke it turns into a sweet odour for Me.
  
  Verse 3
  
  -4. ואמרת להם זה האשה, "You shall say to them 'this is the fire-offering,' etc." G'd repeats once more: ואמרת. Why? The words זה האשה also do not seem called for. It appears the Torah wanted to make sure we would not think that the single sheep to be offered was a minimum only and that if the priests decided to, they could offer any number of sheep. The Torah therefore wrote "tell them only this is the fire-offering," i.e. only one sheep, neither more nor less. The same applied to the sheep to be offered in the evening. We must understand verse 3 as telling us that this sacrifice had to be offered on a daily basis. Verse 4 tells us that only the quantity specified by the Torah here and none other was acceptable for this type of sacrifice.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וביום השבת שני כבשים, "And on the Sabbath day, two sheep, etc." The reason that the additional communal offering on the Sabbath was smaller than any of the parallel offerings on the festivals and even the intermediate days of the festivals is the mystical dimension of לחם משנה, the two loaves we eat on the Sabbath at each meal. The two additional sheep offered on the Sabbath symbolise the idea which has been eternalised in the custom of the two loaves, themselves a reminder of how G'd provided a double portion of manna to the Israelites in the desert each Friday. The mystical element of the number seven is alluded to by the fact that only this day is also called "the seventh day." Even though some festivals have a seventh day, the significance of the seventh day of a festival does not have anything in common with the mystical dimension of the seventh day which occurs regularly every week.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ובראשי חדשיכם, and on your new moons, etc. The suffix "your" is used to remind us that it is up to a collegium of terrestrial judges to determine the date the new moon should be celebrated.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   לחדש הזה, of this month, etc. The word "this" appears superfluous. <i>Torat Kohanim</i> Leviticus 23,6 explains that the word is used to teach us that on the Sukkot festival one need not eat matzah. Matzah needs to be eaten only on Passover. I have already explained this on Leviticus 14,7.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   בהקריבכם…בשבעתיכם, when you offer on your festival of weeks, etc. The plural indicates that this festival is not only meant for bringing the offering from the new wheat harvest, but that at the same time it also symbolises the completion of the count of the seven weeks commencing with the second day of Passover. This represents a major rehabilitation of our souls as explained by the Kabbalists. The Torah is careful to use the possessive suffix to indicate that the seven weeks represent the essential elements which distinguished the seven righteous people who between them form the spiritual foundation of the Jewish people. This is explained in detail in <i>Tikkuney Hazohar</i> chapter 21.
  Another reason why the Torah wrote בשבעתיכם is to disabuse the fools who thought that the words ממחרת השבת in Leviticus 23,25 refer to the Sabbath of Bereshit, i.e. the ordinary Sabbath, rather than the first day of Passover (compare <i>Menachot</i> 65). By saying "your weeks," the Torah makes it plain that the count started on a day which was subject to the terrestrial court to determine. The terrestrial court has no authority to change the date of the Sabbath, although it may postpone the day on which we observe new moons. We have a <i>Baraitha</i> in <i>Menachot</i> 72 where Rabbbi Yehudah also deduces the same ruling from the words in Deut. 16,9 תספר לך, "count for yourself." This excludes days over which our courts have no authority and which all mankind counts alike.
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
   והקרבתם עולה…לה׳ פרים, you will offer to G'd 13 bullocks, etc. It would appear that the reason why a progressively smaller number of bullocks was offered on each of the seven days of the Sukkot festival is connected to two different mystical dimensions of the number seven. The Gentile nations comprise the number seven in the "plural," i.e. 70, and they are compared to bullocks. Israel too is compared to the number seven as we know from the <i>Zohar</i> volume 3 page 266, and all Israel's important deeds are somehow related to the number seven. The sacrifices on all the festivals appear in sevens, the total number of festival days are seven (2 days Passover, 1 day Shavuot, 1 day Rosh Hashanah, 1 day Yom Kippur, and 2 days Sukkot/Shemini Atzeret). The Sabbath is the mystical dimension of the seven branches of the tree which contains the root of the souls of the seven righteous people mentioned in <i>Tikkuney Hazohar.</i> The basic message of the 70 bullocks which the Jews offered on Sukkot is that the Gentile nations will keep becoming fewer.
  The fact that the number of sheep offered as part of these additional burnt-offerings on the seven days of Sukkot is constant, i.e. 14, is an allusion to Israel appearing on two different spiritual levels, the hidden level and the visible level. The "hidden" level of Israel's spirituality refers to the need for the Israelites to set free sparks of sanctity trapped amongst the Gentile nations, a concept which we have written about on several occasions. The visible element is that the Jewish people represent sanctity which is visible. The proof is that after the bullocks of the nations have all been "used up," the only ones left are the Israelites. This means that the Israelites have fulfilled their task, that all the sparks of sanctity that were capable of being set free from their Gentile jailers have been redeemed. This is alluded to by the Mussaph offering on Shemini Atzeret when G'd ordered the Israelites to offer up a single bullock and only seven sheep. These seven sheep symbolise Israel, the sacred flock. The single bullock symbolises the one remaining bullock of the Gentile nations, i.e. the one representing Ishmael. The ram of that sacrifice represents Esau. Between them, the animals in the Mussaph offering of Shemini Atzeret represent the nations descended from Abraham.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ככל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה in accordance with all that G'd commanded Moses. The Torah did not content itself with writing אותו, "him," but wrote instead את משה, although the word "him" would have been quite unmistakable. The reason is that we deal with an independent statement by the Torah, i.e. a testimony by the Torah that what Moses conveyed to the people was exactly what G'd had commanded him to convey. It was not merely what Moses thought that G'd had commanded him to convey.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אל ראשי המטות, to the leaders of the tribes, etc. What is so different about this commandment that Moses assembled the chiefs of the tribes to inform them of it and that they in turn were to tell the Israelites? <i>Sifri</i> claims that seeing in Numbers 10,3 in connection with the trumpets the congregation was mentioned before the leaders, and Moses was afraid that this would be misinterpreted to mean that the congregation at large took precedence over the princes, he made sure in 10,4 that the princes were referred to as the heads of the congregation. Moses did something similar here when he addressed the heads of the tribes first. In <i>Nedarim</i> 78 we are told that the reason the heads of the tribes are mentioned here was to hint that vows may be dissolved by a lone judge if he is an expert in the subject. All these comments are strictly allegorical. We need to understand also why the Torah writes המטות לבני ישראל. All Moses had to say was מטות בני ישראל. What is the reason for the extra letter ל? We must assume that the reason for the extra letter is to avoid a misunderstanding. Had the Torah not written לבני ישראל, we might have thought that the legislation was aimed only at the leaders of the people. By writing the extra letter ל, the Torah ensured that we would understand the legislation as applying to the leaders of the people as well as to the nation at large. The absence of the letter ו in front of לבני ישראל is not significant as the Torah has omitted that letter on frequent occasions where we would have expected it such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן, שמעון, etc.
  I have come across a <i>Baraitha in Baba Batra 120</i> which goes as follows: "I might have thought that Moses said this paragraph only to the princes; to prevent me from thinking this the Torah wrote זה הדבר, 'this is the thing, etc.' We have the same expression in Leviticus 17,2 where the subject is the prohibition to slaughter animals for their meat and eat them unless they had first been offered as sacrifices in the Tabernacle. This legislation applies to all the people as it is is phrased: 'any man who, etc.' We therefore use the expression זה הדבר which appears on both occasions to conclude that the legislation in our paragraph also applies to all the men of Israel." Thus far the Talmud. Granted that the exegesis of this is valid, why did the Torah then have to add the words לבני ישראל, in our verse? Clearly the <i>Baraitha</i> did not understand the words לבני ישראל to mean that the legislation applied to the entire people why else would it have bothered to prove this indirectly by learning the גזרה שוה (similar wording) of זה הדבר in both instances? Moreover, the Talmud in <i>Keritut</i> 5 told us not to treat such a גזרה שוה lightly.
  We also need to understand the meaning of the word לאמור? To whom were the Israelites to convey this legislation? If the Torah meant that the heads of the tribes were supposed to convey this legislation to the Israelites the Torah should have written לאמור לבני ישראל, "to tell to the children of Israel!" Furthermore, what precisely did the Torah want to exclude by using the word זה הדבר in verse 2?
  I believe that we can understand our verse after recalling a statement in <i>Chagigah</i> 10. The Talmud says there: "the whole legislation of cancelling vows is like something which flies in the air (i.e. has no firm basis)." If so, we must investigate why the Torah treated this legislation so differently from any other legislation. Every other legislation has been spelled out in the written Torah whereas only this legislation is "left hanging in the air?"
  I believe the reason is simple. The Torah did not feel comfortable with the thought that it would write outright that vows and oaths undertaken by an Israelite could be cancelled by a judge or even by a team of judges. If the Torah had spelled this out people would conclude that oaths and vows are meaningless as they can be cancelled so easily. The Torah therefore resorted to a clever stratagem by leaving the matter of evaluating a vow with a view to annulling it to the greatest minds of the nation. As far as the average Jew was concerned, the doors to annulment remained closed in order to encourage them to fulfil oral undertakings they had entered into. The operative clauses for keeping one's oral undertakings are: 1) לא יחל דברו, "he must not break his word (from the root 'to profane')," and 2) "he must fulfil what he has undertaken orally." The meter of the verse is as follows: "Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes and outlined the entire legislation to them. But to the rest of the children of Israel he only conveyed the following, i.e. זה הדבר." In other words, the people were to honour vows and oaths and not to fail to observe them; the tribal heads were given information about the instances when annulment might be considered. This then is what the Talmud meant in <i>Chagigah</i> 10 when it characterised this legislation as "flying in the air." This explanation solves all the questions we have raised earlier.
  Another approach to our paragraph could be this: Moses told the heads of the tribes this whole legislation. He told the Israelites at large to honour their oral undertakings and to turn to the tribal heads in the event they had some problem in fulfilling their vows. The latter would then inform them if their specific vows could be annulled or not.
  Having read all this you may wonder why our sages had to bother with exegetical methods such as a גזרה שוה, seeing the Torah did write the words: "to the children of Israel?" The answer is that the גזרה שוה really was not needed except to tell us that Moses personally said these things to Israel. As to the announcement of the legislation itself, no גזרה שוה was needed. This is what the sages meant with the statement "I could have thought that Moses personally related this legislation only to the heads of the tribes. To prevent me from erring, etc, etc." The sages were careful not to say: "I could have thought the legislation was not given except to the heads of the tribes."
  Another possible reason why the גזרה שוה was needed may be that without it I would have understood the words לבני ישראל as a continuation of the words אל ראשי המטות, as if the Torah had written: "Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel." The גזרה שוה of זה הדבר ensures that we understand the words לבני ישראל correctly. Do not ask that we ourselves have explained the word זה as restrictive, telling us that only part of the legislation was revealed directly to the Israelites. The exegesis of the גזרה שוה is not based on the common word זה, but on the common word הדבר which is not restrictive. Our exegesis is based on the word זה alone.
  A moral/ethical approach would read together the words לאמור זה הדבר; this would reflect a teaching by <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 22,1 where we are exhorted to be very circumspect with keeping vows and oaths. King Yannai owned two thousand asses and they all perished on account of a true oath [but an unnecessary one. Ed.] The example quoted in the <i>Midrash</i> has someone swear to his friend that he would consume a certain amount of food and drink in a certain place. Both parties went to that place and the one who had sworn the oath consumed the requisite amount of food and drink. A short while later all his asses perished. The moral lesson to be derived from this is that if G'd is so particular about a true but needless oath which a person swears, how much more particular will He be if someone perjures himself! In our paragraph the Torah goes on record that there are certain vows and oaths that G'd commands people to swear, i.e. לאמור זה הדבר, "to utter this word." לבני ישראל לאמור. According to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 56 the word לאמור is a reference to גלוי עריות, unchaste behaviour, illicit sex. [based on Jeremiah 3,1: לאמור הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר, הישוב אליה עוד? הלא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא. "To say: 'if a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, can he ever go back to her? Would not such a land be defiled?'" The unusual position of the word לאמור at the beginning of this verse leads to interpreting it as a "verbal under-taking" such as in marriage Ed.] In verse three the Torah uses the word איש to hint that "a man" who is able to control his carnal urges should employ the legislation of making vows to help him resist the evil urge to sleep with people forbidden to him. In other words, the vow entered into by a Nazirite who wants to reinforce his resolution to resist sexual temptation, is acceptable to G'd. We have a number of <i>Midrashim</i> discussing situations when Biblical personalities needed to reinforce their resolution to resist such temptation. (Ruth 3,13, <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 23,11, Psalms 119,106 "I have sworn an oath to keep Your just rules.")
  
  Verse 3
  
   איש כי ידור נדר, When a man vows a vow, etc. Why did the Torah repeat both the word נדר, vow, and the word שבעה, oath? Why could the Torah not simply have written איש כי ידור לה׳ או ישבע? Furthermore, why did the Torah phrase observance both in a positive and in a negative connotation, i.e. "he must not profane his word, as well as he must do in accordance with what came out of his mouth?" I believe we must look for the key to the way the Torah worded this legislation by remembering that there are two categories of vows and oaths. One category is related to a person's soul, i.e. he may undertake to study Torah, give a certain amount of charity, refrain from abominable practices, not to visit places predominantly visited by women, etc. The other category of vows and oaths pertains to the body and involves matters which are neither forbidden to us nor are we commanded to do them. Here too there are two divisions; one may vow to eat certain things, drink certain liquids, or live in a certain house, etc. Or, one may undertake on oath not to eat certain things, drink certain liquids, or wear certain clothes. G'd legislated here how a person should best conduct himself. The words כי ידור נדר, i.e. an ordinary vow involves an undertaking to go to a certain place or to perform a certain task. The addition of the word לה׳ means that different rules apply when the vow is not of a secular nature but relates to one's conduct vis-a-vis G'd. The addition of this word therefore means that the word נדר has not been repeated at all, but that once it applies to secular vows and once to religious vows.
  The Torah goes on או השבע שבעה, "or he swears an oath, etc." In the first instance the oath concerns something one undertakes not to do as stated here לאסור אסר על נפשו, "to deny himself something." Here too we have two categories of oaths. One may swear not to do something which is already forbidden, as Boaz did when he wanted to reinforce his resolution not to sin by swearing an oath.
  The Torah was very astute in separating the word "vow" from the word "oath" by interposing the word "to G'd," to alert us to the fact that the reason both the word נדר and the word שבעה have been repeated is to allude to vows or oaths of a religious nature. Such religious vows or oaths are not subject to the same rules which govern vows or oaths of a secular nature. The words לא יחל דברו, "he must not profane his word," refer to vows and oaths which involve abstaining from something of a purely secular nature such as Boaz' oath; the rule which applies is: "he must not break his word; however, a collegium of judges has the power to annul the vow or oath in question (compare <i>Nedarim</i> 14). With respect to vows involving matters of religious significance, such as declaring something sacred for use only by the Temple treasury, etc., or oaths of a religious nature, the words which are applicable are: "everything which his mouth has uttered he shall do."
  Another reason why the Torah wrote the word לשם can be understood in light of Maimonides <i>Hilchot Nedarim</i> chapter 11. He writes that if a 12 year old boy has made a vow or sworn an oath, we examine him to find out if he is mature enough to have understood the significance of his undertaking, i.e. "to whom he made this undertaking." If so, he is held responsible just as an adult. The exegetical tool for this is the word איש before the legislation. The legislation applies to anyone who qualifies intellectually under the heading of איש, is mentally of age and realises his obligations vis-a vis G'd.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ושמע אביה את נדרה..וקמו כל נדריה, and her father hears about her vow;….all her vows shall stand." We need to understand why the verse first speaks about "her vow" in the singular and then continues to speak about "her vows" in the plural. Besides, why did the Torah add the word: "all" both times. It would have sufficed to write: "her vows and oaths will stand," without adding the word "all" each time. Furthermore, why does the Torah use a different future tense when speaking about her vows, i.e. וקמו, whereas when speaking about an oath the woman uttered, it uses the word יקום to indicate that "it will stand?" The word יקום was altogether superfluous as the word וקמו which appeared earlier in the same verse would have referred to both vow and oath.
  We may be able to explain the wording the Torah used in our verse with the help of what we learned in <i>Nedarim</i> 87. The Mishnah says there: "If she said 'I swear that I will not eat either these figs or grapes,' and her husband confirms the part about her not eating figs, he has confirmed the entire vow. If the husband annulled the part of her vow concerning the figs, however she is still bound by the vow not to eat the grapes until her husband invalidates that part of her vow also. If she said: 'I swear not to eat these grapes, and I swear not to eat these figs,' she has made two separate vows.'" The Talmud explains that this Mishnah must be understood according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael who holds that the words אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו, "her husband may confirm it, or her husband may annul it," refer to the example cited in our Mishnah, that as long her husband has confirmed part of her vow he is considered as having confirmed the whole of it and his wife is bound to observe both parts of her vow. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, interprets the word יקימנו, to mean that the letters מנו in the word יקימנו (30,14) are to be understood as ממנו, "part of it.' He argues that just as her husband may confirm any part of her vow, so he may also annul any part of her vow so that partial confirmation equals total confirmation, so he only needs to annul part of her vow to invalidate all of it. Rabbi Yishmael counters that the Torah, after all, did not write ממנו, "a part of it?" Rabbi Akiva makes a conceptual comparison (מקיש) between invalidating a vow and confirming it. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees claiming that this is both Rabbi Yishmael's and Rabbi Akiva's approach, but that the other sages make the conceptual comparison between 1) confirming of a vow and 2) invalidating it. Just as in the case of invalidating a vow only the part of the vow which he has invalidated is affected, so when he has confirmed it only the part which he has actually confirmed is binding on his wife. The above is the version of our Talmud. Tossaphot, Ran and Nachmanides have a different version in which the conceptual comparison is reversed as follows: "Just as a partial annulment is not valid, so a partial confirmation is not valid (i.e. at all)." According to that version Rabbi Yishmael and the other sages share the same opinion. I believe that this is the correct version as is proved by the <i>Tossephta.</i>
  As a result of what we have heard so far, we are faced with three possible approaches to the problem. 1) The view of Rabbi Yishmael quoted by Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi when he edited the Mishnah, that as long as the husband confirmed part of his wife's vow he confirmed all of it, whereas if he annulled only part of it, the only part which is annulled is the part which he spelled out. 2) The approach of Rabbi Akiva that whenever the husband either confirmed or annulled part of his wife's vow, he has in effect confirmed or annulled all of it. 3) The approach of the sages that any partial approval or partial annulment is legally invalid. The wording of our verse can be explained satisfactorily according to the view of each one of these three approaches.
  Rabbi Yishmael's view as expressed in the text of the Mishnah understands the verse as follows: "and her father (or husband) hears about her vow (singular) teaches that the verse speaks about a woman who made a single vow such as when she lumps together the figs and the grapes saying only once: "I vow not to eat, etc." This excludes a situation where she used the words "I vow not to eat" more than once in relation to two or more items she vows to abstain from.
  When the Torah continues about her vows (plural) remaining in force if her husband remained silent when he heard the vow, the Torah refers to the kind of vow mentioned at the end of the Mishnah when she said: "I vow not to eat these figs, and I vow not to eat these grapes," and the husband remained silent only concerning part of her vows. Concerning such a situation, the Torah continues: "if her father heard about it and remained silent, then all her vows are in force." The reason the Torah writes "all" is to tell us that even if the husband remained silent concerning only a single part of her vow(s) i.e. he did not oppose the vow not to eat figs, all her vows remain valid. What Rabbi Yishmael meant to tell us was that the word והחריש, "he remained silent," does not mean he has to remain silent concerning the entire vow in order for it to remain valid. Had the meaning of the word והחריש been total silence by the husband or father, the Torah would not have needed to tell us that all her vows remain valid. Who would have imagined that such vows would not remain valid? The Torah therefore must have wanted us to appreciate that the words והחריש לה did not mean total silence but objection to only part of her vows.
  When the Torah continues וכל אסר..יקום, "and any prohibition will remain if force," this means that when the words "all her vows (pl)" were used, the Torah did not refer to the kind of vows in which each part was introduced with the preface "I will not eat, etc.," but to vows in which a number of prohibitions were all lumped together under a single heading of: "I will not eat such an such, such and such, etc." The fact that the Torah uses the term אסר in connection with the rule יקום is no problem as the laws for vows or oaths are interchangeable as we know from verse 3 where the Torah speaks of "or." 
  The reason the Torah writes יקום instead of merely relying on the word וקמו which preceded it in the same verse, is that in that event the word וקמו would have had to apply also to the case in our Mishnah where by uttering a single vow (formula) the woman included several matters she undertook to abstain from. I would then have misunderstood the meaning of the words והחריש לה, that "her husband remained silent." The word יקום in the singular is needed then to teach that the husband has to express his consent by silence to every part of the vow in order for it to be valid.
  When the Torah continues: ואם הניא אביה אותה, "but if her father disallow her," the words כל נדריה, "all her vows" mean that he has to disallow all parts of her vow or vows in order to make his objection legal. If he only expressed objection to his daughter's vow not to eat the figs under discussion, his objection remains meaningless until he also objects to her abstaining from the grapes she vowed not to eat at the same time. The word לא יקום recurs at the end of verse 6 in the singular again to alert us to the fact that the Torah speaks about a single vow (with more than one part) such as at the beginning of the Mishnah from <i>Nedarim</i> we have quoted.
  According to the view of Rabbi Akiva that objection to part of her vow invalidates the whole vow and that consent to part of her vow means consent to her entire vow, our verses have to be understood in the following manner: ושמע אביה….. והחריש, "if her father remains silent when he hears about her vows, etc," the word ושמע refers to his having heard only part of her vow and his having remained silent to what he heard. In such an event the Torah legislates וקמו כל נדריה, "all her vows are valid," i.e. even the parts of her vow which her father has never heard about. The Torah then continues: ואם הניא אביה אותה, "if her father disallows her," meaning that even if he disallows only part of her vow, as long as he disallows part of her vow he has exercised his authority in this respect concerning her whole vow. This is why there is no need to follow this up with the words כל נדריה, "all her vows, or her entire vow, i.e. every part of it." If the meaning had been that the father had to disallow all her vows in order to be legally effective, what need was there for the Torah to add the word אותה? Seeing that the Torah saw fit to write the word אותה, it is clear that this word belongs to what follows, i.e. to the words לא יקום, it does not remain valid (singular), to inform us that the father succeeded in annulling even the part of the vow he had not specifically objected to.
  Once we follow this approach the words: "and G'd will forgive her" at the end of our verse (6) make excellent sense. Supposing her father had only heard that she vowed to abstain from figs and did not even know about her also having vowed to abstain from grapes, and the woman, unaware of her father's ignorance, had nonetheless violated her vow by eating the grapes she had vowed not to eat, then G'd's forgiveness is needed because as far as she was concerned she had sinned. The news the Torah conveys with the words: "and G'd wil forgive her" is that even in such a case G'd forgives her trespass. This has to be spelled out so that we understand that the object of G'ds forgiveness is an absence of knowledge on the woman's part which was the cause of her inadvertently eating what her husband had not allowed her to eat.
  Finally, according to the view of the sages that neither partial confirmation nor partial disallowance of the woman's vow is legally effective, the verse has to be understood as follows: The Torah phrased the words: "if her father hears of her vow" in the singular to alert you to the fact that the subject is a single vow, i.e. a single declaration "I will abstain from, etc.," as oppposed to a situation when the woman made two vows as I have already explained in connection with the view of Rabbi Yishmael. The Torah continues with "and her father remains silent…her entire vow (i.e. all parts of her vow) will stand." The words כל נדריה, "all her vows" refer both to what was written immediately before and prior to that. The meter of the verse then is: "if her father remains silent, i.e. under which circumstance is his silence effective to keep her vows valid? Answer: if his silence covered all parts of her vow; however, if it covered only part of her vow his silence is legally quite ineffectual."
  The Torah then continues: "if her father disallows her…all her vows will not stand." The words "all her vows" now refer to what the Torah had already spoken of, i.e. if his disallowance covers all parts of previously mentioned vows, or all parts of her previously mentioned vow; then she does not even have to honour any part of her vow. The Torah reminded us by use of these words that in the event the father's disallowance had failed to cover even a single part of her vow, the words לא יקום do not apply. Although we have also said that the words כל נדריה may be applied to what follows instead of to what had been written before, the wording still makes sense as we then interpret the words לא יקום as applying, provided that all her vows are included in the disallowance; in other words the futility of cancelling part of the vow or vows would not then apply and all her vows are cancelled. All of the above applies only when she had made only a single vow though this vow included several parts as we deduced from the words: "and her father has heard her vow (singular). If, however, she had made separate vows i.e. prefacing each clause with the words: "I swear I will abstain, etc." then cancellation of one vow has nothing to do with cancellation or confirmation of the other vow.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואם הפר יפר אותם אישה, "But if her husband will surely declare her vow null and void, etc." In order to understand why the Torah repeated the word הפר and why the Torah wrote the words כל מוצא שפתיה, "everything which her lips uttered," can be understood with the help of <i>Nedarim</i> 82. We are told there in the name of Shemuel that "if she vowed not to eat two loaves of bread, and observing her vow concerning one of these loaves represents hardship for her, [i.e. it looks very appetizing Ed.] whereas abstaining from the other loaf does not represent any hardship for her, then, if the husband cancels the loaf which represents hardship, he automatically is also considered as having cancelled the vow not to eat the other loaf." It is such a situation which our verse envisaged when referring to two הפרות, cancellations, or breaching of the vow. Once the husband has cancelled the part of her vow which is subject to his prerogative to cancel, he has also cancelled the part which is not subject to his authority to cancel. [one must appreciate here that the husband's entire authority stems from the fact that if his wife suffers emotionally as a result of her vow, this disturbs the harmonious relationship between him and his wife. Ed.] The Torah goes on with כל מוצא שפתיה לא יקום, that none of her utterances are valid. This means that even if her husband disallowed those parts of her vow over which he has no legal authority, they become ineffective because he has already disallowed the parts over which he does have legal authority. According to the approach of Rav Assi who disagreed with this interpretation in <i>Nedarim,</i> claiming that the prerogative of the woman's husband extends only to the part of the vow which is burdensome for her and therefore potentially also for him, we would have to explain the words in this verse as follows: אם הפר, "if the husband disallows something which he is entitled to disallow," יפר, "his objection is legally valid;" it is not valid, however, concerning parts of his wife's vow which does not have the potential to bother him and which therefore is excluded from this whole legislation. The reason the Torah had to write both the word כל and the word נדריה was to inform us that even if the vow is made up of two parts only one of which is burdensome for the wife, the parts of the vow are lumped together for the purpose of disallowing it.
  Our verse becomes clearer when we consider what the Mishnah says in <i>Nedarim</i> 87 [The subject is a husband or father who has failed to dissolve his wife's or his daughter's vow within the prescribed period of time because he was unaware of part of the legislation and who now explains his dilemma to a collegium of judges. Ed.] When someone says: "I am aware that there are regulations regarding the keeping of vows, but I was unaware of my right to disallow some such vows;" he is allowed to disallow the vow in question at the later date when he was told the regulations. Alternatively, this petitioner says: "I am aware that there are regulations concerning disallowing certain vows, but I was not aware of the regulations which pertain to keeping the vows." In such a case Rabbi Meir holds that the petitioner is not now allowed to disallow the vow in question whereas the sages hold that he is allowed to do so. Thus far the Mishnah. The words הפר יפר in our verse may refer to the situation discussed in the Mishnah we just quoted. In other words, even if the error concerned only the disallowing of the vow, if the husband disallows it belatedly because he was unaware of the law he may do so (in accordance with the view of the sages). As to the view of Rabbi Meir, the repetition of the words הפר יפר may be understood thus: "there are occasions when even after the time has elapsed we allow the husband or father to exercise the right to disallow his wife's or his daughter's vow which the Torah has provided; however this belated disallowing is only possible if the petitioner did not know that he possessed such a right at all." According to the view of Rabbi Meir, לנדריה means: "when is her husband able to disallow her vows even after the time set aside for this by the Torah has elapsed? If her husband did not make an error once he became aware of his rights under this legislation." According to the view of the sages, the word לנדריה would simply mean: "when he became aware of the nature of her vows." The word would then teach you that even though the husband's error concerned the vow itself and not his ability to disallow it, he is permitted to disallow it once he finds out that he had been in error.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ואם הפר יפר, "and if he surely decides to disallow, etc." This verse means that even when the vows he now decides to disallow are the type which he could have disallowed during the prescribed period, now that he has waited too long, he can no longer exercise his authority but must bear her guilt (if she violates her vow).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וידבר ה׳…נקם נקמת בני ישראל G'd said:…"avenge the children of Israel, etc." If the purpose of the word לאמור in verse one was for Moses to tell these instructions to the people why did the Torah not write the plural form, i.e. נקמו נקמתכם instead of writing נקם נקמת? <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on our verse says that the word וידבר always refers to "tough talk." Moses began by appeasing G'd concerning his forthcoming death and G'd refused to be appeased in the matter. Moses said to G'd: "why should I die seeing I have witnessed so many miracles, etc.?" G'd was willing to meet Moses half-way saying: "if you want to live on for a number of years the Israelites will not live to see the defeat of their enemies during those years; neither will Midian be conquered by them. After Moses had allowed G'd to convince him that it was better he should die now, G'd in turn found it difficult to issue orders the fulfilment of which would be the cause of Moses' death. It is evident that the author of this <i>Midrash</i> appreciated the problem we have raised. According to his explanation the wording of our verse is justified. The word וידבר which expresses "tough talk," could refer to two kinds of harshness. 1) Moses and his forthcoming death; 2) G'd's feeling about the need to have Moses die and to have imposed this penalty upon him. The word לאמור is an allusion to the words of appeasement G'd had spoken to Moses when he wanted to convince him that his very death would be the greatest service he could render to his people at that time. Alternatively, the word לאמור may refer to everything Moses said to G'd trying to persuade Him not to let him die at this time. G'd's answer was: "avenge the children of Israel, etc."
  Searching for the plain meaning of these words yields the following result. The reason G'd said to Moses וידבר, i.e. He spoke harshly was to tell him to act with authority when recruiting the soldiers for the campaign. The commandment to punish the Midianites was to be treated with the same degree of seriousness as any of the 613 commandments which were given to the people for all times. The word לאמור, as usual, means to tell the Israelites. In this instance this instruction was especially necessary because seeing that G'd appeared to have given this task to Moses personally by saying נקם instead of נקמו Moses might have thought that this commandment was addressed exclusively to him. This is not as strange as it sounds as Moses was a great hero physically, especially with G'd on his side. If we examine deeds of valour performed by Yonathan son of King Saul and recorded in Samuel I chapter 14, it should not surprise us if G'd had indeed told Moses to avenge the Israelites single- handedly. The reason G'd used the singular although He meant for the Israelites to participate in the campaign is that Moses' approaching death depended on the completion of this campaign first i.e. אחר תאסף לעמך. In view of the fact that this campaign and its timing determined when Moses would die, it was quite in order for the Torah to describe this as primarily Moses' campaign. By choosing to give orders for this campaign to be conducted without delay, Moses displayed his מסירת נפש, self-sacrifice, in order to carry out G'd's instructions. We will offer yet another interpretation of this verse.
  
  Verse 2
  
   נקם נקמת, "avenge the Israelites, etc." The plain meaning of the verse is that G'd delegated Moses to carry out this task. How is it possible then that he did not even accompany the soldiers into battle? Although I have explained previously that the vengeance Moses took consisted of telling the people to launch this campaign, the plain meaning of the verse cannot be ignored. Who allowed Moses to send Pinchas instead when G'd had told him to take vengeance? Furthermore, why did the Torah make Moses' death depended on the completion of this punitive expedition?
  The command: "take vengeance" is capable of two interpretations. 1) Moses was to prepare the campaign logistically and make all the preparations to ensure it would be militarily successful; 2) the actual battle which is the act of revenge. Moses understood correctly that what G'd wanted him to do was to prepare the groundwork to insure that the campaign would be successful. Moses reasoned that since G'd had not said to him הלחם במדין, "go into battle against Midian" -which would have been an unmistakable command- that what G'd wanted him to do was to plan the strategy. Moses also realised that he had to proceed with great astuteness as after all, in their previous encounter with the women of Midian the Israelites had become embroiled in the sin of גלוי עריות, some of them actively others only in their fantasies. While it was true that G'd had killed a substantial number of the active participants in that sin by the plague whereas others had been miraculously saved by Pinchas' deed, the accuser would certainly be at hand when the Israelites who had been steeped in sin were going to attack these people claiming moral superiority as their justification to kill all the male Midianites. It stood to reason that the Israelites were going to suffer a great number of casualties in such a campaign. There is some comparison here to the sin of the golden calf which resulted in Aaron being forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies in gold-trimmed garments so as not to endanger himself through arousing Satan and the attribute of Justice by reminding G'd of that sin (compare <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 27). According to <i>Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer</i> chapter 4, G'd also commanded the angels described in Isaiah's vision (Isaiah 6,2) to cover their feet with their wings in order that G'd should not be reminded of the sin of the golden calf as the feet of these angels were like those of calves. If this was so during normal times, in times of war the chances are even greater that the "accusers" will remind G'd of sins the Israelites had committed in order to cause their deaths in battle. <i>Sotah</i> 44 affords us an insight into the types of relatively minor sins that are capable of causing a soldier going to war to become a casualty. If someone was aware that he had engaged in conversation between putting on the phylacteries on the arm and the phylacteries on the head, he was sent home before the army joined the enemy in battle so that he would not become a casualty on account of that sin. All the Israelites who had been guilty of entertaining sexual fantasies involving the Moabite or Midianite women were not fit to be part of the punitive expedition as they would have exposed themselves to Satan and his forces at such a time. Clearly, when G'd told Moses to exact vengeance from the Midianites, He expected Moses to have such considerations in mind.
  The Torah continues ואחר תאסף אל עמיך. It would appear that until the campaign had been successfully completed Moses could not die peacefully as his people had not been rehabilitated. It would not do for Moses to leave behind his people in need of spiritual rehabilitation. His soul would not be able to face the hereafter with peace of mind. According to the Kabbalists the place one occupies in the hereafter while awaiting final judgment is called עמיו, "his people." G'd examines every single one of our sins during that judgment. We know all this from Psalms 50,3 וסביביו נשערה מאד, "around Him it stormed fiercely." The cause that would prevent Moses from occupying this place called עמיו was the affair of Zimri ben Salu which had found Moses paralysed, inactive, as described by <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,24. Moses' hands were weakened by Zimri's challenge to him. [Zimri had asked Moses why he could not sleep with a Midianite woman seeing that Moses himself had married a Midianite woman. Ed.] G'd was angry that Moses had not avenged Him until Pinchas had done so. As a result, G'd told Moses that he could not die peacefully until he had rehabilitated himself by organising the punitive expedition against Midian. Once Moses had taken care of this assignment he would be able to die without the need to face an accuser after his death. This was one of the great acts of kindness G'd performed for Moses.
  מאת המדינים. "from the Midianites." Why did the Torah write the word מאת instead of merely writing מהמדינים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint at an ex Midianite who was in his birthplace at that time, i.e. Bileam. As a result of Bileam's being in the land of Midian at the time of this expedition the Israelites killed him by the sword (compare 31,8). Perhaps the reason G'd was in a hurry for this campaign to be launched was precisely because He was aware that Bileam was in that land at that time. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 106 tells us that the reason Bileam had travelled to Midian which was a long way from his home in Petorah was in order to collect his reward for having given the advice to seduce the Israelites as a result of which 24.000 of them died. G'd prepared a net for him to fall into when He ordered this campaign at that time.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וידבר משה…החלצו מאתכם, Moses said.. "mobilise from amongst you, etc." The word לאמור in this verse is puzzling. To whom were the people supposed to relay what Moses told them? Furthermore, why did Moses use the expression החלצו instead of the formulation Moses used in Exodus 17,9 when he said to Joshua: בחר לנו אנשים, "choose some men for us, etc.?" Why did he not order Pinchas to do what he had ordered Joshua to do at that time instead of addressing his command to the people at large? Another peculiarity in this verse are the words ויהיו על מדין "so that they will be against Midian." Moses should have said: "so that they will do battle against Midian." Moreover, why did Moses change G'd's instructions? G'd had told Moses נקם נקמת בני ישראל, "avenge the vengeance of the Israelites," whereas Moses told the people to exact "G'd's vengeance," i.e. לתת נקמת השם? Besides, why did Moses not send a large army but selected only 1.000 men per tribe? Who had given him authority to send such a small force of soldiers against a numerically far superior people [governed by 5 kings Ed.]? When you consider that 32.000 girls who were still virgins were left you can arrive at some idea how many there must have been originally.
  However, as we already mentioned in our introduction, this expedition was based on the attackers' moral superiority over its adversaries as evidenced by G'd's instruction to "avenge." Moses had to mobilise the kind of soldiers whose fantasies had not run wild at the time of the debacle in Shittim. How was he to know which one of the Israelites had indulged in sinful thoughts at the time? Moses therefore advised each man of military age to examine himself in this matter. This is the meaning of החלצו מאתכם, "separate yourselves from your own selves," i.e. examine your conscience if you are morally fit to take part in such a punitive expedition of the morally superior against the morally inferior. Only those who knew that they could qualify under this heading would be considered for the contingent of 1.000 per tribe. The word לאמור is a hint that these people should all "speak to their inner selves on this subject." Perhaps the very word לאמור was even an allusion to the sin of גלוי עריות as we find in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 56 "the word לאמור refers to illicit sex." According to <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> on our verse these men were all righteous. Although we have explained elsewhere that one can only derive such a conclusion from the word אנשים when this word is superfluous in the text, in our instance there is independent support for the theory that the אנשים mentioned here had to be righteous men. Seeing this was so they had no reason to worry although they would be far outnumbered by the Midianites. Moreover, they were not only righteous but they qualified for the appellation חסידים, "pious," because they had been confronted with a powerful temptation and had conquered it. <i>Zohar Chadash</i> volume 3 page 195 states that this is the basis for someone being described as pious. This then explains Moses' considerations as to whom to select and how many to select.
  ויהיו על מדין, "and they will be against Midian." We can best explain this expression by reverting to a statement of the Kabbalists that sanctity is the mystical foundation of spiritual ascent, whereas the קליפה, the source of negative spiritual forces are the mystical foundation of spiritual descent of a human being. Once a person commits a sin, part of the קליפה, attaches itself to him and becomes part of his nature causing him to become degraded. We have explained this already at the beginning of <i>Parshat Ki Tissa</i> in connection with Exodus 30,12 (my translation page 814). The words על מדין then mean that these pious soldiers should be able to be "above Midian," i.e. be spiritually superior. None of the forces of impurity which cling to the Midianites would cling to these soldiers.
  לתת נקמת השם, "to execute G'd's vengeance." This too was part of Moses' astuteness, his endeavour to achieve the objective of avenging the sin the Midianites had caused the Jewish people to commit. Moses commanded these soldiers that their motivation should be to avenge a wrong done to G'd whose commandments the Midianites had caused the Jewish people to violate and neglect. Their vengeance should not focus on the fact that the Midianites had caused the death of so many Israelites. If that were to be their motivation in going to war against the Midianites this would not be a מצוה which would help them succeed in this campaign without sustaining casualties. It is true that G'd Himself had told Moses that the Israelites were to avenge what the Midianites had done to them. However, the Torah does not say that G'd told Moses to convey this thought to the Israelites. In G'd's conversation with Moses He left it to Moses to figure out the best way to achieve the result G'd had in mind.
  Our verse may also be understood thus: There would be no need for these soldiers to actually fight a battle; all they had to do was to be there physically. G'd would do the fighting on their behalf. The reason was לתת נקמת השם, it was to be a vengeance which G'd exacted from Midian. The situation was similar to Exodus 14,14 when Moses told the people not to worry, but that G'd would fight the Egyptians on their behalf.
  וימסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה, One thousand men per tribe were handed over from amongst the many thousands of Israelites, etc. This means that everyone who was certain that he fulfilled the qualifications needed volunteered to be part of the thousand men from his tribe. Once the number 1.000 in that tribe had been reached no further volunteers were asked for. Moses deliberately limited the number in each tribe to one thousand so as not to create a situation which would be embarassing, such as when one tribe would field many more volunteers than another.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וישלח אותם ואת פנחס, Moses sent them…together with Pinchas, etc. The reason the Torah wrote the word וישלח, "he sent them," was to make the soldiers participating in this campaign into שלוחי מצוה, delegates charged with the performance of a sacred duty, a מצוה. We have the rule that delegates on a מצוה-mission are safe from harm while performing their task. The verse repeats the word אתם to tell us that the presence of Pinchas with these twelve thousand pious soldiers doubled their effectiveness; Pinchas was equivalent in piety to all the other 12.000 soldiers combined.
  The fact that Moses selected Pinchas instead of Joshua to be the leader of this expedition was also an astute move by Moses. Pinchas had already demonstrated jealousy on behalf of G'd. Who could have served as better inspiration for the task at hand than Pinchas? He radiated more destructive power against negative spiritual forces than did Joshua. It is also possible that Moses was afraid of the people who would assail these soldiers wanting to know that if they considered themselves as so pious why had they not protested the involvement of their brethren in the harlotry and thus helped prevent such sins from being perpetrated? To head off such criticism Moses sent along Pinchas who had risked his life in order to bring this harlotry to a stop. Perhaps this is what the Torah alluded to with the unusual construction אתם ואת פנחס, "they together with Pinchas." Moses hoped that by his presence Pinchas would supply the missing factor, i.e. the preparedness for self sacrifice in order to stop others from sinning, something which even the pious soldiers had not contributed at the time of the debacle at Shittim. It is possible that G'd already originally intended that only someone of the calibre of Pinchas could wipe out the shameful stain which would remain on Israel's character if the Midianites were allowed "to get away" with what they had done. G'd was grateful to Moses' choice of Pinchas as the leader of this expedition. G'd Himself had not wanted to direct Moses to appoint Pinchas in charge of this expedition fearing that such a directive might have made Moses think that he himself was not qualified to lead this punitive campaign. The result of G'd's astuteness was that His desire was carried out without Moses becoming embarassed in the process.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואת מלכי..חמשת מלכי מדין, "and the kings of Midian….-the five kings of Midian." The reason that the Torah spelled out their number (i.e. 5), something we had already counted ourselves, was to tell us that they were all killed next to one another so that all the soldiers could count the bodies of these five kings whom they had slain. The reason why the Torah repeats that they were kings may have been to tell us that they were killed by soldiers who knew full well that these five men were kings. They were not the victims of random killings.
  הרגו בחרב, they killed by the sword. The Torah had to write the word הרגו, "they killed" once more when describing the manner of Bileam's death though we gleaned his information already from the context (end of verse 7). The reason is best understood when we read <i>Sifri</i> where it is stated that Bileam had gone there to collect his fee for the diabolical advice he had given Balak with such stunning results. According to <i>Sifri,</i> at that moment Bileam was on the way to advise the Israelites not to make war against Midian saying to them that if they had been unable to overcome Midian when the were able to field 600.000 fighting men, now that they numbered fewer they would certainly not be able to do so. According to the <i>Sifri</i> that the Israelites killed Bileam as a response to his effrontery, he was killed before the battle against the Midianites had taken place. This was all part of G'd's clever plot. He wanted to demonstrate that Bileam did not die because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that He, G'd, had arranged things so that the Israelites would have an excuse to single him out for killing. Had the Torah not repeated the word הרגו unnecessarily, we would not have been able to deduce this from the text. The emphasis on the word בחרב, "by the sword," is to show that all his sorcery did not help Bileam and instead of their "killing" only his alter ego they killed his body.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   הן הנה….בדבר בלעם, "these are the very ones…in the affair with Bileam, etc." We must try and understand what Moses meant when he referred to "these are the very ones, etc." Besides, why was Moses so long-winded in his reference to Bileam and (subsequently) to פעור. The matter will become clear once we understand why both Pinchas and the pious people who had gone with him committed such an error.
  Pinchas and his colleagues reasoned that the women who had played temptresses at the time had acted under duress, only carrying out their husbands' orders. Unmarried girls were similarly under duress having been ordered by their fathers to do whatever they had done to seduce the Israelites. Accordingly, Pinchas did not think that these women were guilty of death. Moses appreciated the considerations which had prompted Pinchas and his soldiers. This is why he pointed out that Pinchas and his colleagues would have been correct if the only thing these women had been guilty of was to cause the Israelites to indulge in illicit sex. However, in addition to their carrying out their husbands' and their fathers' orders respectively, they had committed another sin, one which they committed out of their own free will, namely that of Peor, i.e. getting the Israelites to worship that deity. According to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 20,23 these women prevailed on the Israelites to perform acts of obeisance to the image of Peor before letting them indulge their carnal desires. For this sin they were guilty of death, and this is what Moses referred to when he said הן הנה, i.e. they themselves (without outside pressure) initiated this part of the seduction. בדבר בלעם, at the instigation of Bileam, i.e. through the advice of Bileam to have the women offer themselves as sexual partners to the Israelites. If you examine the writings of our sages on the subject you will find that they attribute to Bileam only the advice that the Israelites be seduced sexually. Bileam never said that these women were to seduce the Israelites to worship or appear to worship any idols. By refusing to sleep with the Israelites unless the latter had first performed an act of idolatry, these women were guilty of the מעל בשם, the trespass against the Eternal G'd which our verse speaks about.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ועתה הדגו….הדוגו. "and now kill!…..kill." Why did the Torah have to repeat the command to kill separately for young male Midianites and for females who were no longer virgins? <i>Sifri</i> quotes Rabbi Yishmael as saying that the second הרוגו was necessary to separate this verse from the following verse. Had the Torah not written this word in between I would have understood the words וכל אשה in our verse as capable of referring either to what is written in verse 18 or to what is written in our verse. This seems problematical. If Rabbi Yishmael were correct, why did the Torah not interpose a statement such as החיו לכם, "keep alive for yourselves," as it did at the end of verse 18? If the Torah had done this there would have been no need to write the word הרוגו twice! Perhaps the Torah was afraid to write החיו לכם at this juncture as it would have appeared then that Moses commanded the Israelites to keep these Midianite virgins alive. Actually, Moses only gave permission to keep them alive. This is why the words וכל הטף introduced verse 18 to inform the Israelites of the status of these survivors, not to order them to keep these people alive.
  We also need to understand the word הרגו at the beginning of verse 17. Why did the Torah not content itself with the word הרוגו at the end of this verse? Perhaps the Torah wanted to write the words ועתה הרגו together to teach the people that the rehabilitation of the nation which had been the objective of the whole campaign could not be achieved until the people mentioned in our verse had been killed. The sooner this would be accomplished, i.e. ועתה, "now," the sooner would the Israelites be completely rehabilitated concerning the sin at Shittim. Alternatively, the Torah may have wanted to write together the words הרגו לטף on the one hand and הרוגו לאשה, to indicate that we are dealing with two separate commandments. Or, the words simply allude to the fact that these people should be executed forthwith, i.e. ועתה.
  
  Verse 18
  
   החיו לכם, "keep alive for yourselves." The meaning is that those who were allowed to live should convert to Judaism and only when they were Jewish would they qualify for the description חיים, "to be alive," as then they would be allowed to get married and to remain "alive" by means of the children they would bear.
  
  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
  
  -43. ויהי המלקח, "The prey amounted to, etc." The lengthy description and the repetitive numbers in this whole sequence need analysis. Who amongst us cannot figure out what half of a total of 675.000 sheep amounts to? We can also figure out for ourselves what the מכס, the 2 pro mil tax given to the Temple-Treasury amounted to. Nachmanides wrote that the Torah wanted to inform us that not one of these animals had died since its capture until the distribution of the prey. I do not agree that the fact that the flocks did not diminish in the brief interval since the battle was something miraculous, at least not to the extent that we have to read about it every year, 3.700 years later.
  I believe that the reason that the Torah tells us what half the total of these flocks amounted to was to teach us that the calculation of the tax was based on the 500th animal being the tax rather than the 501st. This is the reason the Torah had to repeat this calculation in each instance. In other words, the tax amounted to one in 499 and not as we might have thought one in 500.
  The reason the Torah had to tell us how much the half which constitued the congregation's share consisted of was to prevent us from making another mistake. Unless the Torah had written matters as it did, we would have concluded that the tax was taken off the top before there was any division of the prey between the soldiers on the one hand and the people on the other hand. In view of the numbers recorded here it becomes clear that the soldiers paid their part of the tax from their collective share of the prey whereas the people paid their part from the total allocated to them as their share. The fact that the Torah only lists half of the total when describing the share of the people proves that the people and the soldiers each paid the tax separately from their respective shares; otherwise the people could not have received 36.000 heads of cattle, for instance.
  
  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
  
  -50. ויאמרו אל משה…ונקרב, They said to Moses:…"we have brought the Lord's offering, etc." The meaning of the soldiers saying that after counting who had returned from the battle it became clear that they had not suffered a single casualty was designed to convince Moses that not one of these soldiers who had volunteered had previously been guilty of any sin even remotely connected to the parts of the body on which these pieces of jewelry were worn , and which they had offered as atonement offerings for themselves. The expression ונקרב alluded to הרהורי עברה, fantasies about committing a sin. The purpose of the sacrifice was to atone for any such fantasies one had entertained (compare <i>Shabbat</i> 64). I have elaborated on this theme in my booklet called חפץ השם (on a variety of Talmudical subjects)
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
   כל כלי מעשה, "all kinds of wrought articles." We get an idea of the quantity and variety of the loot the Israelites captured from the Midianites if these wrought articles alone amounted to 16,750 shekels. The Torah (verse 53) adds: "each man looted for himself" after the Torah had already told us previously that the soldiers had looted for themselves. Why did the Torah mention this fact again in this context? Apparently the Torah wanted to tell us that this was the sum total of all the golden pieces which the commanders had captured, exclusive of what the common soldiers had captured which had been mentioned previously. Altogether, great riches had been found and captured.
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   אל אהל מועד זכרון לבני ישראל, to the Tent of Meeting as a memorial for the children of Israel, etc. Why did the Torah use the unusual way of separating the words "Tent of Meeting" and "before G'd" by interposing the words "as a memorial for the children of Israel?" These words should have appeared at the end of the verse! We may be able to understand our verse with the help of a statement in <i>Massechet Kallah.</i> Said Rabbi Achai bar Yoshiah: "anyone who turns away from a sin that he was about to commit becomes as fit as the High Priest to offer a sacrifice on the altar even if he is not a priest." Thus far the relevant statement of Rabbi Achai. The pieces of jewelry offered by the commanders of the punitive expedition in our verse as sacrifices were all in the nature of offerings after the owners had spurned the commission of sins which they were about to commit. The jewelry had been taken literally from the persons with whom the sin in question would have been committed. Our sages commented on Song of Songs, 6,6: "your teeth are like a flock of ewes," that during the war in question the Israelite soldiers removed the Midianite women's personal jewelry, smeared some kind of plaster and dung on their faces, took off their nose-rings so that they would not be tempted to look at them and to lust after them. This is what the Torah had in mind with the words לבני ישראל followed by the words לפני השם. The soldiers in question had elevated themselves to a spiritual level equivalent to the priests who offer the sacrifices before G'd in the Tabernacle. Their conduct became a memorial for future generations of Israelites.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ומקנה רב היה לבני ראובן, And the members of the tribe of Reuven had a great amount of cattle, etc. The Torah had to give us this information in order to justify their request to settle in the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. The Torah simply testifies that their claim was based on solid facts. The reason that these two tribes had so much more cattle than the other tribes was that the soldiers of these tribes were exceedingly brave and captured more loot than the soldiers of the other tribes.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמרו אל משה ואל אלעזר ואל נשיאי העדה, and they said to Moses, to Eleazar, and to the princes of the congregation, etc. We need to know why they were not content to speak to Moses alone; if there was no need for them to address also Eleazar and the princes in the matter there was also no need for the Torah to report this. Perhaps the reason was simply that they had noted that when the general legislation about distributing the land of Canaan was made public in Numbers 34,17-18, Eleazar and Joshua as well as the princes were present. Also the daughters of Tzelofchod had made certain that Moses, Eleazar, and the princes were present when they presented their claim (27,2). In order for this distribution to be valid and not subject to complaints at a later date, it had to be confirmed by the king, i.e. Moses (and subsequently Joshua), by the High Priest, i.e. Eleazar, and by the lay leaders, i.e. the princes. Each one of these leaders possessed an exclusive authority. Maimonides wrote in chapter four section ten of his treatise <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> that when a (Jewish) king conquers a country the whole country becomes legally his, and he can dispose of it to his servants as he sees fit. This shows that the king has overriding authority. As far as the princes are concerned, they enter the picture when the king wants to share out to every one of his people a fair share of the spoils. In such a situation all the representatives of the people, i.e. the princes, need to be present and arrive at an agreed formula at the time the shares are handed out. The function of the High Priest was to inform the people where their respective shares were located. In other words, the king might have decreed for everyone to receive 100 acres of land but did not say who was to get which parcel of 100 acres. You will note that each one of these three authorities had to contribute his opinion in order for the distribution to take place without friction. Furthermore, inasmuch as the function of the king could only be fulfilled after he had conquered the land and the people were settled therein but not at the beginning of the whole process of conquest, it certainly would not have been sufficient for the tribes of Reuven and Gad to submit their claim only to Moses for his adjudication. The word לאמור may mean that the princes were to convey the claim of Gad and Reuven to the people at large in order to secure their approval also. Alternatively, the word emphasises that their claim was presented in "soft language," i.e. אמירה; they were not aggressive in the manner in which they presented their request.
  
  Verse 3
  
  עטרות ודיבון, "Attarot and Divon, etc." Why did they have to spell out all the names of the cities they claimed for themselves as an inheritance? Why did they not simply say: "the land which G'd smote, etc.?" Or, they could have detailed districts as described in 32,1 i.e. ארץ יעזר ואת ארץ גלעד? Furthermore, What need was there for them to say הארץ אשר הכה השם? Were there then any other lands which G'd had smitten? Who would not have known which lands the tribes of Reuven and Gad referred to?
  The fact is that these tribes were astute enough to present their claims in a manner which would not expose them to any objections. Theoretically, there could have been several objections. 1) Seeing that the lands in question had been conquered by the people as a whole, by what right did two tribes claim all of it for themselves? 2) How could these two tribes even have imagined that they would be allowed to live securely in a land which had already been conquered whereas the other tribes would have to face war in order to secure their heritage? Why wouldn't every other tribe want to be awarded the territory the tribe of Gad and Reuven were interested in, claiming that they too had no desire to endanger themselves in the forthcoming battle against the Canaanites? Moreover, these two tribes exposed themselves to the taunt that they had chosen to live outside the boundaries of the Holy Land!
  The tribes Reuven and Gad were therefore careful to word their intial request with a view to neutralising the objections which we have just listed. They incorporated the answers to the three objections we described in their opening statement. This is why they mentioned both Attarot, etc. as well as "the land which G'd has smitten." Concerning the argument that the lands of Sichon and Og had been conquered by all the tribes, they replied that these lands had not been conquered by natural means but that G'd had smitten those kings, so that the claim of the other tribes to have waged a battle for these lands simply did not stand up to examination. As a result of Divine intervention these lands were G'd's to allocate and their claim did not interfere with the rights of the other tribes.
  As to the second argument that the other tribes would have to endanger themselves while the tribes of Reuven and Gad were "sitting pretty," they said that such an argument would only be sound if the Israelites had to conquer the Canaanites by their own effort. Seeing that it was G'd who would fight on their behalf, the conquest of Canaan would proceed on the same lines as that of the lands of Sichon and Og. The other tribes would therefore not be in greater danger than they had been when the lands of Sichon and Og were conquered. Moses himself is on record in Deut. 3,21 as saying: "I have commanded Joshua at that time telling him: 'you have seen with your own eyes all that G'd has done to the two kings of the Emorites; He will do the same to all the kingdoms on the other side to which you will cross.'" In view of this assurance, Reuven and Gad felt that the other tribes had no argument that they were being abandoned and would have to face danger all by themselves.
  These two tribes also countered the argument that they were placing themselves outside the Holy Land by residing on the East Bank of the Jordan river, pointing out that G'd had extended His protection to the Israelites to help them conquer these lands. Maimonides writes as follows in chapter one of his treatise on <i>Trumot and Maasrot</i>. "The land of Israel comprises every place which has been conquered by a Jewish king or prophet provided such a conquest had met with the approval of most of the nation. However, if an individual Israelite or even a whole tribe had made war on their neighbours and conquered their territory or part of it, such lands would not be considered as part of the Holy Land even if the territory in question had been part of the land promised by G'd to Abraham." Thus far Maimonides on the subject. He wrote further -in connection with the territories captured by king David,- "why were these lands not considered as on the same level of holiness as the land of Israel? Because David conquered these territories before Israel had conquered all the parts of the land of Canaan which G'd had commanded Joshua to conquer." The basis of the הלכה that also lands outside the boundaries of what we call ארץ ישראל proper will be incorporated halachically is found in <i>Sifri</i> at the end of <i>Parshat Eykev</i>. It is based on Deut. 11,24: "every place that the ball of your foot will step on will remain yours." Seeing that conquest and possession of the land of Israel proper and its boundaries have been mentioned in Joshua chapter five, it is clear that the subject of this verse are lands outside the areas which constitute ארץ ישראל proper. <i>Sifri</i> explains that the reason this verse becomes operative only after the Israelites had dispossessed all the Canaanites within ארץ ישראל proper is so as not to transfer remnants of the impurities and abominations which the Israelites tolerated within their boundaries to newly captured territory. Thus far <i>Sifri</i> on the subject. It is clear from all this that if it had not been for the delay of hundreds of years in expelling or liquidating local inhabitants such as the Jebusite in Jerusalem, for instance, any land conquered by a majority of Israelites would have become incorporated as part of ארץ ישראל proper for all time. At any rate, the tribes Reuven and Gad referred to the territory they wished to settle in as equal in sanctity to that yet to be conquered seeing that G'd had smitten the kings and armies of those lands.
  As far as a statement in the <i>Sifri</i> that territory conquered on the East Bank of the Jordan prior to the conquest of the lands on the West Bank does not enjoy the status of sanctity enjoyed by the lands on the West Bank is concerned, and that therefore the lands chosen for themselves by these tribes were not part of the "Holy Land," these tribes countered that this situation was exceptional in view of the fact that G'd had smitten these kings in contrast to their having been conquered by human effort. Hence the sanctity of the land of Israel did apply also to these lands. They were able to quote Moses himself who had stated in Deut. 2,31 that G'd had said to him (not to Joshua) "behold I have begun to deliver up Sichon and his land before you; begin to possess the land." In Deut. 3,2 G'd gave similar instructions to Moses concerning Og and his lands. All of this was proof that G'd had approved the early conquest of these lands. There was also good logic to support such a view as otherwise we would have dealt with two separate conquests, that of lands outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that of the West Bank. If this had been the case, the same accusation could have been levelled against the Israelites including Moses at the time that were levelled against David who conquered Aram Tzovah before bothering to conquer Jerusalem. [this is part of the <i>Sifri</i>, although somewhat difficult to confirm from Biblical sources. In fact, Samuel II chapter 9 and 10 both seem to indicate that Jerusalem had been captured previously. Whereas we are told in chapter 8 that David captured ארם צובה, he brought the prisoners to Jerusalem. How could he have done so without capturing Jerusalem first? Ed.] In our situation, the capture of the lands of Sichon and Og were a necessary prerequisite to the conquest of the West Bank. The Israelites had even requested passage to the West Bank through the lands of Sichon and Og but the latter had refused so that there was no other alternative. Conquest of those lands could not be compared to conquest of Aram Tzovah prior to the conquest of Jerusalem then.
  Having mentioned all this we now understand why these two tribes spelled out the names of all the cities they were interested in. They wanted to show Moses that the only territory they were asking for was the territory which G'd had smitten. They claimed that all the places mentioned enjoyed the status of sanctity which applies to the Holy Land.
  ארץ מקנה היא ולעבדיך מקנה. "It is a land suitable for cattle and your servants possesss cattle." With these words they wanted to forestall another objection. Even after Moses would have agreed to the justice of their claim, the other tribes would all be able to make the same claim based on the same arguments. This is why they had to point out that none of the other tribes had as many heads of cattle as they did.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויאמרו…יתן את הארץ הזאת, They said:…"may this land be given to us." The word ויאמרו is necessary here although nobody had interrupted the spokesmen of the tribes of Gad and Reuven as yet. The Torah wanted to show by interposing this word that only now did these spokesmen address themselves to the real reason why they wanted just these lands. They did not say to Moses: תתן, "give," but יותן, "may it be given." The reason they formulated the request thus was because they were aware that it was not within Moses' authority alone to grant their wish, as we have already explained. They may have given Moses the option to allocate the land to them single-handedly seeing he was the king, or after consulting with Eleazar and the princes.
  אל תעברנו את הירדן, "do not make us cross the Jordan." <i>Baba Batra</i> 109 explains the meaning of the word העבר as being similar to the same word in Numbers 27,8: והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, "you will transfer his inheritance to his daughter." It means that the daughter transfers the inheritance from its original place. The two tribes implied that if Moses were not to grant their request he would in fact transfer their rightful inheritance from its proper place.
  They also intended to remove from themselves the suspicion that they chose this land in order to live more tranquilly and not enter the land of their enemies. This is why they explained that the reason they saw no point in crossing the Jordan was only that they did not stake a claim to any part of the land across the river. They were not motivated by a desire to escape their duty to take part in the war of conquest.
  They even implied that the fact that they would not cross the Jordan enabled all the other tribes to each receive larger slices of land than they would have received if they had to parcel it out amongst 12 tribes.
  It is also possible that they meant that no useful purpose would be served by their crossing the Jordan seeing G'd would do the fighting that had to be done anyway.
  
  Verse 6
  
  &lt;b&lt;span&gt;ויאמר משה…האחיכם יבואו למלחמה…ולמה תניאון, Moses said: "are your brethren going to go into battle, …and why do you turn away the heart, etc.?" Moses understood full well all that the tribes of Gad and Reuven had in mind with their words, in accordance with what we have explained. However, he advanced counter arguments. Moses addressed the argument that the lands really belonged to G'd to do with as He saw fit, and that the other tribes had not established a claim to these lands. He also responded to the argument that in the future too G'd would do the fighting so that their participation was irrelevant. He told them that it was quite true that G'd would do the fighting, but the army of the Israelites had to be present and prepared to do battle. He did not say האחיכם ילחמו, "are your brethren to do battle?," but he said האחיכם יבאו למלחמה, "are your brethren going to be present in order to do battle?" He could not understand that these two tribes were not willing to be present at the time when the Israelites would conquer the West Bank. Moses accused the two tribes of contradicting themselves as they were well aware that even though G'd had done the fighting which resulted in the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, nonetheless it had involved the soldiers in great fatigue. The same would occur in the future. By what right did they think they could shirk their duty to undergo this fatigue also? They were behaving like parasites collecting the reward for the fatigue suffered by the other tribes. This is why he asked them: ואתם תשבו פה? "and you are going to sit here?
  Another aspect which Moses alluded to when he asked: "are you going to sit here?" (while the conquest of the West Bank will take place), was the fact that when these lands of Sichon and Og were conquered all the tribes were present, and their combined merit helped to ensure that G'd did all the fighting. If they were now going to remain behind, only ten tribes would cross the Jordan and their combined merit would be smaller, possibly with the result that also G'd's input into the battle would be smaller. Moses effectively demolished the arguments which the two tribes had advanced for wanting to stay behind on the East Bank.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולמה הניאון "and why do you turn the minds, etc.?" Moses said that in addition to his objective arguments he also had a subjective, psychological argument aginst the proposal of these two tribes. How would their action be perceived by their comrades-in -arms? Moses conceded that the arguments of the two tribes may have been sincere, however the effect of such arguments would result in a lowering of the morale of the other tribes. These tribes might consider that the two tribes hid their fear of the Canaanites behind these arguments. Once the other tribes had the feeling that Reuven and Gad were afraid, what was to stop those tribes from becoming afraid also? Fear was what had resulted in the debacle 38 years earlier. Moses accused the two tribes of not considering the effect their attitude would have since Israel had experience in the matter. At that time ten men had succeeded in infecting a whole nation with their own fear when they said that the Canaanites were stronger than they were (Numbers 13,31). As soon as the people would observe that part of their number did not want to cross the Jordan they would have prepared the ground for a repetition of what happened at the time of the spies.
  אשר נתן להם השם "which the Lord has given to them?" Here too, Moses referred to the argument of the two tribes that G'd had defeated Sichon and Og and that it was only up to Him to decide who would inherit these lands. He pointed out that there was a basic difference between the status of the lands they wanted and the status of the West Bank. G'd had given the West Bank to the whole Jewish people already in the days of the Patriarchs, something that was not the case with the lands which used to belong to Sichon and Og. Those lands were not included in G'd's promise to Abraham. <i>Sifri</i> section 2 item 299 quotes a <i>Baraitha</i> and writes as follows: "the words לתת לך (Deut. 7,13) "to give to you," exclude the East Bank of the Jordan which you took for yourself." Whereas this interpretation of that verse is only that of Rabbi Shimon while another scholar interprets these words differently, there is no reason to believe that any of the other scholars disagree with Rabbi Shimon on that subject.
  We also find a statement in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 7 that the East Bank of the Jordan is not a suitable place to erect the Temple, nor for the שכינה to settle. We have scriptural proof of this from Joshua 22,19, where it says that "if the land of your inheritance has become defiled (in your eyes i.e. the East Bank of the Jordan), cross over to the land of inheritance of G'd Himself, who dwells there in the Tabernacle and acquire an inheritance amongst us, etc." This tells you very clearly that there is a difference between the lands of Sichon and Og and that of ארץ ישראל proper. Perhaps this is the reason why Moses did not want to give each one of the tribes a share in those lands, and why he preferred that all of the tribes should accept their heritage on the West Bank which is holier. Compare what we have written on Deut. 3,13 on the words ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויגשו אליו, They approached him, etc. The reason the Torah writes "they approached," seeing they were already standing before Moses, Eleazar and the princes may be to show that in view of Moses' reaction that they were no better than the generation of the spies they had felt rebuffed. The Torah therefore had to describe them as "approaching" when they continued their palaver.
  Alternatively, after hearing what Moses had to say they realised that it depended on their actions if their wish would be granted or not. They therefore felt the need to approach him even more closely in order to convince Moses of their sincerity. They realised now that their original words had not convinced Moses.
  גדרות צאן נבנה למקננו, we will build sheepfolds for our cattle, etc. Why did they have to make this statement altogether? All they had to do was to give Moses the kind of answer which would demonstrate that he had suspected them unjustly, namely that they would form the vanguard of the soldiers entering the land of Canaan (verses 17-18). We may be able to explain their statement with the help of what Maimonides has written in chapter eleven of his treatise <i>Hilchot Mechirah</i>. He wrote: "if someone sells his house to a neighbour or he gives it to him as a present on condition that the recipient go to Jerusalem with him on a certain day and the recipient meanwhile occupies the house in question he has acquired it as soon as he goes to Jerusalem with the former owner on the date agreed. If, however, the formula of the sale or gift was as follows: "if you go to Jerusalem with me on a certain day I will sell you or give you my house, and the other party did go to Jerusalem with him on the day in question, he does not own the house even if he had moved in in the meantime, as the deal was what is called an אסמכתא, the first party not having expected to have to make good on the deal as he expected the second party not to be able to meet the condition in question. Thus far Maimonides. In chapter one of the same treatise Maimonides writes: "What constitutes proper possession through occupancy? If he sold him a house, a field, or he gave it to him as a gift, the recipient must make some kind of improvement in the property under discussion in addition to mere occupancy in order for the transaction to be complete, (irreversible)." Thus far the wording of Maimonides.
  The two tribes of Gad and Reuven were astute enough to appreciate the הלכות pertaining to the acquisition of permanent ownership. This is why they told Moses that seeing that their receiving these lands was conditional on their fulfilling Moses' terms, they would first demonstrate ownership of these lands by erecting sheepfolds, i.e. making the kinds of improvement which established their חזקה, undisputed ownership. The "cities for our children," were also meant to demonstrate their ownership.
  You may ask that they could have done all this without making a public announcement about it beforehand as there is no halachic necessity to publicise these improvements. However, Maimonides also wrote in the chapter we quoted: "when are such improvements proof of the new owner's intention?, When he made them in the presence of the previous owner. If the new owner made these improvements without the previous owner being aware of it, then he has not made a valid acquisition until the previous owner has told him: 'go ahead and make symbolic improvement as a sign that you have acquired this property.'" The two tribes announced what they were going to do in order to elicit Moses' consent. This is why Moses said to them in verse 24: "build for yourselves cities for your children and sheepfolds for your sheep, etc." This was the equivalent of the formula Maimonides mentioned.
  Nachmanides and his colleagues disagree with Maimonides in the matter of אסמכתא and hold that as long as fulfilment of conditions attached to the sale must be performed only by the buyer, the principle of אסמכתא is not involved and as soon as the buyer has fulfilled the relevant conditions the sale is closed. In order for the statement of the tribes of Reuven and Gad to make sense according to that opinion, the tribes mentioned the building of the sheepfolds and cities to tell Moses that until they had completed this they were not prepared to join the other tribes and cross the Jordan with them.
  
  Verse 17
  
   וישב טפנו בערי המבצר, "while our children will dwell in the fortified cities." This comment had to appear here and not previously when the two tribes mentioned the building of cities for their children (and women). They wanted to make it plain that once they could feel reassured about the safety of their families they could volunteer to add another undertaking, i.e. not to return to their own families until all the other tribes had taken over their respective inheritance. The time frame under discussion was 14 years, 7 years of conquest and another seven years for the distribution of the various lands. The two tribes made it plain that unless they left their families in a condition which made it unnecessary for them to worry they would only be with the other tribes during the seven years of conquest. This was why the Torah inserted these words in the middle of this verse although the statement נחלץ חושים should really have been followed immediately by verse 18.
  The consideration about these tribes remaining with the main body of the Israelite army until after the distribution of the land also explains something which otherwise appears as contradictory. On the one hand they had said they would join and bear arms (verse 18) until התנחל, the other tribes would inherit; on the other hand they said in the earlier verse that they would participate until הביאותם אל מקומם, "until we have brought them to their place." If you accept our interpretation both statements make sense and are in place.
  Moses added the word לכם when he encouraged the two tribes to build cities, etc. in verse 24 to show that he agreed with the purpose of their building the cities for their families' safety. In fact, this is what the two tribes did as we know from verse 34-38. The fact is that the soldiers of these tribes did not return to their homes until 14 years later.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי לא ננחל אתם, "for we will not inherit with them, etc." They added this as the reason why they would wait until the other tribes had received their inheritance before returning themselves. They wanted to make it plain that they had excluded themselves from an inheritance on the West Bank. Alternatively, they wanted to demonstrate that the fact that they had chosen to remain on the East Bank had nothing to do with their being afraid to face the Canaanites as Moses had implied. Their reason was simply that they had already received their heritage.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר להם משה אם תעשו, Moses said to them: "if you will do, etc." Why did Moses have to say "if you will do" before saying "if you will arm yourselves, etc.?" In fact all Moses would have had to do was to give Joshua the instructions recorded in verses 27-30. Furthermore, why did Moses emphasise the word הזה? What did Moses have in mind when he said לפני השם, in the presence of the Lord?"
  Presumably Moses realised that what the tribes of Reuven and Gad had undertaken was only in order to secure for themselves the lands which they had requested. Their motivation was not to help their brethren because of a feeling of mutual responsibility, but it was purely functional. This is not a good moral basis for insuring success in war. The motivation of the troops should be that when going to war they went to war against the enemies of the Lord, to kill these enemies of the Lord so that the war qualified as a מלחמת מצוה, "a holy war." In <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> chapter 7 Maimonides describes this war in these words: "anyone who fights with all his heart…intending to sanctify the holy name of G'd thereby can feel confident that he will not come to harm and that he will have earned his share in the hereafter."
  There was reason to fear then that these two tribes would suffer casualties in their encounter with the Canaanites unless their whole motivation would undergo a change. This is what Moses alluded to when he said אם תעשון before speaking about the fighting men of these two tribes arming themselves. The words הדבר הזה and לפני השם assume a new dimension when we consider that these two tribes had to dedicate themselves to G'd's purpose for the forthcoming war. When Moses concluded his speech by saying עד הורישו את איביו מפניו, "until He has driven out His enemies before Him," he referred to G'd's enemies. We must not translate this verse as speaking about the enemies of Israel. Moses had never mentioned the word Israel once during these negotiations. Clearly, what was at stake was to avenge the behaviour of the Canaanites against G'd. In view of the repeated use of the conjunctive letter ו throughout the verses 21-24 it was difficult to establish which condition Moses considered paramount. Now we have become aware that the critical words are the words לפני השם.
  Another point which Moses had in mind when he said אם תחלצו לפני השם, was to correct these two tribes who had said נחלץ חשים לפני בני ישראל, "we will be ready, armed, before the children of Israel." This had implied that the other tribes were in need of physical support, support in order to conquer the land of The Canaanites by natural means. Moses corrected them saying that their success depended on increasing their spiritual merit. The combined merits of 100 people are noticeably less than the combined merit of 101 people.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ועבר לכם כל חלוץ, "if every armed man of you will cross, etc." Why was Moses not satisfied with what he had said in the previous verse אם תחלצו? Moses made the inheritance of the tribes Reuven and Gad conditional on every man of arms-bearing age crossing the Jordan to take part in the battles against the 31 kings. Still, the question remains why Moses did not add the word כל, in the previous verse when he said אם תחלצו?
  Moses' words have to be understood as follows: אם תעשון..וער לכם כל חלוץ, "if all of your able-bodied men will cross none of you will come to any harm." He implied that if only a part of the able-bodied men of these two tribes would participate in the wars of conquest they were liable to sustain casualties. The word ועבר is not to be understood as a condition but rather as a promise; "if all of your able-bodied men participate you will not have to fight but merely to cross the Jordan and G'd will do all the fighting. Such whole-hearted participation will be considered as לפני השם, there will no longer be a "curtain" dividing between you and G'd. Compare Isaiah 59,2: "your iniquities are the barrier between yourselves and your G'd." The "barrier" is made up out of Samael and the forces at his command. 
  Moses advisedly concludes by saying that G'd will drive out His enemies from "before Him" instead of "from before you," to hint that G'd alone will do the fighting if the two tribes were to fulfil these conditions.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ונכבשה הארץ, "and the land will be conquered, etc." Why did these words have to be written after we heard at the end of the last verse that G'd will drive out His enemies before Him? Furthermore, why did Moses have to mention once more: "and after that you will return?" We already understood from the context that after the other tribes had been settled the tribes of Reuven and Gad would return to their families on the East Bank. Actually, Moses wanted to tell the two tribes that as a result of their keeping their bargain a number of promises would be fulfilled. 1) The land would be subdued; 2) every one of them would return home whole in body and in spirit. Although we have been told in <i>Baba Batra</i> 121 that Yair the son of Menashe was killed in the fighting against the town of Ai, he belonged to the other half of the tribe of Menashe who had chosen the Left Bank as their rightful heritage. He was not amongst the people whom Moses addressed in our paragraph.
  Moses also made a point of stating that these two tribes would have discharged their duties both vis-a-vis G'd and vis-a vis Israel as long as they crossed the Jordan prepared to do battle. The important thing was their motivation, as we have pointed out previously. As long as what they did was לשם שמים rather than for their own selfish motives even the people (10 tribes) would not harbour any bad feelings against these two tribes. Moses added the words: "this land will become your inheritance before G'd," that their participation in helping the other tribes to conquer and to settle on the West Bank would make their own lands safe against intruders.
  It is possible that by repeating the expression לפני השם, "in the presence of G'd," Moses meant to say that although their land was חוצה לארץ, "outside the boundaries of the Holy Land proper," they would be considered as if they had made their residence within the Holy Land. The land would be considered holy as no strip of secular land separated between it and ארץ ישראל proper.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואם לא חעשון כן הנה חטאתם, "But if you will not do so, behold you have sinned against the Lord, etc." This appears problematical. We would have expected Moses to say only that if these two tribes did not keep the bargain they would not be given the lands on the East Bank. However, the meaning of these words is that if the two tribes would not accept Moses' command to treat the conquest of the West Bank as a מלחמת חובה, an obligatory war fought in order to take revenge on the enemies of G'd, they would have sinned even if they did cross the Jordan fully armed. Moses spoke of that sin in the past tense, i.e. "your sin would commence already at this time."
  ודעו חטאתכם אשר תמצא אתכם. "and be aware that your sins will find you out." Moses warned that at the appropriate time when they would find themselves in imminent danger G'd would exact retribution from the guilty, i.e. they would fall in battle. Remember what <i>Tur Orach Chayim</i> chapter 54 writes that in a war of expansion soldiers are sent home if they have been guilty only of speaking needlessly between such parts of the morning prayers as ישתבח and יוצר אור. Moses warned now that all the promises he had made concerning these soldiers returning home unharmed would be null and void unless they kept to all the details of his conditions. If they failed to do this they would not be free either in the eyes of G'd or the people. The very fact that they had sustained casualties would be proof of their being guilty. Compare what I have written on the words עבדיך יעשו כאשר אדני מצוה in verse 25.
  
  Verse 24
  
   והיוצא מפיכם תעשו, "and do that which your mouths have uttered." Moses wanted them to understand that the permission he had granted for these tribes to build cities for their women and children etc., was not absolute but was conditional on their fulfilling the part of full participation with the other tribes in their conquest of the land of Canaan. It is also possible that Moses referred to the gratuitous offer by the two tribes to stay with the main body not only for seven years but for fourteen years until they had all been settled provided they were allowed to build fortified cities for their families. This is why he added the letter ו before the word והיוצא מפיכם, "and what your mouths have uttered." Having made an undertaking which Moses had not asked of them, they were to be held to it as it had been entirely voluntary. Moses made it plain that as far as his own conditions were concerned he had only obligated them to remain with the main body for seven years. Anything over and beyond that were conditions they had imposed upon themselves.
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויאמר בני גד…עבדיך יעשו The tribe of Gad….said: "your servants will do, etc." One difficulty in this verse is the word לאמור. Whom was Moses to tell of their decision? 2) What did they add that they had not previously told Moses in verse 18 already? They themselves had volunteered to do what Moses now demanded of them! 3) Having already said generally: "your servants will do what my lord commands," why did they have to add verses 26 and 27 altogether? 4) Why did they repeat once more: "as my lord has said (verse 27)? Why did the Torah refer to מצוה "commands" in verse 25 whereas in verse 27 it uses the word דבר, "has said?"
  Once you consider that I have explained that Moses stressed to these tribes after their undertaking that the motivation for their joining the war was what mattered foremost, the reply of these two tribes is easy to understand. According to <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> on our paragraph Moses also had corrected them when he altered the order of priorities regarding the building of cities and sheepfolds to take care of the children first and not of the livestock as they had indicated in verse 16. There had been two new elements in Moses' speech to them, and they responded positively on both counts. They commenced with that which had been mentioned last, i.e. the concern for their children, by listing their children, wives, and livestock in the appropriate order this time. They followed this up by stressing that all of them were going to cross the Jordan as a vanguard in the presence of the Lord, to show that they were aware of the crucial dimension of their purpose of fighting the enemies of G'd. They refrained from repeating that they would be in the forefront of "the children of Israel" as they had said in verse 17.
  We have a rule that in matters involving money one must abide by the terms set even if the person setting the condition is a layman; they wanted to go on record, that in this instance they would have abided by any condition Moses would set inasmch as he was their prophet, leader, etc. G'd had commanded the Israelites to heed everything the prophet would tell them (Deut. 18.15). This is what they had in mind with their first reaction הנה עבדיך יעשו כאשר אדני מצוה. In other words, they now stressed that their motivation in doing what they had undertaken to do was to display their obedience to the command of Moses in his capacity as the prophet. This is why they added כאשר אדני דבר, "as my lord says." The word לאמר too was meant to indicate their awareness of their obligation to do what Moses "said" even if he had not promised them that they would receive their share of the inheritance on the East Bank as a reward for abiding by the conditions he had set for them.
  They meant to stress that even if Moses had not phrased his suggestions as a condition but had merely said so, לאמור without embodying his suggestions in the form of a binding contract, they would have taken him at his word and would have complied with his wishes. After all, one is in the habit of honouring financial agreements even if they are made only orally and do not involve the decree issued by a mutually recognised expert in the matter.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויאמר משה…ונתתם להם, Moses said:…"and then you will give to them, etc." The reason Moses had to say: "and you will give to them," was that it should be perceived that it was the other tribes who had given these lands to the tribes of Gad and Reuven although we will be reading in verse 33 that "Moses gave to the tribes of Gad, Reuven and half the tribe of Menashe the kingdom of Sichon and the kingdom of Og, etc." What Moses handed over became an absolute possession only after the tribes involved had completed their undertaking. We need to examine why Moses said: ונתתם להם instead of: תתנו להם, the more acceptable form of the future tense. Perhaps Moses wanted to indicate by the use of a form involving the letter ו at the beginning that the very whole-hearted participation in the conquest by these two tribes was what would make the campaign successful so that the ten tribes themselves owed their inheritance to that participation of the tribes Gad and Reuven. Had Moses written תתנו להם, we would not have surmised his meaning from that word.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואם לא יעברו חלוצים אתכם, "But if they will not cross with you, armed, etc." The emphasis in this verse is on the words אתכם, "with you," i.e. at the same time as you. If these two tribes were to decide to join you later and help in the conquest they would already have forfeited their claim to special consideration on the East Bank. The reason the Torah wrote ונאחזו בתוככם, "and they will have possessions amongst you," with the added letter ו at the beginning of the word ונאחזו instead of writing יאחזו, "they will receive a possession," is to point out that in such an event they have forfeited their success in this part of the land and they will automatically only inherit their share on the West Bank. They will have failed to perform the מצוה they took upon themselves and therefore will not have attained what they aimed for.
  
  Verse 31
  
  -32. ויענו בני גד, The members of Gad etc. replied: The Torah had to repeat matters once more and also could not simply write: ויאמרו, "they said," but had to write: "they replied." Seeing that Moses had said ונתתם, the two and a half tribes had begun to fear that such a handing over would only commence at the end of the fourteen years of their whole-hearted participation. This is why they described their forthcoming participation as so firmly anchored in an unbreakable agreement that although their part of the fulfilment of the agreement was some time in the future, the rewards for abiding by it accrued to them as an immediate benefit, i.e. the land was to be given to them as of now. This is why they said: ואתנו נחלתנו, "the possession of our inheritance will remain with us." They had not properly understood Moses' words, as we have explained them. As a result, Moses gave them the land immediately to prevent any misunderstandings.
  It is also possible that initially even Moses had not meant for the two and a half tribes to actually acquire their claim until after they had demonstrated fulfilment of their part of the bargain. However, once Moses realised how firmly these two and a half tribes had committed themselves to helping the other tribes he agreed to give them possession of these lands immediately.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אלה מסעי בני ישראל, These are the journeys of the children of Israel, etc. We have been told in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 12,3 that the expression אלה is used to separate what follows from something negative which had preceded it, [such as the Tohu Vavohu prior to the story of creation, and Genesis 2,4. Ed.] whereas the expression ואלה establishes a link with what preceded it. It is difficult to see in which way the journeys the Torah tells us about here are supposed to separate from a negative experience which has been described previously. Perhaps the Torah meant to draw a line of distinction between all journeys which occurred in human history, even those which have not been recorded on the one hand, and those of the Jewish people in their Exodus from Egypt on their way to the Holy Land on the other hand. This would be an acceptable reason for writing אלה if these journeys had all been a record of positive achievements. Alas, they were not, far from it! After all, most of these journeys were caused by the sins of the spies! Even a number of the journeys which occurred before the sin of the spies were due to negative rather than positive considerations such as G'd leading the Israelites on detours skirting the land of the Philistines in order to prevent a premature confrontation with the Philistines and possible tragic results (compare Exodus 13,17). G'd had been afraid that the Israelites might appoint an alternate leader and head back to Egypt rather than face the hostile Philistines. Clearly then "journeys" had been related to potentially negative experiences long before the incident with the spies. We also have the following comment in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> Yitro item 273: "Proverbs 3,17 describing Torah as כל נתיבותיה שלום, 'all her paths are peace,' is a reference to the time of the Exodus when G'd wanted to give the Torah to the Jewish people immediately." This proved impossible as the people were constantly divided, a section wanting to return to Egypt. The <i>Midrash</i> lists the various places where the Israelites rested on their way to the desert of Sinai as constant sources of strife and discontent. All of this is proof that the journeys of the Jewish people were nothing to be proud of and why would the Torah review them here by introducing them with the word אלה?
  Perhaps we have to divide these various journeys into two groups. 1) The journeys during the first year plus, prior to the decree that the people over twenty would die in the desert as a result of their supporting the majority report of the spies, and 2) the journeys undertaken as a result of that decree. G'd had never meant for the people to undertake these latter journeys at all had they not proven so quarrelsome during the journeys of the first year plus. These earlier journeys were far worse than the ones who served a positive purpose after the decree due to the debacle with the spies. The word אלה in our verse is meant to draw a dividing line between the negative aspects of the unnecessary journeys and the positive aspects of the necessary journeys. The journeys the Torah is about to list are all those that were of a necessary kind, i.e. that had positive elements to them as distinct from others which were mere tedium devoid of redeeming qualities.
  We also need to explore why the Torah chose to emphasise the "journeys," i.e. the Israelites breaking camp, rather than to emphasise that they made camp. i.e. that they arrived at a destination. This question is especially relevant in view of <i>Tanchuma</i> on our verse which describes the situation in terms of a parable. "A king had a son who was sick, so he took him to one health spa after another. When the son had finally been cured and the father took him back home, the father would reminisce with him about all the various places they had been together prior to the last one where the son had been cured." If the <i>Midrash</i> correctly summarizes the reason why the Torah lists all these journeys, it surely would have been more appropriate to list the places where stey stopped over, i.e. the "arrivals." We also have yet another <i>Tanchuma</i> which claims that the reason the Torah lists all these journeys is so that the desert which hosted the Jewish people during this period would receive its appropriate reward in the future as alluded to by Isaiah 35,1 : "the arid desert shall be glad, the wilderness shall rejoice etc." This <i>Midrash</i> too would make much better sense if the Torah had concentrated on describing the times spent by the Jewish people camping in the desert rather than the occasions when they broke camp.
  Our verse may be understood when we consider what the <i>Zohar</i> volume 2 page 157 has to say about the purpose of the Israelites' trek through the desert. It was meant to enable the Israelites to seek out isolated sparks of sanctity and to release them from captivity. These "sparks" had been taken captive by the spiritually negative forces who have their home in the desert. G'd made the Israelites travel through such places in order that their sanctity would act as a magnet and attract such "lost" sparks of sanctity. The only way this could be accomplished was by means of total sanctity, i.e. a combination of the sanctity of Israel, the Presence of G'd, שכינה and the holy Torah. It required the presence of 600,000 souls which originated in holy domains. Moses matched these 600,000 individually holy souls, as he is perceived of as the tree from which all these souls are branches (compare Isaiah 63,11). In a combined effort these forces of sanctity were able to overcome the forces of impurity which kept many of these lost sparks of sanctity captive. According to the <i>Zohar</i> then these "sparks" could be captured while the Israelites were actively journeying not while they were passsively encamped, and it is this the Torah has in mind when writing "these are the journeys." The word אלה is indeed in sharp contrast to any other journeys ever described anywhere as never before had there been a journey which was accompanied by so many elements of sanctity.
  While it is true that the patriarchs have also been described as journeying, and they too had rescued lost sparks of sanctity during their journeys, there is no comparison between what these individuals accomplished and what the Jewish nation as a whole accomplished in this regard. The Torah itself describes the superior nature of these journeys by stressing that they occurred as an aftermath of the Exodus from Egypt, i.e. after the Israelites had been refined in the iron crucible called Egypt. This enabled them to isolate sparks of sanctity wherever they would encounter them. Not only that, but the Torah describes these journeys as having taken place לצבאותם, when they were a complete unit, the Presence of G'd resting on these 600,000 holy souls. We have described repeatedly that the definition of שלמות, wholeness, completeness, is not applicable to fewer than 600,000 such souls.
  You find that the reason G'd did not give the Torah to the patriarchs was due to their being too few in number. They lacked this "completeness" which is predicated on the presence of 600,000 souls which originated in a holy domain (compare <i>Mechilta</i> Yitro) so that they could be described as צבאות, "G'd's armies." Only once the Israelites were in the desert did they comprise all the necessary pre-conditions for fulfilling the task set for them by their journeys. The Torah also added: ביד משה ואהרון, "under the guidance of Moses and Aaron," who were the שושבינים, "go-betweens" between the Presence of G'd and all the other elements of sanctity needed to fuse the nation into a single whole of sanctity.
  אשר יצאו מארץ מצרים לצבאותם, who had departed from Egypt according to their hosts; according to what we explained thus far that the word אלה separates these special journeys as being spiritually superior to any previous journeys, the reason that the Torah wrote the words "who came forth out of Egypt according to their hosts," is that the Torah wished to describe the journeys prior to the affair of the spies as being spiritually superior to those which occurred only as a result of the decree after the affair of the spies. Prior to the affair of the spies, the Israelites deserved to be described as journeying לצבאותם as due to their being the hosts of G'd. Journeys which took place after the decree occasioned by the fiasco of the spies lacked the element described here as לצבאותם. The major reason that it lacked this element was that part of the men who had participated both in the Exodus and in the refining process of the iron crucible called Egypt had begun to die off, so that there were no longer the requisite number of holy souls to make up the magic number of 600,000 who combined all the qualities we described. When the Torah describes the journeys as ביד משה ואהרון, this means that prior to the fiasco with the spies the journeys had been described in Numbers 9,23 as על פי ה׳ ביד משה, "at the command of G'd as conveyed by Moses," that Moses and Aaron (the latter by means of the trumpets) gave the signal to initiate a journey.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויכתב משה את מוצאיהם, Moses recorded their departures, etc. What precisely did the Torah want to teach us with this verse? We did not need to be told that it was Moses who recorded this as Moses recorded the entire Torah and the journeys are part of the Torah. Besides, the Torah ought to have written that Moses recorded את מסעיהם, "their journeys." What was the point in recording their "departures?" Furthermore, what is the meaning of the words ואלה מסעיהם למוצאיהם "and these are their journeys according to their departures?" Why did the Torah change the order in which it mentioned departures from מוצאיהם למסעיהם, to מסעיהם למוצאיהם?
  It appears that the Torah wanted to inform us that Moses did not record all these journeys on a single day, but that he recorded them as and when they occurred. He commenced recording when he had received instructions to make the Israelites depart from Egypt. He wrote in his booklet the date on which the Israelites departed from Raamses up until the word שפטים at the end of verse 4. Once the Israelites made camp at Sukkot, Moses wrote verse 5. When the Israelites made camp at Eytan, Moses wrote what had transpired as verse 6. In this manner Moses recorded each and every journey as it occurred until the people arrived at ערבות מואב. At that point G'd told Moses to include these private notes he had made in the Torah in the order in which he had previously recorded it. This is what was meant by: "Moses recorded their departures, i.e. starting from the day the Israelites departed from Egypt. This referred to the two lines from "they journeyed from Raamses until the word שפטים." When the Torah speaks of למסעיהם it refers to Moses listing all the Israelites' journeys from the day they left Egypt until the end of all their journeys. It adds the words על פי השם, "at G'd's command," to inform us that the very first recording already was at the command of G'd, i.e. that G'd had told Moses to record and to keep recording. When the Torah repeats ואלה מטעיהם, "and these are their journeys," this means that these are the journeys which G'd commanded Moses to record למוצאיהם, as and when they occurred, i.e. every time the Israelites broke camp. What the Torah describes in our chapter is a copy of all the notations made by Moses throughout all these years.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויסעו מרעמסס, They journeyed from Raamses, etc. The Torah had to mention twice that this journey occurred during the first month although it could have written "on the fifteenth," and I would have understood that the day mentioned was the first month. The Torah could also have written: "they travelled on the fifteenth of the first month after the Passover;" Perhaps the Torah alluded to what we have been told in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 15,11 that the month of Nissan is the month in which the zodiac sign of Israel is at its zenith and that the most auspicious day during that month is the fifteenth of that month. The Torah writes ויסעו בחודש הראשון, to describe the month during which Israel's fortunes ride high and it adds that this occurred on the fifteenth of that month, i.e. when the moon is full. The Torah added once more that it was in the first month, as the significance of the full moon is meaningless for Israel unless it occurs during the first month. The combination of these two factors was meaningful, was a good omen.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויסעו…מרעמסס ויחנו בסוכות. They journeyed from Raamses and they made camp at Sukkot. Why did the Torah repeat the information that the Israelites journeyed from Raamses? We have been told this in verse three! All the Torah had to write here was that the Israelites made camp at Sukkot! It appears that the Torah wanted to inform us that there was no other journey between Raamses and Sukkot. Had the Torah only written about the encampment at Sukkot, the impression might have prevailed that there had been some way stations between Raamses and Sukkot. [<i>Mechilta</i> on Exodus 12,37 describes the distance between these two locations as 120 מיל, i.e. 150 kilometers. Ed.] The same reasoning applies to all the journeys, i.e. the words: "they encamped" mean that there had been no other unmentioned way-stations.
  
  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
  
   והורשתם את כל יושבי הארץ, "You are to drive out all the inhabitants of the land, etc." Even though the Torah says in Deut. 20, 16 that: "you must not allow a single soul (of these seven nations) to survive," in this instance the Torah does not speak of the seven Canaanite nations but about others who lived amongst them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e. "all the ones who dwell in the land," that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven nations.
  Alternatively, the Torah refers again to a nation which the Israelites do not possess the strength to kill. At least they should ensure that they would leave the land and not remain in it.
  
  Verse 53
  
   והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה, "and you will take possession of the land and dwell in it, etc." Rashi explains that the commandment is to drive out the people, whereas the words: "you will dwell in it" are a promise; Nachmanides explains that the commandment is to dwell in the land and that this verse is the halachic basis for <i>Ketuvot</i> 110 that הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל, "that one may force all the members of one's household to migrate to the land of Israel."
  It would appear that Rashi referred to the plain meaning of the verse considering the conclusion of the verse which says: "for I have given it to you to dispossesss it (of its inhabitants)." If the commandment had been the dwelling in the land, the Torah should have indicated this by writing "for I have given it to you to dwell in it."
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
   ואם לא תורישו את יושבי הארץ, "And if you will fail to drive out the inhabitants of the land, etc." According to <i>Megillah</i> 10 which says that wherever the word והיה occurs it alludes to something joyful, the meaning of the word here would be that although the reason the Israelites would decide to allow some of these inhabitants to remain would be in order that they perform menial duties for them, etc., i.e. in order to enjoy their services, G'd would see to it that instead these remaining inhabitants would prove to be thorns in their eyes and pricks in their sides and that these foreigners would harass the new owners.
  וצררו אתכם על הארץ, "and they shall harass you in the land, etc." The Torah means that not only will they harass you in the part of the land that you did not drive them out of, but they will harass you even in the parts of the country which you have conquered and driven them out of and which you have settled. They will challenge you to leave what they consider to be their country. The meaning of the word על in this context is similar to Numbers 20,24: על אשר מריתם את פי, "because you have rebelled against My word." We have a similar meaning of the word על in Deut. 32,51.
  
  Verse 56
  
   כאשר דמיתי לעשות להם, "as I meant to do unto them, etc." My commandment was meant for your benefit. Seeing you have not fulfilled it, My commandment remains unfulfilled; I therefore have no choice but to fulfil it in respect of these people you have left in the land.
  
  
  
  
  
  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
  
   כי לקחו מטה בני הראובני, for the tribe of Reuven had taken it according to the houses of their fathers, etc. This verse provides the reason why the previous verse spoke about the West Bank being shared out amongst only nine and a half tribes. Had it not been for the fact that the two and a half tribes had already staked out their claims G'd would have been able to enlarge the shares of each tribe beyond the boundaries mentioned in our chapter.
  לקחו נחלתם, "they took their inheritance, etc." The Torah had to repeat this statement a second time seeing that the half tribe Menashe had not been amongst the tribes Reuven and Gad who had initially requested to make their homes on the East Bank. The Torah therefore described that half tribe's taking possession of their share as a separate "taking." Accordingly, the words: לקחו נחלתם, refer back to the half tribe of Menashe. This is also the reason the Torah interrupted the sequence by writing לבית אבותם between the two tribes of Reuven and Gad and between the half tribe Menashe. Another meaning for writing the words: "they took their inheritance" twice is to confirm that what the half tribe of Menashe "took" was in accordance with what they were entitled to take as their inheritance.
  
  Verse 15
  
   שני המטות וחצי המטה לקחו נחלתם, The two and a half tribes took their inheritance, etc. The Torah wrote this verse to indicate that the inheritance of the half tribe of Menashe was part of the overall territory allocated by Moses to Reuven and Gad. Moses did not make separate boundaries for each of these tribes.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   למטה יהודה, for the tribe of Yehudah. We need to explore why the leaders of the tribes of Yehudah, Shimon, and Benjamin are not given the title נשיא in our paragraph. Perhaps the reason is connected to the fact that the names of these three tribes appear quite close to the words ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד in verse 18 so that the Torah saw no need to repeat the word נשיא again. Starting with verse 22 the names of the tribes are so far removed from verse 18 that the Torah saw fit to add the title נשיא when mentioning the leader of the respective tribes.
  I have a seen a comment in the name of Rabbenu Nissim that there was no need to write the word נשיא in connection with the tribe of Yehudah as everybody knew that it was Calev ben Yefuneh. In the case of the tribe of Shimon the reason was that this tribe was not worthy of having a leader with the title נשיא in view of the affair with Zimri. In the case of the tribe of Benjamin, there was no need to mention that Eldod held the title נשיא, as he held a better title having been a prophet already since the time the 70 elders had been chosen in Numbers 11,16-29. Calling Eldod a "prince" would have amounted to a demotion rather than a promotion for him.
  Perhaps one may add that the term נשיא was not allocated to the temporary leader of the tribe of Yehudah seeing that this tribe would produce a king for the entire nation, not just a prince for itself. A similar consideration may have applied to the tribe of Benjamin seeing that the realisation of a Jewish Kingdom, i.e. the first king of Israel, Saul, would come from that tribe. As far as the absence of a mention of a prince for the tribe of Shimon is concerned, the reason advanced was quite adequate.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחוזתם, "that they give to the Levites of the inheritance of their possession, etc." The meaning of this verse is that while it is true that the Levites were not to have a claim to an inheritance in the land, there was nothing to prevent them from accepting parcels of land as a gift from the other tribes. This is in the same category as the rule that one should provide a livelihood for people who have not been fortunate enough to provide it for themselves. When the Torah is specific, writing ערים לשבת, "cities to dwell in," the meaning is that seeing the Levites have to live some place they need to be allocated cities for themselves. The Torah repeats the statement to indicate that the first time the Torah writes לשבת is to justify why these cities have to be given to the Levites; when the Torah continues with והיו הערים להם לשבת (verse 3) the Torah emphasises that these "cities" must be fit to dwell in. We are told in <i>Makkot</i> 12 that the meaning is that cities must be reserved for residential purposes and that it is forbidden to convert land set aside for residential purposes into מגרשים, open playfields, etc.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולכל חיתם, "and for all their livestock." The plain meaning of the verse is that these מגרשים, "open spaces" are to serve the various needs of the Levites. The Talmud in <i>Makkot</i> 12 derives from the word חיתם, that these spaces are to serve only the needs of the living, they are not to be used as burial plots, with the exception of burying an involuntary murderer who had used this city as his city of refuge. This is based on the word תהײנה in verse 15 of our chapter from which the Talmud derives "there shall be their burial." According to the exegetical approach of our sages in the Talmud the words ולכל חיתם are difficult. Seeing that these words are only intended to forbid burial of the regular residents of these cities in their מגרשיהם, all the Torah should have written was the word לחיתם leaving out the word ולכל which implies all kinds of other usages. The addition of the letter ו at the beginning of the word ולכל makes this even more difficult to understand as we are clearly dealing with a רבוי, an expression intended to include additional meanings. Perhaps we can best explain this by saying that the רבוי implied in the word ולכל was meant to counteract the מיעוט, the restrictive nature of the word חיתם. The meter of the verse then is as follows: ולכל, "the use of the מגרש is permitted for every kind of use for the living, i.e. only burial of the dead is excluded." Had the Torah only written לחיתם, I would have concluded that anything which is not directly required for life is prohibited, i.e. a host of activities other than burial.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ואת הערים…את שש ערי המקלט, "and the cities…the six cities of refuge, etc." From this verse we learn that these six cities were to serve primarily the involuntary murderers who had to be exiled there and not the Levites. Seeing that in verse 7 the Torah mentions that the grand total of the number of cities allocated to the Levites is 48, it is clear that the Levites were also entitled to live in the six cities of refuge. Apparently, the Torah wrote matters in such a way that we understand that the Levites and the inadvertent murderers (Israelites) had equal rights in the six cities of refuge. This is why the Torah stressed the rights of the inadvertent murderers in the first verse whereas in the second verse it appears to stress the rights of the Levites. From all this it is clear that the exiles do not have the right to charge rent to the Levites. All the opinions discussing this subject in <i>Makkot</i> 13 are agreed on this point. I may add that it is my view that in the event that there is a surfeit of exiles in any of the six cities of refuge, a Levite may be forced to leave in order to make room for an inadvertent murderer.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויצו משה את בני ישראל, Moses commanded the children of Israel, etc. The meaning of the verse is that Moses commanded them at the behest of G'd who had commanded him to address the children of Israel. What was the content of that command? "The tribes of the sons of Joseph are correct in what they are saying." The whole verse is a compliment to the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe.
  
  Verse 6
  
   זה הדבר, "this is the thing, etc." This expression is explained in <i>Baba Batra</i> 120 as follows: "the daughters of Tzelofchod were permitted free choice of husbands, including husbands who were from different tribes, as it says in our verse לטוב בעיניהם תהײנה לנשים, 'let them be married to whom they think best;'" the question then arises how we can can reconcile this with the words "but let them be married to members of the tribe of their father?" The Talmud answers that these words are not a condition but merely sound advice by the Torah to these girls. Thus far the Talmud. When the Torah said זה הדבר these words were necessary because what preceded them was the Torah's acknowledgment that legally speaking the tribes of Joseph had a sound claim. The Torah therefore had to go on record that the justice of the claim of the tribes of Joseph extended to other daughters inheriting land through their fathers which might become lost to their tribe if such daughters married someone out of their tribe and the Jubilee regulation might alienate such land to the original tribe forever. However, in this single instance of the daughters of Tzelofchod, the general rule did not apply and these daughters were free to be married to men of their choosing even men outside their tribes. The word זה is restrictive and makes an exception of the daughters of Tzelofchod. This is also alluded to in the unnecessary word לאמור in this verse. G'd went out of His way to pay great honour to these girls.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ולא תסב נחלה, "so that an inheritance not move (from one tribe to another), etc. The reason the Torah repeats this both negatively and positively is as I have explained already that it was only well meant advice not legislation. The Torah therefore had to repeat that in all instances other than the daughters of Tzelofchod this was a matter of legislation.
  
  Verse 10
  
   כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה כן עשו, "they did as G'd had commanded Moses." We have to understand why the Torah departed from its usual syntax of first reporting the execution and subsequently the fact that it corresponded to the command, whereas here the Torah reverses the order by writing כן עשו only at the end of the verse.
  It appears that the reason is that seeing that in this case the Torah had made an exception and allowed the daughters of Tzelofchod free choice in their marriage partners, the Torah wanted us to know that the daughters of Tzelofchod did not take advantage of the special latitude which G'd had granted to them but abided by the general rule laid down for future generations and married within their tribe. The words כאשר צוה השם refer to what G'd had commanded to daughters in the future who would inherit their father's estate. These girls did not take advantage of the special permission granted to them. Had the Torah used its usual syntax here all we would have learned from the verse would have been that the daughters of Tzelofchod did not contravene G'd's command.