Parshas Pinchas: A thought on one of the first Rashi commentaries

“And God spoke to Moshe saying: Pinchas the son of Elazar, the grandson of Aharon the kohain, has turned my anger away from Bnei Yisroel by his vengeance for me among them, so I did not destroy Bnei Yisroel in my vengeance.”

~ BaMidbar 25:10

“And the name of the slain Israelite man, who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu.”

~ BaMidbar 25:14

The name of the Israelite man, etc. In the place where the lineage of a righteous person is mentioned for praise, the lineage of a wicked person is mentioned for shame. 

~ Rashi on BaMidbar 25:14

This small comment by Rashi has a lot to say to us.

As observant Jews, we may decry the sensationalism and scandal-obsession of our news media. And indeed, there is much to dismiss in the preoccupation of reporters, newspapers, and websites. But underscoring all this is a very real and worthwhile human drive – the need to constantly define our moral values, in a communal (and very public) manner. This need is accomplished by identifying those that transgress important boundaries and commit repulsive acts.

We see the explicitness of the Torah, in recounting the sins of Zimri, and in accounts of other deplorable acts described in the Navi’im (Prophets) and in the Gemara (Talmud). It appears that – while concerns of Tzni’ut (modesty) and Shemiras HaLoshon (proper speech) are quite salient – there will always be a place in our tradition for publicly calling out people behaving badly.

And yet there is a vital bit of context that is evident here, which we must not overlook. The episode of Pinchas & Zimri bears a similarity with the episode of the spies, in that in both situations the Torah takes pains to show us who acted righteously in contrast to the sinfulness of others (with the spies, it was Caleb and Yehoshua). Rashi’s comment suggests that our sociological/communal need to define our shared values is served well only when we make sure to also identify those deserving praise whenever we call out those who should be condemned.

Parshas Balak - Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.  And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many; and Moab was overcome with dread because of the children of Israel.”

BaMidbar 22:2-3

The question when reading the Pasuk in Hebrew is obvious: Why does the opening start off with the words “what Yisroel had done to the Emori, and then immediately in the next Pasuk say that Balak was afraid of “HAAM” /“the nation/people”. Why does the Torah switch from “Yisroel” to “HAAM” - Wouldn’t it make sense to use the word “Yisroel”, or even better, describe them with a pronoun like “them”?

In addition, the usage of the word “Vayuguru” also has to be brought into question. Rashi explains that it is a Loshon (language) of awe or fear. But if that is the case, then why not use the word “Pachad” or “Yira”, both expressions that are more commonly used to denote fear. What was the Torah hinting at by using the Shoresh “Gur” to denote fear?

I would like to posit that Balak saw that there was major “Hebrew Fever”. Mitzrayim, one of the most powerful cultures had just been decimated by a small nation led by a Supernatural power. Not only were they destroyed, but many of their own people converted and joined the Jewish people on their journey to the Holy Land…right through the land of Moab. This of course explains the usage of the word “AM” which many commentaries explain throughout the Torah as referring to the Erev Rav.  Balak, whose own people had been struggling with strife with the Midianites for so many years, was afraid that this mass conversion was an epidemic that would influence his own people. It was this reason why he was afraid of the growing popularity of the Jewish people. Hence, the Torah uses the “Gur” shoresh which is also the Shoresh for “Gairus,” conversion, thus alluding to Balak’s real fear.

The lesson we learn is obvious. When we act the way we are supposed to, the inspiration that is caused is not only within but also beyond. Let us always take this message with us wherever we go.  

Guest posting by

Rabbi Ari Glazer

Far Rockaway, NY 

Parshas Chukas – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And God spoke to Moshe and Aaron saying: This is the statute of the Torah which God commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Israel that they take to you a red cow, perfect, without a blemish, upon which no yoke was placed.”

~ BaMidbar 19:1-2

This is the statute (Chukas) of the Torah. Because Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying: “What is this commandment? What is the reason for it?” Therefore the Torah refers to it as Chukas, a statute. I decreed it and you are not permitted to question it.

~ Rashi on BaMidbar 19:2

Rashi’s comment instructs us that the commandment to take a pure red cow, burn it, and use its ashes to purify those contaminated through contact with the dead (19: 3-22) is offered without any explanation or symbolism as to why the ritual effects purification. The strangeness of the ritual, and its lack of rationale, has been used by other nations as a reason to mock the Jews.

This brings to mind, for me, the mishnah in Pirke Avot: “Antignos of Socho received the tradition from Simon the Tzadik. He used to say: Be not like servants who serve the master on the condition of receiving a reward. Rather, be as servants who serve the master without the condition of receiving a reward. And let the fear of Heaven be upon you. “ (1:3)

It may well be that part of the reward for observing many mitzvot is the knowledge that there is a satisfying reason for the commandment. For example, we show kindness to strangers because we were strangers in Egypt, we honor our parents because we are instructed that this is linked to the prospects of long life, etc. Looking through the prism of the above cited mishnah, we can see that one possible lesson of a commandment such as the one to prepare the ashes of the red cow may be that we should aspire to a higher than usual level of service to God – one in which any ‘reward’ of rationale is absent. Such service may be less reassuring (because we don’t know why we’re doing it) but, conversely, it demonstrates much greater dedication.

Parshas Korach – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And Korach took (VaYeeKach), the son of Kehos, the son of Levi, and Dasan and Aviram the sons of Eliav, and On the son of Peles, the sons of Reuvein.”

~ Bamidbar 16:1

And Korach took. He took himself to a different side, to be disassociated from the community and to cast aspersions on the priesthood.

~ Rashi on Bamidbar 16:1

When Rashi encountered the word “VaYeeKach” or a variation in the context of one person ‘taking’ another, he usually understood it to indicate persuasion. As an example, later in Bamidbar (20:25) Moshe is instructed to ‘take’ Aharon (“Kach”) and prepare him for his (Aharon’s) demise. There, Rashi comments on the word ‘Take’: “With comforting words (should Moshe summon Aharon). Say to him: “How fortunate you are to see your post handed to your son- something which I do not merit to see (in my own life).” ¹

In this week’s parsha, Rashi gives the word “VaYeeKach” a slightly different flavor. Since the verse places the word before Korach’s name, and then lists his lineage, Rashi understands that Korach persuaded himself to dissent from the community. It is interesting to me that when this verb-form is used in the Torah to connote an internal dialogue, the connotation is negative. I cannot recall another use of the verb-form in the Torah in this manner (self-directed) so all we have is this one instance, which is not viewed favorably. Is there a lesson here?

Perhaps the Torah is casting suspicions on a situation when someone’s inner conversation persuades him or her to pursue a leadership position, absent any calling (from God, or from his or her peers), that this is an appropriate role for them. As we see from Korach’s example, the calling to leadership that someone hears only internally may well be rooted in arrogance or hubris.

¹ = Rabbi Eliezer Wolf of the Beth David Highland Lakes shul in Aventura, Florida, in a Dvar Torah posted online, points out that Rashi consistently applies this understanding of the verb-form ‘to take’ in Shemos 14:6 (Pharoah ‘takes’ his people, to chase the Jews who recently left Egypt), VaYikra 8:2 (Moshe ‘takes’ Aharon and exhorts him to start the sacrificial service), and Bamidbar 27:22 (Moshe ‘takes’ Joshua and appoints him as the new leader of the Jewish people), and in other places.