Our Parashah opens with Pinchas’ reward for his self-sacrifice described at the end of last week’s Parashah. Midrash Rabbah teaches: Hashem said, “It is only right that Pinchas receive his reward. Therefore, say, ‘Behold! I give him My covenant of peace’.” (25:12)
R’ Uri Langner z”l (1896-1970; Chassidic Rebbe in Knihynicze, Ukraine and in Greenwich Village, New York) writes: Many have struggled to understand the statement, “It is only right that Pinchas receive his reward.” Doesn’t every good deed deserve a reward?
R’ Langner explains: The Gemara (Kiddushin 39b) teaches that the reward for Mitzvot is not given in this world. The reason, R’ Langner writes, is the Halachic rule that a worker is not entitled to his wages until the end of the job (see Bava Kama 99a; consult a rabbi for practical applications). As long as a person lives, R’ Langner continues, his “work” for Hashem is not finished. Therefore, he is not entitled to his “wages,” i.e., to the reward for his Mitzvot.
However, when a person puts his life on the line to sanctify Hashem’s Name, as Pinchas did by killing Zimri in front of Zimri’s family and friends, Hashem rewards that person as if his life really ended--even if he ultimately is saved miraculously, as Pinchas was. Therefore, says the Midrash, it was only right that Pinchas receive his reward immediately.
R’ Langner adds: Some say that Pinchas merited eternal life as Eliyahu Ha’navi. If so, it is only right that he receive his reward in this world, as he will never die. (Ohr Ha’Torah)
“And the sons of Eliav: Ne’muel and Datan and Aviram, the same Datan and Aviram who were summoned by the assembly, who contended against Moshe and Aharon among the assembly of Korach, when they contended against Hashem.” (26:9)
R’ Gavriel Wolf Margolis z”l (1847-1935, rabbi of Grodno, Belarus, and later Boston, Massachusetts; son-in-law of the legendary “Reb Nachumke”) writes that his relative, R’ Ben Zion Aryeh Leib Zisling z”l (1844-1918; Lithuania) asked: Why are Datan and Aviram mentioned negatively in passing in the middle of the census of Bnei Yisrael, while Korach, who was the ringleader, is not mentioned at all?
R’ Margolis quotes R’ Zisling as answering: When a community hires a rabbi, there are many different opinions. The Torah scholars want an esteemed Torah scholar. Those whose focus is piety and fear of Heaven want someone like themselves. The common folk want someone who will give a good sermon. Another group wants someone who has a secular education, while others want their relative to get the job. Finally, there are those who don’t really care; they just want to engage in controversy for its own sake.
He continues: There were those among Bnei Yisrael who might have had a legitimate complaint against Aharon (if not for the fact that he was chosen by Hashem). First and foremost, the Bechorim / firstborn could be resentful that the Kohanim had supplanted them as the ones responsible for the Temple service. The Levi’im also could have a complaint: Why should one family from their tribe--the Kohanim--be elevated above all the other families?
Korach was both a Levi and a Bechor. Thus, his challenge to Moshe and Aharon was at least somewhat defensible. But Datan and Aviram were neither. They were from the tribe of Reuven, not Levi. And, they were not firstborn, as they had an older brother, Ne’muel. Therefore, they deserve to have their wickedness highlighted more than did Korach. (Torat Gavriel: Nachal Geivim)
“These are the countings of Bnei Yisrael--six hundred thousand and one thousand, seven hundred and thirty.” (26:51)
When Bnei Yisrael were counted 38 years earlier (Bemidbar 1:46), their number was greater--603,550. R’ Yosef Bechor Shor z”l (France; 12th century) writes: Hashem did not want Bnei Yisrael to be more numerous at the end of the 40 years in the desert than at the beginning because, if they had increased in number, people would say that the reason Hashem delayed Bnei Yisrael’s entry into Eretz Yisrael was so they would have a bigger army for conquering the Land. In reality, the size of the army is irrelevant, for “Nothing prevents Hashem from saving, whether through many or through few” (Shmuel I 14:6). (Bechor Shor)
“‘Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers.’ And Moshe brought their claim before Hashem. Hashem said to Moshe, saying, ‘The daughters of Tzelofchad speak properly’.” (27:4-7)
R’ Yitzchak Ze’ev Yadler z”l (1843-1917; Yerushalayim) explains the flow of the verses as follows:
Tzelofchad’s daughters argued that they should receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael to preserve their father’s honor. Moshe presented their claim to Hashem, but he did not repeat their specific words. Firstly, their arguments were irrelevant; either Hashem planned all along that a daughter would inherit when she has no brothers or that was not Hashem’s plan. (The Torah existed before it was given to man and is, of course, unchangeable.) Moreover, R’ Yadler writes, Moshe did not believe that Tzelofchad’s honor was the true motivation for his daughters’ request. Rather, Moshe thought that Tzelofchad’s daughters simply wanted portions in Eretz Yisrael, and the reason they mentioned their father was because that itself was a way to honor him. Specifically, Halachah instructs one who asks for a favor to invoke his father’s name if there is an equal chance that the favor will be granted in the requestor’s honor or the father’s honor.
Hashem responded, “The daughters of Tzelofchad speak properly”--they truly are motivated by wanting to honor their father. Moreover, says Midrash Sifrei, Hashem told Moshe: “Their words are already written in the Torah in Heaven.” R’ Yadler explains: R’ Moshe ben Nachman z”l (Ramban; 1194-1270; Spain and Eretz Yisrael) writes that all of the Torah’s letters existed from the time of Creation, but the words were formed later. Indeed, there are multiple ways that letters can be formed into words, as any student of Gemara or Midrash knows. Hashem was saying, R’ Yadler writes, that because they spoke sincerely and cared about their father’s honor, some of the pre-existing letters would be used to incorporate their words into the Torah. (Tiferet Tziyon)
“May Hashem, Elokim of the Ruchot / spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the assembly.” (27:16)
“Hashem said to Moshe, ‘Take to yourself Yehoshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is Ruach / spirit . . .” (27:18)
Literally, Ruach means “wind.” R’ Nachman of Breslov z”l (1772-1810; Ukraine) teaches:
The Zohar refers to the Jewish People as “the heart of the world.” A Tzaddik’s job is to “blow” the dust off of Jews’ hearts, i.e., to help them rid themselves of depression and sadness, and then to “blow” to fan the flames in their hearts so they will serve Hashem enthusiastically. (Kitzur Likutei Moharan I #9)
Shabbat
“And on the Shabbat day--two male lambs in their first year, unblemished, and two tenth ephah of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, and its libation. The Olah-offering of each Shabbat on its own Shabbat, in addition to the Olat Ha’Tamid / continual burnt-offering and its libation.” (28:9-10)
R’ Elchanan Asher Hakohen Adler shlita (Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan in New York) writes: In Parashat Pinchas, the Torah lists the days on which special Korbanot / sacrificial-offerings are brought in the Temple, and it describes those offerings. We call them “Mussafim” (plural of “Mussaf”) / “additional” offerings because they are brought in addition to the Korban Tamid / the twice-daily “continual offering” described in the verses immediately preceding our verses (28:1-8). The fact that the Mussafim are meant to supplement the Korban Tamid is evident from the fact that the description of each Mussaf ends with a phrase such as, “In addition to the Olat Tamid.” (See also verses 15, 23, 31, and more.) Likewise, when we express in the Mussaf prayer our yearning to return to Eretz Yisrael and to resume the sacrificial service, we refer to “Temidim (plural of Tamid) in their order and Mussafim according to their laws”--again, connecting the two types of sacrifices.
This connection is even more pronounced on Shabbat, R’ Adler notes. On Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Ha’kippurim, Sukkot, and Shemini Atzeret, the Korban Mussaf consists of a combination of bulls, rams, and lambs--all of which are brought as Olot--plus one goat as a Chatat. In contrast, on Shabbat, the Korban Mussaf is two lambs-- nothing else. It is not far-fetched, R’ Adler writes, to see the two lambs of the Shabbat Mussaf as paralleling the two lambs of the Temidim. (The Tamid was one lamb brought in the morning and a second brought in the afternoon.) Indeed, Midrash Yalkut Shimoni comments: “Everything about Shabbat is doubled”--most notably the double-portion of Mahn that fell in honor of Shabbat. Another example is that the song the Levi’im sang on Shabbat in the Temple (what we know as “Shir shel yom”) was “doubled,” as it begins “Mizmor shir”--two different words for “song.” (Et L’chanenah)
Find Other Issues
Hama'ayan's archives are being rebuilt. Check back soon.