A Quick Torah Thought

One of the paradoxes about the story of Pinchas is that he acted zealously, but with Torah sanction. Besides the fact that he earned the priesthood and the covenant of peace by killing Zimri, the prince of Shimon, the mere fact that according to Torah law anybody could have killed him is no less than astounding.  Were one to see a Jewish man sleeping with a Midianite woman, one had every right to act zealously and kill that person. And, what if that person wasn't zealous? Is the law reserved for the zealous among us?  To say that zealousness corresponds with the law is an oxymoron. If it is the said law, then it's not an expression of zealousness, and if it's zealousness, then, it's not the law. As a case in point, according to the Dromi law legislated after Shai Dromi had shot and killed Bedouin thieves that had broken into his property in the Negev, were one to act in a similar manner, one would be in keeping with the law. Would a person who followed the law be said t...

Pirkei Avot (1:19) famously teaches:  "Whoever possesses these three things, he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father; and [whoever possesses] three other things, he is of the disciples of Bilaam, the wicked. A good eye, a humble spirit and a moderate appetite he is of the disciples of Abraham, our father. An evil eye, a haughty spirit and a limitless appetite he is of the disciples of Bilaam, the wicked. What is the difference between the disciples of Abraham, our father, and the disciples of Bilaam, the wicked? The disciples of Abraham, our father, enjoy this world, and inherit the world to come, as it is said: “I will endow those who love me with substance, I will fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21). But the disciples of Bilaam, the wicked, inherit Gehinnom, and descend into the nethermost pit, as it is said: “For you, O God, will bring them down to the nethermost pit those murderous and treacherous men; they shall not live out half their days; but I trust in You” (Psal...

Rabbi Hirsch teaches that Moshe and Aharon speaking as opposed to striking the rock that would provide the masses with water was what presaged the new modality of prayer that would be required in the promised land.  The need to perform a miracle was prefaced, and precipitated by yet another complaint: "Why did you make us leave Egypt to bring us to this wretched place, a place with no seed to plant or figs or vines or pomegranates? There is not even water to drink!” It would seem that the cardinal complaint was not so much that they didn't have water, but rather, that the people wanted something to do with their time, a creative venture, something that would require them to work and see the fruits of their efforts. They wanted seed to plant, so they could grow fruit trees, and prune them; that was the heart of the matter.  If one were to look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where people's most basic needs like food, water, and clothing are at the bottom of the pyramid,...

So, did he, or did he not? Enigmatically, the Torah doesn't really say. It says that "all of his men" were killed when the ground opened up to devour the rabble rousers, and that the 250 men who had brought sacred incense were engulged by flames. Initially, Moshe had instructed to appear with the 250 men but it could be that he had cold feet or that God pre-empted him, because he appears in neither of the above contingents! In shul this past Shabbat I asked this question of someone and he tried to use an analogy that at first seemed very flawed. He said, "What would happen if Sinwar wasn't killed? All of his men were destroyed, annihilated, but nothing ever happened with him. Would it really matter?!"  Maybe, alternatively, imagine a situation where Eichmann had never been captured, but left to die peaceably in his old age, surrounded by his children and grandchildren, who had come to receive their final blessings.  Ironically, the Medrash teaches that Phara...

The Medrash famously spotlights Moshe's fault in effectuating and even causing the sin of the spies.  "And Hashem said to Moshe saying; send people for yourself." The Medrash hones in on the words, "for yourself," and comments, "You, Moshe needed proof of the goodness of the land, but I knew full well how good the land was."  In Devarim as well as in the book of Bamidbar there are accounts of the spies. In Bamidbar, in Parshat Korach, which records the events as they unfold, the spies speak ill of the land and the people are caught up in the collective fear, congregating in their tents, badmouthing the land. In the book of Devarim the narrative is different; the spies speak well of the land, but the people, having closed their hearts, decide to besmirch the land. The Ramban comments that for fear of frontally confronting Moshe Rabbeinu, the spies, in a coup of sorts, sung the land's praise in front of Moshe, but then went behind his back to badmout...