Chamishoh Mi Yo'dei'a

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

Please send your answers and comments to: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM


CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS PINCHOS 5767 - BS"D

1) Ch. 25, v. 11: Does Pinchos have another identity?

2) Ch. 25, v. 18: "Tzorore es haMidyonim" - Torment the Midyanites - Some of the people sinned with the daughters of Moav as well. If so, why weren't the bnei Yisroel commanded to also deal with the Moabites?

3) Ch. 27, v. 1: "Vatikravnoh bnos Tzelofchod ...... l'mish'p'chose Menasheh ben Yoseif" - And the daughters of Tzelofchod came close of the families of Menasheh the son of Yoseif - Rashi notes that the daughters of Tzelofchod held Eretz Yisroel dear. How is this indicated? Perhaps they were simply pursuing their inheritance regardless of where the land was situated.

4) Ch. 28, v. 4: "Es ha'keves echod" - Compare with parshas "tomid" in Shmos 29:39, "HO'echod." Why the difference?

5) Ch. 29, v. 13: "Kvosim bnei shonoh arbo'oh ossor" - Fourteen sheep under a year of age - Rashi (Medrash Tadshei ch. 11) in verse eighteen says that the total of 98 sheep (14 sheep per day for 7 days) counters the 98 admonishments in parshas Ki Sovo. Why where the 98 sheep offered specifically during Sukos and not on another festival?

ANSWERS:

#1

1) Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer ch. #47 states that Pinchos is Eliyohu. This is mentioned as well in Targum Yonoson ben Uziel in Shmos Ch. 4 v. 13, and Ch. 6 v.12 and 18, and in the holy Zohar in numerous places. The gemara B.M. 114b relates a story with Eliyohu, stating that he is a Kohein and Rashi says that he is Pinchos.

2) The Medrash Rabboh Breishis p. 71 s. 9 asks, "What is Eliyohu's lineage?" One opinion is that he is from the tribe of Binyomin; another that he is from Gad (also mentioned in the Baal Haturim B'midbar Ch. 26 v. 15 with a source from Divrei Hayomim. Some change the text of the Baal Haturim to read M'lochim 2:17:1). Eliyohu himself appeared and said, "I am a descendant of Rochel."

3) The Radva"z responsa vol. 6 says that Eliyohu and Pinchos were two separate people who had a common source for their souls.

4) The Chid"a says in the name of Rabbi Moshe Cordoviro that Eliyohu was an angel who was forced to descend to earth and took on the form of Pinchos.

5. The Chid"a says in the name of Rabbeinu Betzalel that there were two people who were called Eliyohu haNovi. (these 5 answers from HaRav D. Mandelbaum)

6) See responsa of the Chasam Sofer in Likutim res. #98. He gives Eliyohu two halachic statuses; one when he appears as a human on this earth, another when he appears as a spirit (neshomoh).

#2

1) Because Rus would be a descendant of the Moabites (Rashi - gemara B.K. 38)

2) The Moabites were rightfully afraid of the bnei Yisroel and therefore caused them to sin to remove their merit. The Midyanites involved themselves in a fray that was of no concern to them (M.R.)

3) The bnei Yisroel were not allowed to fight the Moabites in their land in the merit of Lote, their ancestor, who faithfully served Avrohom. (Ramban)

4) The Moabites did not entice the bnei Yisroel to sin. Only those who showed interest were partners in crime with the Moabites. The Midyanites diabolically seduced the bnei Yisroel to sin, especially targeting the leaders. (Alshich)

5) The Moabites caused the bnei Yisroel to sin during a limited period of time, while the Midyanites schemed to have them continuously sin, as indicated by the word "tzorarim," in the present tense, in the next verse. (Rabbi S.R. Hirsch)

6) The Moabites only sinned with them in a manner that involved their physical lusts, while the Midyanites affected them in their thoughts, a more severe sin. (Noam Elimelech)

#3

1) The Chasam Sofer answers that since they were descendants of Menasheh there was a possibility that Tzelofchod's parcel of land might be situated in Trans-Jordan, as half his tribe received its land apportionment there. His daughters therefore stressed, "t'noh lonu achuzoh b'SOCH achei ovinu" (verse 4). They specifically requested a portion among the bnei Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel, even though the portions in Trans-Jordan were vastly larger than those in Eretz Yisroel. We thus have a clear indication that they held Eretz Yisroel very dear.

2) The story is told of the wife of the Sfas Emes hearing her son the Imrei Emes studying our parsha and quoting our Rashi. She asked the question posed above by the Chasam Sofer. The Imrei Emes answered her that whether Tzelofchod was put to death because of desecration of the Shabbos or as a result of his being among those who attempted to enter Eretz Yisroel by force (Bmidbar 14:44-45), it took place either in the first or second year of the bnei Yisroel's wandering in the desert. If so, why did his daughters wait until now to claim their inheritance of their father's property? Surely he owned chattel of some value. This proves that they held the Holy Land very dear. They had no interest in his other possessions. Only now when they were close to entering Eretz Yisroel and the apportioning of the land parcels was at hand did they pursue their inheritance.

#4

1) Rabbi Yehudoh Chosid says "ho'echad" = 18 in gematria, indicating the nine Kohanim who process the morning "tomid" and the nine who processed the afternoon "tomid." There is no need for repetition.

2) Baal HaTurim says the 18 hints to the 18 brachos of the Shmona Esrei, as tefillah is in place of korbanos, "Unshalmoh forim s'fo'seinu," (Hoshei'a 14:3)

3) The GRI"Z of Brisk says that the mishnoh in M'nochos 49a says that the two temidim sacrifices are independent of each other, i.e. if the morning sacrifice wasn't brought, the afternoon one may still be brought. However, regarding the dedication of the altar, the Gemara there (50a) cites a Breisa which says that the dedication can only be done with the morning "tomid", and if it wasn't brought, the afternoon one may not be brought. Hence, in Shmos 29:39, which was the dedication of the altar, we must have the morning "tomid" sacrificed, so we have the word "HO'echod," definite article, to indicate the morning one must be brought. However here, where the "tomid" sacrifice for generations is discussed, there is no letter Hei indicating a definite article, since the afternoon "tomid" can be brought without the morning "tomid."

#5

The Avnei Nezer answers that the admonishments come about in the main for not serving Hashem with joy (Dvorim 28:47). Since Sukos is the festival of "V'somachto b'cha'gecho, v'hoyiso ach so'mei'ach" (Dvorim 16:14,15), it is the appropriate time to counter serving Hashem without joy.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights


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 parsha@shemayisrael.co.il

http://www.shemayisrael.co.il
Jerusalem, Israel