subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

For sponsorships and advertising opportunities, send e-mail to:SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM


Ch. 4, v. 23: "Kol habo" - Each who comes - Here by the bnei Gershon and in verse 30 by the bnei M'rori it says "kol habo," with a lead-in definitive Hei. In the previous parsha in 4:3 by the bnei K'hos it says "kol bo" without the prefix Hei. The Tur explains that the bnei Gershon and bnei M'rori came to do their tasks with no delay, on their own, and this is indicated by the prefix Hei. The bnei K'hos could not do this in 4:15 it clearly states that they may only come to take the holiest items after Aharon and his sons his them from view in their appropriate coverings. "Kolb bo" connotes coming after a previous act was done.

Ch. 4, v. 24: "Zose avodas mish'p'chos haGershuni laavode ulmasso" - This is the task of the Gershuni family to work and to bear a load - By the bnei K'hos it does not say "ulmasso." Rather, it says "lo'seis." Since the bnei K'hos had among the vessels that they were to carry, the Holy Ark, which had the nature of "nosei es nosov," it carried its carriers, they only carried, but the object was not a "masso," a load. The bnei Gershon carried the Mishkon components, which were indeed a load, hence "ulmasso." (Rabbi Y.Z. Pollack)

Ch. 5, v. 6: "Limol maal baShem" - To commit a felony against Hashem - The verse is discussing one who stole. Why is this to be considered a crime against Hashem more so than against one's fellow man?

1) The gemara explains that our verse is discussing a case where the victim was a convert to Judaism. He has forsaken his previous beliefs and embraced the Torah and when he is the victim of a fellow Jew it creates a terrible desecration of the sanctity of our religion. This is truly a crime against Hashem. (Sforno)

2) Every thief does not believe that Hashem has pre-destined precisely the amount of wealth and exactly which items should be in each person's possession. (n.l.)

3) The gemara in the first chapter of Sanhedrin says that a thief burdens Hashem with the task of bringing about the return of the object or its value to the original rightful owner. (Rabbi Y.Z. Pollack)

Ch. 5, v. 7: "V'hisvadu es chatossom asher ossu v'heishiv" - And THEY shall confess their wrongdoing that they did and HE shall return - Why does the verse begin in the plural form and then switch to the singular form? Many many people admit to their wrongdoing, but it is only one among many who upon confessing springs into action to correct his wrongdoing. (Rabbi Y.Z. Pollack)

Ch. 5, v. 10: "V'ish es kodoshov lo yi'h'yu ish asher yi'tein laKohein lo yi'h'yeh" - And a man his holy items will be to him a man who will give to the Kohein to him it will be - A simple reading of this verse is most enigmatic. Rashi explains that the holy items a person is to give away are his insofar as he has the benefit and right to decide to which Kohein he will give it. Alternatively, if a person refrains from tithing, in the future his fields will yield a most dismal amount, the small percentage that he would have given to the Kohein. However, if he does give the Kohein all that he is supposed to, "lo yi'h'yeh," the one who tithed will have a blessing of abundance.

The Divrei Sho'ul of Modzitz offers another insight. The holy items that a person tithed can still be retained by the original owner in a case where he is able to be "matir neder," receive an annulment, for setting aside "this" part, and "lo yi'h'yu," the items remain his. However, when he has already handed it over to a Kohein, "Is hasher yi'tein laKohein," then it is irretrievable, "lo yi'h'yeh," it remains the Kohein's.

Since Rashi explains that "asher yi'tein laKohein" means that he gives "matonos ho'r'uyos lo," in the plural, why does the verse change from "lo yi'h'yeh" to "lo yi'h'yU?" Any help would be appreciated.

Ch. 5, v. 12: "Umo'aloh VO mo'al" - And she has committed an infidelity in HIM - In responsa Maharik #163 the following question is raised: A married woman committed adultery and as halacha requires, her husband divorced her. She claimed she was a total ignoramus of Torah law and did not know that the Torah prohibited adultery. She therefore claimed that she deserved her "k'suboh" payment as a divorced woman. The Mahari"k writes that her claim is baseless, as even if we were to totally believe her she was nevertheless guilty of infidelity to her husband. She surely knew that this was improper behaviour and an affront to their marriage bond. He cites the word VO of our verse to prove this. The verse does not say that she committed a crime against Hashem, but rather, to HIM, her husband. Another verse here says, "Umo'aloh maal b'ISHOH," again expressing the aspect of a crime against her husband. This she did knowingly and she therefore has no claim to her "k'suboh" benefits.

With this we can explain the verse in Breishis 39:9, "Baasher at ishto v'eich E'E'SEH horo'oh hagdoloh hazose v'chotosi lEilokim." Yoseif is explaining to Potifar's wife that it is wrong to commit adultery. However, he explains it in two manners, that she is his master wife, and that for himself this would be a wrongdoing and a sin to Elokim. She, being married, would be abrogating her bond with her husband, "Baasher at ishto," while for himself it is a sin against Elokim. Ch. 7, v. 14: "Kaf achas" - One spoon - The story is told of a person who visited a community and made his way to the city cemetery to pray at the site of its previous generations Rabbis. He came upon a tombstone that had a depiction of a spoon broken in two and the caption, "Kapoh porsoh le'oni v'yo'dehoh shilchoh lo'evyon" (Mishlei 31), most enigmatic to say the least. Upon returning to the city he queried of people the explanation for this most unusual epitaph. He was sent to an elderly member of the community who might remember what brought to this monumental message. Indeed, he found his answer in the mental archives of the nonagenarian. Way back when there was a most generous philanthropist in the community who gave generously and turned no one down. Unfortunately, his business income dwindled and he was hard pressed to give charity. Nevertheless, he made it his business to give each and every petitioner at least a little something.

It came to the point that he had no money to give and two people came at the same time for donations. Not having any money to give them, he went into his dining room, looking for an object of value to donate. He found nothing save an old, tarnished silver spoon. Having two people waiting for a donation he thought of a novel idea. He took the spoon and cracked it in two, giving the handle to one and the cup section to the other. He died shortly thereafter, and his relatives, apprised of his selfless act decided to advertise it on his monument. This was the meaning of the broken spoon and the adapted message from the vers in Mishlei. He gave the KAF section of the spoon to an "oni," and its handle, YAD, to an "evyon."



See also Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha, Chasidic Insights and Chamisha Mi Yodei'a

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to
Jerusalem, Israel