by Zvi Akiva Fleisher
Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues
OROH V'SIMCHOH - MESHECH CHOCHMOH ON PARSHAS NOSSO 5767 BS"D
Ch. 7, v. 13: "Kaaras kesef achas shloshim u'mei'oh mishkoloh mizrok echod kesef shivim shekel b'shekel hakodesh SHNEIHEM m'lei'im" - The Targum Yonoson ben Uziel says that the "k'oroh," the plate had a thin wall, while the "mizrok," the bowl, had a thick wall. How does he know this?
The GR"A says that the gemara Yoma 62b derives from the word "SHNEI" (Vayikroh 16:5) that the two goat sacrifices of Yom Kippur must be similar. Here we also have the word SHNEI in "SHNEIHEM m'lei'im." This teaches us that the two vessels are equal. The "k'oroh" had almost twice as much silver in it as the "mizrok." How then could they be equal? The GR"A answers that they have equal volume of content. This could only be true if the vessel made of 130 coins of silver weight was created with a very thick wall, and the vessel made of 70 coins of silver weight was created with a thinner wall.
The Meshech Chochmoh says that with this we can understand a difference in the description of the vessels. When describing the weight of the thick-walled "k'oroh" the Torah gives us the weight as 130 without mentioning that it refers to 130 SHEKEL COIN weights, and when describing the description of the "mizrok" the Torah says "70 SHEKEL B'SHEKEL HAKODESH." The "mizrok" was made with a thin wall which was the thickness of the original shekel coin. Since a characteristic of the original coin was maintained, the Torah mentions SHEKEL. The "k'oroh," however, was created with a very thick wall, approximately double the thickness of a shekel. Since there was no vestige of the original shekel, the Torah only mentioned the number without mentioning the coin.
Shoftim Ch. 13, v. 5: "U'moreh LO YAA'LEH AL ROSHO ki nzir Elokim y'h'yeh hanaar min habo'ten," - v. 7: "Ki nzir Elokim y'h'yeh hanaar min ha'beten AD YOM MOSO" - Verse 5 contains the words of the angel to the wife of Monoach, and verse 7 contains the words of Monoach's wife to her husband. There are two noticeable differences between the two verses. In verse 5 the angel mentions that a razor shall not go upon the newborn child's head, but he leaves out that the child will be a nozir until his death, while the wife of Monoach relates to her husband that the child will be a nozir from the womb until his death, but leaves out that a razor shall not go upon his head.
The Meshech Chochmoh says that the angel was telling her the laws of a nozir from birth. Therefore he mentioned that a razor shall not be used on the child's head as per Bmidbar 6:5. There was no need to mention that the status of nozir would continue until his death. The wife of Monoach, on the other hand, had divine inspiration in her words and said that he would be a nozir until his death, and although he may not have been permitted to have his hair cut, in fact, his hair would eventually be cut, shortly before his death, as we see in Shoftim 16:19.
FEEDBACK AND SUBMISSIONS ARE APPRECIATED. SHOLOM613@AOL.COM
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 firstname.lastname@example.org