Parshas Ekev - A thought on the first Rashi

“And it will be, as a consequence of (Ekev) you heeding these laws, and you guard them and fulfill them; HaShem your God will guard for you the covenant and the kindness that he swore to your forefathers.”

~ Devorim 7:12

And it will be, as a consequence of (Ekev) you heeding these laws. If you will heed even the smaller commandments, which a person [sometimes] tramples on with his heels (B’EhKayVav), then … HaShem, your God will guard, etc. He will keep his promise to you. 

~ Rashi on Devorim 7:12

Rashi points out the use here of the uncommon word Ekev (as a consequence of) and draws on a comment from the Midrash Tanchuma, which ties this to another word with a similar root, EhKayVa (heel). The lesson, he suggests, is that our heavenly reward is contingent on our adherence to all the mitzvot, not just those we favor but also those that we might downplay, fulfill half-heartedly, or even ignore.

This raises an interesting challenge, which each of us faces individually:

What are your ‘smaller mitzvot’?

For each of us, the answer will be different by dint of our individual preferences.  

We recently concluded the mournful and introspective season of the three weeks and entered the seven-week period that leads to the High Holydays. Perhaps now is a fine time to start considering which ‘little’ areas of observance we each have neglected and what we might resolve to improve upon in the new Jewish year.

Parshas Ve'etchanan - a thought on the first Rashi

This weeks parashah of וָאֶתְחַנַּן [Va’etchanan] begins:

    וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל יְה בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר

 Va’etchanan el Hashem v’ayt ha he laymor

“And I implored [or entreated] Hashem at the time, saying…”

 Breaking down the sentence into three components we can see the following.

Rashi teaches us that the word Va'etchanan “And I implored” is a derivative of the word chinan, which always signifies [the request for] an unearned gift.   Moses we all know is one of if not the most righteous Jews to have lived or ever is likely to live. Even though the righteous could justify their requests based on their good deeds, in their humility they only request unearned gifts from G-d. It is said that it is probable that this is because the righteous would prefer to receive any form of reward in the world to come, rather than in this life.

“At that time.”   Rashi goes on to explain that to a certain extent Moses may have actually thought he had avoided his long feared fate of not being able to enter the land of Israel.   Perhaps he was thinking that “after I had conquered the land of Sihon and Og, I thought that perhaps the vow [which G-d had made, that I should not enter the land] was nullified, [since the land I entered has become part of the land of Canaan].

“Saying,” This is one of three occasions in which Moses said before G-d, “I will not let You go until You let me know whether or not You will grant my request.”  Of course we know better.   Moses was not to be allowed to enter the land to which he had led the children of Israel for more than 40 years, despite this heartfelt petition.   In fact G-d if anything becomes angry with Moses for the repeated asking.

In our generation, many of us feel entitled, to be given things - as a reward for our good deeds, whether it be for an act of chessed [kindness], performing a mitzvah [good dead] or “just because.”     What we should realize, especially in this generation, is that we are the recipients of so many gifts, on so many levels each and every day.   Both on a personal level, on a communal level, in the land of Israel, and as a nation of Am Yisrael.

We should all strive to be on the level of Moses, to be humble enough to recognize that what we pray for each day is not the repayment of our great righteousness but, rather, the continued gifts of a very gracious God.

Shabbat shalom.

Guest posting by

Marc Turansky

(a commentary on his Bar-Mitzvah parsha!)

Parshas Devarim - a thought on the first few Rashis

“These are the words that Moshe addressed to all of [the Children of] Israel across the Jordan, in the wilderness, on the Arava plain facing Suf, between Poron and Tofel, and Lovon and Chatzeiros and Di Zohov.”

~ Devarim 1:1

Rashi notes that the place names in this verse do not correspond to the location of the Israelite camp when the Book of BaMidbar (Numbers) ended, when they were encamped in the plains of Moav. Additionally, some of the place names (such as Tofel and Lovon) appear nowhere else in Scripture. Rashi concludes that these geographic identifiers actually serve as coded rebukes of the Jews for previous bad behavior – “in the wilderness” alludes to the episodes when the Jews grumbled against God in the desert, “Facing Suf” hints at the complaints of the Jews as the Egyptian army approached them by the Yom Suf (Red Sea), Tofel and Lovon are plays on Hebrew words to intimate the Jews’ malicious criticisms of the manna (which was white, lovon), and so on.

As a teacher, I interpret Moshe Rabbeinu’s struggles with the Jewish people by considering his role as our preeminent teacher. He was given a lesson plan to follow – food and water regularly provided by acts of Divine kindness, miracles such as the splitting of the Red Sea and tremendous military victories to demonstrate God’s benevolence, and an all-encompassing code of laws to guide the people’s daily lives. It was a comprehensive, all-encompassing lesson plan. Yet, as we know from reading Shemos, VaYikra, and BaMidbar, the students continuously rebelled.

It took tremendous patience and sensitivity of a man of Moshe’s stature to reason with the Jewish people, recognize and accept their shortcomings, and (at times) persuade God not to obliterate them. All teachers would be well served by reading this week’s parsha carefully, to be reminded that even history’s most masterful teacher faced frequent complaints and serious challenges to his lesson plan; we should expect no less.

It would do us all a lot of good to remind ourselves of role models to teaching success, who reflect Moshe Rabbeinu’s skills and resilience. For me, one such role model was Mrs. Chaya Newman – the principal of Bruriah High School for Girls (and my boss) for over three decades. Like Moshe, she faced complaints from all quarters – students, teachers, parents, and other administrators. I used to marvel at her ability to wade through and sift the complaints, to determine which were legitimate concerns and which were not. She must have read Parshas Devarim many times.

Guest posting by

Joel Glazer

Author of “It Happened in my Classroom”

Social Studies teacher in Bruriah High School for Girls

1 Av 5773

July 8, 2013  

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.