Vol. 8   No. 30

This issue is co-sponsored
by two anonymous sponsors

Parshas Bamidbor

The Medrash Tanchuma, commenting on the precise dating of the count of Yisrael taken at the beginning of the Parshah, attributes this to the close relationship between G-d and Yisrael. "He did not do this to any other nation", the Medrash points out; no dates are mentioned by the generations of the flood, the Tower, S'dom or by the downfall of Egypt. Concerning Yisrael on the other hand, the Torah writes "on the first of the second month in the second year". "He raised the horn of His people", because this is a sign that Hashem cares for us, a sign that He loves us. And the Medrash gives a parable, comparing the day on which the Torah was given to the marriage of a king to a young , modest bride, whom he betrothed and married with a full contract after having abandoned first one, and then another, woman who were unworthy of the same treatment.

The K'li Yakar, elaborating on the Medrash, cites the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'B'rochoh (33:4) "Moshe commanded us Torah, an inheritance for the congregation of Ya'akov", which the Gemara in Pesachim (49b) interprets, not as 'an inheritance' ('moroshoh'), but betrothed ('me'orosoh'). This implies that Yisrael became betrothed to Hashem (Kevayachol) through the giving of the Torah, which was in place of the ring.

On two occasions, the Medrash Tanchuma compares the union of Yisrael to Hashem to that of a bride to a bridegroom. The one, by Matan Torah, where the Torah writes in Ki Sisa (31:18) "Vayitein el Moshe ke'chaloso ... ", which Rashi explains to mean 'like a Choson to a Kalah'. The other, on the day when the Mishkan was inaugurated, where it writes "Vayehi be'yom kalos Moshe Lehokim", and Rashi comments that on the day that the Mishkan was erected Yisrael were handed over to Hashem like a kalah to a choson'.

Evidently, Matan Torah was considered the betrothal of Yisrael to Hashem, and the erection of the Mishkan, the wedding, where they set up house. Indeed, the Medrash uses the appropriate expressions for the two occasions, 'Me'urosoh' by the former, 'Nimseroh' [handed over], by the latter. And even the ten-month period between the two events (from Rosh Chodesh Sivan until Rosh Chodesh Nisan) tallies with the period between the betrothal and the marriage that was customary in those days (as we learn from Lavan, who said "Let the girl remain a year or ten months" (Chayei Sarah 24:55).

Just as a Kalah needed this time period to prepare the twenty-four ornaments that were customary then, so too, did Yisrael need the time period to study the twenty-four books of the T'nach (symbolizing the Torah), before entering the House of the Choson. Because it is the Torah that adorns and beautifies K'lal Yisrael in the eyes of Hashem, and renders them worthy of such a union. In fact, the Torah was the K'subah, the marriage contract, and before entering into a union with Hashem, it was necessary to study it well, to familiarize ourselves with the terms of the contract.

And because the wedding festivities tended to last for one month (see K'subos 8a), Hashem waited until Rosh Chodesh Iyar before finalizing the Kesubah and dating it, demonstrating His love for His bride in the process, as the Medrash described. The Torah specifically mentions "the Ohel Mo'ed" (the Mishkan), because that symbolizes the wedding, as we explained. And it uses the expression "Se'u es rosh" (one of elevation), the K'li Yakar explains, in order to raise Yisrael's status on a par with His own (Kevayachol), because He too, is described as "ve'ha'Misnasei le'Chol le'Rosh" ('who appoints worthy incumbents to positions of greatness').

The idea of the two parts of Hashem's union with K'lal Yisrael is already hinted in the Mishnah at the end of Ta'anis, explains the K'li Yakar, where the Tana writes "be'Yom Chasunaso", 'zeh Matan Torah'; "be'Yom Simchas Libo", 'zeh Binyan Beis Hamikdash'.

"And G-d spoke to Moshe in the desert of Sinai ... " (1:1).

The Torah juxtaposes this to the last Pasuk in Bechukosai "These are the Mitzvos which G-d commanded Moshe ... ", the Ba'al ha'Turim explains, to teach us that a Jew can only fully understand Torah and Mitzvos if he makes himself open like a desert (with nothing else on his mind).

By each of the tribes, the Torah writes "be'mispar sheimos" ('according to the number of names'), something that it does not do in the counting of Parshas Pinchas.

The Ba'al ha'Turim attributes this to the fact that here it is those who were born in Egypt that are being counted. Consequently, Hashem notes Yisrael's praiseworthiness in retaining their Jewish names (resisting the powerful influences that called for change). And He showed His appreciation by stressing this here, adding the words "le'mishpechosom le'veis avosom" (stressing that they kept the named of their ancestors ['as Re'uven and Shimon they went down to Egypt; as Re'uven and Shimon they left Egypt']).

In Pinchas on the other hand, it is the next generation that is being counted. They were born in the desert, after Matan Torah, in which case this praise is unwarranted. So the expressions "be'mispar sheimos" and " ... le'veis avosom" are omitted.

" ... and he counted them in the Desert of Sinai" (1:19).

On only one other occasion does a pasuk end with these words, the Ba'al ha'Turim observes. In Vayikra (7:38) the Torah writes "on the day when He commanded Yisrael to bring their Korbonos to Hashem in the desert of Sinai".

It appears, he explains, that whenever Yisrael were counted, the Kohanim brought Korbonos on their behalf, to protect them from the ravages of the Ayin ho'Ra, in similar vein to what we learned at the beginning of Ki Sisa ("When you count the heads of B'nei Yisrael, they shall give a ransom for their soul).

"be'Mispar Sheimos le'gulgelosom" (1:22).

The top of the second 'la'med' in the word "le'Gulgelosam" (by the tribe of Shimon) is bent, observes the Ba'al ha'Turim, because its Nasi was Sh'lumiel ben Tzurishaday, alias Zimri ben Salu, who debased Yisrael with his immoral conduct at Ba'al Pe'or, causing twenty-four thousand of Yisrael to die.

The 'la'med' is the tallest of the letters (that is why it sits most appropriately in the middle of the word 'Melech'), but Zimri shortened the stature of the tribe of Shimon. That is why his tribe would never produce kings or Shoftim (Judges), and this is hinted in the small 'la'med'.

"Each man by his flag, according to the signs to the house of their fathers" (2:2).

All four sons to whom Ya'akov spoke directly (in Parshas Vayechi) would later become leaders of flags. He said to Reuven "Reuven, you are my firstborn"; to Yehudah "Yehudah, your brothers will thank you; to Yosef "from the G-d of your father, and He will assist you", and to Dan "For your salvation I hoped, Hashem".

That is why Reuven, Yehudah, Yosef (Ephrayim) and Dan would later become flagleaders. And that is the 'signs' to which the pasuk alludes here (see also Rashi).

"Around the Ohel Mo'ed they shall encamp. And those who encamped ... " (2:2/3).

The Ba'al ha'Turim points to the double use of 'encamp' here. It comes to teach us, he says, that the camp of Yisrael was parallel to the Camp of the Angels, which Yisrael had merited to see at Har Sinai when the Torah was given.

They coveted it then, and now their request was granted. Because when Yisrael received the Torah, they actually rose to the level of angels.

"Degel Machaneh Ephrayim ... Elishama ben Amihud" your salvation I hoped, Hashem".

That is why Reuven, Yehudah, Yosef (Ephrayim) and Dan would later become flagleaders. And that is the 'signs' to which the pasuk alludes here (see also Rashi).

"Around the Ohel Mo'ed they shall encamp. And those who encamped ... " (2:2/3).

The Ba'al ha'Turim points to the double use of 'encamp' here. It comes to teach us, he says, that the camp of Yisrael was parallel to the Camp of the Angels, which Yisrael had merited to see at Har Sinai when the Torah was given.

They coveted it then, and now their request was granted. Because when Yisrael received the Torah, they actually rose to the level of angels.

"Degel Machaneh Ephrayim ... Elishama ben Amihud" (2:18).

This Pasuk begins and ends with a 'da'led'. The Ba'al ha'Turim explains that this corresponds to the four times that Ya'akov placed Ephrayim before Menasheh. And that is why Ephrayim precedes Menasheh in four places: by the flags, by the Princes, by the sacrifices and by the tribes.

"ve'ha'Levi'im Lo Hospokdu ... " ('And the Levi'im were not counted among the B'nei Yisrael") 2:33.

The 'hey' (whose numerical value is five) in "hospokdu" contains tagin (crowns), because on the five occasions where Yisrael were counted, the Levi'im were not counted together with them (Ba'al ha'Turim).

"ve'Eileh sh'mos B'nei Aharon he'bechor Nadav ... " (3:2). What difference would it make to us to know that Nadav was Aharon's firsborn, since he never served in that capacity anyway, asks the Ba'al ha'Turim?

That, he says, is why there is a 'p'sik' (a line) between the word "Bechor" and the word "Nadav", a hint that it is not Nadav to whom "ha'Bechor" pertains, but to Aharon, who was older than Moshe, and is therefore referred to as "ha'Bechor".

"ve'Choyu ve'Lo Yomusu" ('And they will live and not die') 4:19.

On only one other occasion in T'nach does the word "ve'Choyu" occur. The Navi Zecharyah (10:9), in comnection with the ultimate return from Golus, writes "ve'Choyu es beneihem, ve'Shovu". This teaches us, the Ba'al ha'Turim explains, that in the days of Moshi'ach, the Angel of Death will become extinct, and their children will live forever.

The Gemoro in Menachos (65b) cites the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira (one of many), who explains how we know that, when the Torah, with reference to counting the Omer, writes "u'S'fartem lochem mi'Mochorasha'Shabbos", it is really refering to the day after the first day of Yom-tov". We learn it, he says, from the following posuk, which describes how we count the Omer until "mi'Mochoras ha'Shabbos ha'Shevi'is". Since the word "ha'Shabbos" appears in both places, we say that just as the counting terminates a day away from the beginning of a Yom-tov (Shavu'os), so too, do we begin counting a day away from the beginning of a Yom-tov (Pesach). The sequence is clearly Pesach, the Omer and Shavu'os, all forming one entity, much like the introduction to a book, the main content and the conclusion. The difference being that whereas there, the introduction and the conclusion enhance the main content, here it is the counting in the middle that acts like a bridge, connecting the two Yomim-tovim at either end.

In 'Parshah Pearls', Parshas Shemini (see 'Sefiras ho'Omer, the Day After Shabbos'), we referred briefly to an explanation by the B'nei Yisoschor (though not by name), explains that the Kedushah of Shabbos comes from above, whereas that of Yom-tov comes from below. (This concept explains why the Torah refers to Shabbos as "Shabbos la'Hashem", as it is not subject to human interference, whereas in connection with Yom-tov, it writes "Mikro kodesh yihyeh lochem", since it is fixed by the Beis-Din.

And it also explains the difference between the conclusion of the middle b'rachah the Shabbos Amidah ('Mekadesh ha'Shabbos'), and the Amidah if Yom-tov ('Mekadesh Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim'). We further explained there how Pesach Mitzrayim was the sole exception, inasmuch as Yisrael in Egypt were not on a sufficiently high level to sanctify the Yom-tov, due to their deep attachment to the Egyptian deities. Consequently, G-d had to take the first step to sanctify them, like He sanctifies the Shabbos. And this explains why the Torah refers to the first day of Pesach as 'Shabbos' (because in this regard, it has the characteristic of Shabbos).

On the one hand, it is gratifying to know that when we are unable to supply the means to our salvation, G-d supplies them on our behalf. On the other hand, there is a grave danger that Kedushah that is given free, and that is devoid of human impetus, is shallow and cannot last. Besides, it was never G-d's plan that we should be spoon-fed with Kedushah (in fact, any reward that is not earned is known kabbalastically as 'Nahama de'Chisufa' - bread of shame).

That is why immediately after the first day of Pesach (the day we left Egypt), Hashem followed up His Divinely inspired salvation with the mitzvah of Sefiras ha'Omer. This was an opportunity to work our way, slowly, day by day, by means of the Sefiras ho'Omer, to the level of kedushah, whereby we would be able to sanctify Shavu'os. That is why the Torah uses the expression "u''Sefartem lochem mi'mochoras ha'Shabbos". It is for our benefit, explains the B'nei Yisoschor, so that we should acquire the great inspiration of Yom-tov by our own efforts, so that the acquisition should be a deep and lasting one.

Perhaps this is also the deeper meaning of the Omer that was brought on Pesach and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shavu'os. The commentaries ascribe these two sacrifices to the two levels of Yisrael on the respective Yomim-tovim. On Pesach, when we were unrefined like animals, the prevalent Korban was raw barley, which at that time comprised animal fodder. On the other hand, on Shavu'os, where, through the giving of the Torah, we attained the level of human beings (in the way that Hashem anticipated when He created the world), the Korban is changed to baked wheat loaves.

Based on the above explanation, we can add a new dimension to the distinction between the two korbonos.

On Pesach, we were like animals, because like animals, we were unable to inspire kedushah. This is because animals do not know how to give, only how to take. So instead of ourselves being a source of inspiration, we had to be the recipients of Hashem's. And it was only after we had worked our way up to become human-beings that we learned how to give and were able to inject Kedushah into the Yom-tov of Shavu'os. And this is reflected in the two respective korbanos, the Omer on Pesach, and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Shavu'os.

The Gemara in Shabbos (89b) describes how the angels argued against sending the Torah down to earth, because man was unworthy of possessing such a prestigious work. 'That precious treasure which You put away nine hundred and seventy generations before the world was created You want to give to flesh and blood?', they asked G-d. 'Who is man that You should remember him ... ? It is in the Heaven that You should place Your glory (not on earth).'

Moshe replied by pointing out to them that the Torah speaks about the Exodus from Egypt, it commands us not have other gods, to remember the Shabbos, not to swear falsely and to honour one's parents ... . He asked them whether they went down to Egypt, whether they were influenced by bad neighbours to worship their gods, whether they worked for six days, engaged in business or whether they had parents. And he pointed out to them that since they did not possess a Yeitzer ha'Ra, why would they need to be told not to murder, steal or commit adultery?

And since they did not, why would they want the Torah?

The angels' contention that the Torah was bad for Yisrael (or rather that Yisrael was bad for the Torah), was mistaken. Nor was it even in spite of their inevitable failings, in their capacity as human beings, that they would receive it. It was precisely because of those failings, that the Torah was tailor-made to suit them, and that they, and not the angels, were the ones who ought to receive it.

'The Torah was given to us to purify us', say Chazal, and it is because its sanctity is way above ours that it gives us the goal to strive towards that is the essence of life. The angels after all, were angels already. They did not need the Torah. It is we humans, with our animal instincts, who needed it, to transform us from animals into angels. As G-d said 'I created the Yeitzer ha'Ra, and I created Torah as its antidote' (Kidushin 30b).

The angels' mistake it seems, lay in the inherent difference between them and humans.

Angels are static. The high level of sanctity with which they were created, that is the level with which they remain as long as they exist. Humans have the potential to grow. And therein lay the angels' mistake. If, as they believed, everything would remain the way it was created, then the angels would have been one hundred per-cent right. The perfect Torah, with its high degree of sanctity, would be inappropriate for humans, who, with all their shortcomings, would only abuse it. Far better to give it to the angels, who would treat it with the respect and the honour that it deserves.

But now that man was created to grow, it was clear from Moshe's answer that the ideal home for Torah was on earth, to fulfill its intended purpose as a guide ('Torah'). It was down here that it would enable man to fulfill his potential by obeying its precepts, not in Heaven, whose inhabitants are not subject to growth.

Elimelech died, say Chazal, not just for leaving Eretz Yisrael. After all, it was a time of famine, and in a time of famine, one is permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael, just like Avraham Avinu did.

The reason that he died was because he left Eretz Yisrael, not for self-preservation, but in order to avoid having to share his resources with all the poor people who would inevitably come knocking at his door.

The three signs of a Jew, say Chazal, are that they are merciful, bashful and kind. Someone who lacks these traits, does not belong to the Jewish nation. In view of this Chazal, it hardly seems surprising that Elimelech's sons soon married gentiles. Quite apart from the principle that one sin leads to another.

The commentaries give the main objective of reading Megilas Rus on Shavu'os as to teach us the tremendous reward that is in store for those who perform kindness (with reference to Rus and to Bo'az). It is even more interesting therefore, to learn from the beginning of the Megilah, how much suffering is in store for those who don't.

"May Hashem pay you your reward in full" (2:12).

But why on earth would we have thought that Hashem would not pay Rus in full for her good deeds? Why did Bo'az find it necessary to pray for her in this way, asks the B'nei Yisoschor? To answer this question, he cites the Maharam. The Maharam explains why it is that a Jewish servant who was sick for three years out of the six does not need to complete his six-year term; whereas a regular employee only receives wages for the time that he worked, and no more? It is due to the principle that wages only fall due at the termination of the work, in which case, the fact that his failure to work was not his fault, does not help him to claim for work that he did not perform.

A Jewish servant on the other hand, has already been paid up front. Consequently, it is not he who claims when he is sick, but the master who demands compensation for work that was not done. That is when we apply the principle 'O'nes Rachmana Patrei' (since it was no fault of his that he fell ill).

Strictly speaking, tzadikim are employees, who only get paid after the work is concluded, as Chazal have said ('today to perform the mitzvos, tomorrow to receive the reward' - Eiruvin 22b). In that case, they ought not to receive any reward for mitzvos that they were unable to perform. Yet Hashem in His kindness, pays them even for those mitzvos, too (maybe because they consider themselves His servants, and as such, they receive the benefits of a Jewish servant, and earn their remuneration at once, even though in fact, they get paid only later).

And this is what Bo'az was praying for on behalf of Rus, says the B'nei Yisaschar. He was praying that Hashem should reward her retroactively for all the years she had wanted to convert, but was unable to do so (see last years Shavu'os edition, Megilas Rus 'Quick as a flash'), even though employees only get paid at the end.

That is why the pasuk continues "me'Im Hashem Elokei Yisrael". And he was praying that Rus should receive the same treatment as the Jewish tzadikim, even though she was a gentile at the time.

Although there are six mitzvos connected with Bikurim, they are basically incorporated in two main categories: bringing the fruits to the Kohen in the Beis Hamikdash, and reading the prescribed parshah.

1. It is a Mitzvah to bring one's Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash, as the Torah writes "You shall bring the first-fruits of your land to the House of Hashem your G-d" (Mishpatim 23:19).

2. One designated Bikurim by tying a piece of string around the first fig that ripened, and declaring it Bikurim. And he would do the same to the first fruit that ripened from each of the seven species (wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives or dates) for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, because these are the species to which the mitzvah pertains. Having does this, the fruit is Bikurim, even if it was not completely ripe at the time. If one failed to designate it whilst it was still attached to the ground, one would designate it after it was detached.

3. Although min ha'Torah, Bikurim has no fixed amount, the Rabbanan fixed the minimum at one sixtieth of each particular species.

4. Those who lived close to Yerushalayim would bring the fruit while it was still fresh, whereas those who lived faraway, would let the fruit dry before bringing it. Bikurim that became tomei was not brought to the Beis-Hamikdash.

5. Bikurim, which was brought in solid form (with the exception of grapes and olives, which were brought as wine and oil) had to be brought in a vessel, and was subsequently considered the personal property of the Kohen who received it. It was a mitzvah to bring each of the seven species arranged individually in the basket, the barley underneath and the figs on top. One would divide between one species and another with palm-branches or leaves, and adorn the top of the basket with clusters of grapes. They tended to bring pigeons and doves, which they presented to the Kohanim together with the Bikurim.

6. The moment a particular group entered the Azarah with their Bikurim, the Levi'im would begin to sing "Aromimcha Hashem Ki Dilisoni ... ". The owner of the Bikurim would also bring a Korban Sh'lamim.

7. If the basket was made of wood, the Kohen was permitted to retain it, whereas if it was made of gold, he would return it to its owner.

8. One was not permitted to bring Bikurim before Shavu'os (which is called 'Chag ha'Bikurim') or after Chanukah, and although it applied only to the fruit of Eretz Yisrael proper, the Rabbanan extended it to fruit from the cities of Sichon and Og (Eiver ha'Yarden) as well as Syria. They did not however, incorporate in the mitzvah fruit from Amon and Mo'av or fruit that came from Bavel.

9. It is a mitzvah to read the Parshah of Bikurim when bringing it to the Beis Hamikdash. After reading the first Pasuk "I am telling Hashem ... " whilst the basket was still on his shoulder, the owner would lower it and hold it by its handles. The Kohen (any Kohen from the group who was serving that week) would place his hand under the basket and they would wave it together (in all directions like a lulav). Then he would read, in Lashon ha'Kodesh, from "Arami oved avi ... " until the end of the Parshah and place the basket beside the Mizbei'ach by the south western corner.

10. Once the Bikurim had been placed on the floor of the Azarah, it became permitted for the Kohen to eat, even assuming that the owner had not yet read the Parshah, since the reading was not crucial. All the members of the Mishmar (group of Kohanim) who served that week would ultimately divide the Bikurim brought that day, like they divided all Kodshim every evening. Bikurim had to be eaten in Yerushalayim. They also had to be eaten with joy. Consequently, a Kohen who was an Onan (on the day that he buried a close relative) was forbidden to eat it.

11. The Bikurim was forbidden to a zar (a non-Kohen) like Terumah, from the moment it entered Yerushalayim.

12. A convert could bring Bikurim and read the Parshah. When he read in the Parshah "the land which you gave to our fathers, he was referring to Avraham, whose name was the acronym of 'Av hamon (goyim)' (the father of a multitude of nations', incorporating all converts).

13. Only the owner himself would read the Parshah of Bikurim, not an agent, an administrator or a slave. Nor did a woman, or a Tumtum or Androginus (neither of whom are definitely males) read the Parshah. None of these was able to read the Parshah in which they refer to "the land that you gave to me". Someone who brought Bikurim between Sukos and Chanukah did not read the Parshah either, ". because the season of simchah had already passed.

14. Someone who purchased three trees would bring the fruit and read the Parshah; if he purchased two, he would bring Bikurim but would not read the Parshah. Whereas someone who purchased only one tree did not bring Bikurim at all.

15. Whoever brought Bikurim required 'Linah'. He was not allowed to leave Yerushalayim for home until the following morning.

For sponsorships and adverts call 651 9502