Parshas Behaaloscha 5783

Who Made the Menorah? (8:4)

• Betzalel (Targum Yonasan; also see Shemos 37:17)
• Hashem after Moshe threw gold into the fire (Rashi citing Midrash Tanchuma, Behaaloscha 3)
• Moshe (Sifrei 61)
  

When setting apart the Leviim, why does the Torah start off by saying "the entire congregation of Bnei Yisroel" but changes to just "Bnei Yisroel"? (8:20)

• The second mention refers to the firstborn who agreed to give up their privileges (Ohr haChayim)

Who were the people unable to bring the Korbon Pesach and were allowed to bring it on Pesach Sheni? (9:6)

• They were tamei due to a contact with a dead body (Pesachim 6b). Ibn Ezra adds that it is impossible that for such large camp without people dying every day.
  
• They were the bearers of Yosef's coffin (Sukkah 25a) [see Midrash Aggadah who argues that they should have been able to purify themselves].
• Mishael and Elizaphan who became tamei through contact with Nadav and Avihu (Midrash Aggadah).
  
• They were involved in a Mes Mitzvah (Sukkah 25b, Midrash Aggadah).

Who are Hovav and Reuel? (10:29)

• Hovav is Yisro, and Reuel was his father (Rashi, also see Shoftim 4:11). Chasam Sofer (Behaaloscha 21) adds that the Torah specifically refers to Reuel as the [grand]father-in-law of Moshe and a Midaini since he didn't convert yet, but not to Yisro (who is considered as a newborn because he converted).
  
• Hovav, Reuel and Yisro are all the same person, and his name was Hovav (Midrash Aggadah). Rabbeinu Bachya and Ramban add that Hovav was the name given to Yisro when he converted. 

Parshas Ki Savo 5782

 The Hunger Stones

The Torah writes (Devarim 27:2-4):

And it shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Yarden to the land which the Lord Your G-d gives thee, that you shalt set up great stones, and cover them with plaster. And you shalt write upon them all the words of this Torah, when you passed over, that you mayst go in to the land which the Lord Your G-d gives you, a land flowing with milk and honey; as the Lord G-d of your fathers has promised your. And it shall be when you have gone over the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones, which I command you this day in mount Eval, and you shalt cover them with plaster.

 However, later on we find a separate set of stones, as it is written in Sefer Yehoshua (4:9):

Joshua also set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan, at the spot where the feet of the priests bearing the Ark of the Covenant had stood; and they have remained there to this day.

As Rashi (ibid) says:

These were different stonesObviously these were not the stones mentioned in the previous verse that Yehoshua set up in the midst of the Jordan

What was the purpose of these stones? Abarbanel, Radak and Malbim state that the purpose of these stones was to remember the miracle of the water stopping so people in the future that pass over this area can see them and remember.

A similar phenomena exists in Europe (Wikipedia):

A hunger stone (German: Hungerstein) is a type of hydrological landmark common in Central Europe. Hunger stones serve as famine memorials and warnings and were erected in Germany and in ethnic German settlements throughout Europe in the 15th through 19th centuries. These stones were embedded into a river during droughts to mark the water level as a warning to future generations that they will have to endure famine-related hardships if the water sinks to this level again. One famous example in the Elbe river in Děčín, Czech Republic, has "Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine" ("If you see me, then weep") carved into it as a warning.

Parshas Naso 5779

Why Did the Sotah Waters Stop?

The Mishnah (Sotah 9:9) writes:

When adulterers multiplied, the ceremony of the bitter waters ceased and it was Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai who discontinued it, as it is said, “I will not punish their daughters for ...” (Hosea 4:14)

(commentators explain in the Talmud - [Sotah 47b] that it was because the husbands were guilty as well)

The Rambam (Sotah 3:13-19) comments that the Sotah ritual only works if the husband never engaged in similar behavior, and therefore the Sanhedrin nullified it when this type of behavior became more common

The Ramban (Numbers 5:20) comments:

And there is no matter among all the laws of the Torah which relies on a miracle except for this one which was a constant wonder and miracle done among the Jewish people when most of them did the will of their G-d ... and therefore this matter stopped once they became involved in sin as it says (Talmud Sotah 47b) ...

Chanah, Shmuel and Sotah

The Talmud (Berachot 31b) writes as follows:

As for the double language in the verse, “if you will look upon [im ra’o tireh],” Rabbi Elazar said: Hannah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, if You will look upon [ra’o] me now, fine, and if not, in any case You will see [tireh].  What was Hannah threatening? She said: I will go and seclude myself with another man before Elkana, my husband. Since I secluded myself, they will force me to drink the sota water to determine whether or not I have committed adultery. I will be found innocent, and since You will not make Your Torah false [pelaster], I will bear children. With regards to a woman who is falsely suspected of adultery and drank the sota water, the Torah says: “And if the woman was not defiled, but was pure, then she shall be acquitted and she shall conceive”(Numbers 5:28).

Ben Yehoyada (ibid) explains:

It is hard to understand who would allow her to commit two prohibitions together - yichud and erasing of G-d's name [during the ritual]? ... rather she said that she is able to do this but since she will not because it is forbidden, it should be counted as a merit for her ...

Parshas Behukosai 5779

Who is Being Ransomed?

The Torah writes (Leviticus 27:29):

No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed: he shall be put to death.

Chizkuni explains the wording:

The somewhat awkward wording of this verse is due to the four different types of death penalty that a Jewish court can impose for different types of capital offences. Our verse applies to any of these kinds of death sentences.

Rashi explain that this refers to Arachin:

This means, if a person is going to be executed and someone says, “I take upon myself to pay his ערך” he has said nothing (his vow is of none effect); you see, he is going to be put to death, and he therefore cannot be redeemed, — he has neither a market-value (דמים) nor an ‎ערך

Bechor Shor (ibid) explains that he cannot be redeemed with money in order not to die based on this verse (Numbers 35:51):

You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death.

(The Talmud [Arachin 6b] explains that since those deemed to die by the hand of Heaven can use money to redeem themselves, we may make the same mistake for those sentenced by a regular court. Therefore, the verse teaches us otherwise)

Tur HaAruch cites the Ramban with three additional explanations:

The Torah had previously stated that anyone consecrating man or beast or chattels and land which he himself owns forfeits the right to redeem such as it automatically becomes the property of the priests and has already lost the status of being something consecrated. However, if someone consecrates something, i.e. the equivalent monetary value of something or someone whom he does not own, such property or people would not become the property of the priests.

 And:

I found further in Yalkut Shimoni (chapter 76 on the Book of Judges) that Rabbi Akiva is quoted as equating the word חרם in our portion with the word שבועה, oath. He derives from our verse that any High Court or legally appointed king, is entitled, especially, when all the tribes are represented when he declares such a decree, to impose the death penalty for violating an oath that bound the entire Jewish people to perform or to refrain from performing a certain task as the case may be.

And regarding Yiftach:

If so, we can understand Yiphtach’s cardinal error, due to arrogance, when he had failed to seek “redemption” from his vow, seeing he had never meant to sacrifice his only daughter if G’d were to grant him victory. He had mistakenly been under the impression that his vow (oath) was valid and could not be annulled. He was not unaware of the legislation enabling such annulment, but assumed that a leader of the nation could not avail himself of an option like this. It had not occurred to him that a vow to offer someone as a burnt offering, when that someone is essentially disqualified as an offering on the altar, has no legal validity at all. [Even if instead of his daughter being the first to welcome him, a cockerel had done so, he would not have had to kill that cockerel, as it is essentially not fit as an offering on the altar. Ed.]

Parshas Vayikra 5779

Washing the Sacrifices?

The Torah writes (Leviticus 1:9):

Its entrails and legs shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the LORD.

Bechor Shor (ibid) explains why:

Washing" for the innards is only written for the burnt offering. This is since the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are eaten by priests, and the wellbeing-offering is eaten by its owners -- if one wants to wash it they may! But this, the burnt-offering, comes to the table of the King, and one needs to prepare it in a respectful manner. But they are burnt outside.

Similarly in Daas Zekeinim (ibid):

seeing that these parts are going to be presented at the “King’s” Table, extreme care had to be taken that everything was meticulously clean and no trace of blood was visible. On the other hand, when writing of animals which were not served up on the “King’s” Table but were burned outside sacred grounds, the Torah lumps together “its insides and its excrement,” (Leviticus 4,11) as it does in Leviticus 1,16, and 27 where flesh, skin, and excrement are all being burned at the same time and place.

 Sifsei Chachamim (ibid) explains who does it:

This is done either by a kohen or by a Levite. Thus Scripture must specify that the kohen is the one who will kindle .

The Mitzva to Destroy Amalek

The Torah (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) writes:

Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

Rashi (ibid) writes:

both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep (a quotation from I Samuel 15:3, stating how the Amalekites were to be destroyed), so that the name of Amalek should never again be mentioned even in connection with a beast, in that one could say: “This beast belonged to Amalek” (Pesikta Zutrata).

However, the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 6:1-4) says that we ask for peace first:

War is not conducted against anyone in the world until they are first offered peace (and refuse it), whether this is a Discretionary War or a War of Mitzvoh, as it says, “when you come close to the city to fight with it, you shall call to it to make peace” (Deut. 20:10).

(see this article by R' Elchanan Samet that discusses the reasoning behind this)

The Value of PI

The Gra writes that it is possible to derive the value of PI from a ksav/kri in Melachim (Kings I 7:23):

Then he made the tank of cast metal, 10 cubits across from brim to brim, completely round; it was 5 cubits high, and it measured 30 cubits in circumference.

The Ksav/Kri is ״וקוה״/״וקו״ which is the gematria of 111 and 106. This results in:

(111/106) x 3 = 3.14150943

(see this article for additional details)

Misc:

•  R' Josh Yuter cites the Shadal who comments on why salt is needed; he also mentions why Ibn Caspi didn't write a commentary on the beginning of Vayikra
• Rav Kook on why the future sacrifices may be without animals
  

Parshas Vayakhel 5779

Why is Fire Singled Out Regarding Shabbos?

The Torah writes (Exodus 35:3):

On six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day.

Rashi (ibid) gives two reasons:

There are some of our Rabbis who say that the law about kindling fire is singled out (more lit., goes forth from the general proposition; i. e. it is specially mentioned here although it is included in לא תעשה כל מלאכה, the law prohibiting all work on Sabbath) in order to constitute it a mere negative command (thus indicating that, like all other negative commands, its infringement is punishable by lashes but does not make the offender liable to death as does the doing of other work on Sabbath). 

and:

Others, however, say that it was singled out in order to separate the various kinds of work comprised in the term כל מלאכה (thus indicating that each transgression of the Sabbath law is to be atoned for separately if several of them have been committed at the same time and under the same circumstances)

Ibn Ezra, the Ramban and the Rashbam explain differently:

Because by the first day and the seventh day of Festival of Matzos [i.e. Pesach] it says "all the work you may not do" to permit אוכל נפש [i.e. work for the personal benefit of people like cooking]. Therefore, now it says regarding Shabbos "you shall not kindle fire" to bake bread and cook meat for fire is אוכל נפש ...

Sforno explains:

even though generally speaking, lighting a fire is not a productive but a destructive activity, seeing that it is an almost indispensable ingredient in most activities the Torah prohibited it as unsuitable for the Sabbath.

Chizkuni, Daas Zkenim and Bechor Shor explain in a similar fashion:

The reason why just the activity of kindling light was chosen by the Torah as the example in question, is that lighting a fire is something that for the onlooker hardly seems like an activity at all, involving neither skill, nor physical strain. If you were to say that granted that actually lighting a fire on the Sabbath is forbidden, but activities preparatory to lighting a fire after the Sabbath are permitted, this too is prohibited. The Sabbath is not a day to be used as a preparation for the activities on the six weekdays. 

Some says that the reason is that just like the fires in Gehinom don't light on Shabbos, the same way we don't light fires on Shabbos

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 35b) explains that this teaches that capital punishment may not be administrated on Shabbos

Spinning Wool While It's Attached

The Torah writes (Exodus 35:26):

And all the women who excelled in that skill spun the goats’ hair.

Rashi writes:

This required extraordinary skill, for they spun it (the goats’ hair) from off the backs of the goats (whilst it was still on the living animals)

The Talmud (Shabbos 99a) adds:

The phrase “whose hearts inspired them” suggests a greater degree of wisdom. Apparently, spinning the goat’s hair curtains required greater skill than spinning the various kinds of wool. And on a similar note, it was taught in abaraita in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: The hair was rinsed on the goats, and it was even spun from the goats, which required a great deal of skill.

However, while there is a disagreement in in the Talmud (Shabbos 74b) whether one is liable or not if they spin wool that way, the outcome is that it is not, as the Rambam writes (Sabbath 9:7):

One who spins wool from a live creature is exempt – as this is not the way of shearing, nor the way of combing nor the way of spinning.

Fire is Allowed in the Mishkan on Sabbath

Chizkuni and Malbim writes:

in all of your dwellings, i.e. the Tabernacle was exempt from all of these restrictions as it was not a residence for human beings. Communal sacrifices were offered as usual.

Misc:

• A story is cited by the Midrash regarding the Roman emperor and lighting fires on Shabbos
• Karaites don't light fires on Shabbos (see Ibn Ezra here). There is also a discussion regarding Shabbos candles when Karaites and Rabbanites marry.
• Example of wool being spun directly off a sheep with a Navajo spindle

Parshas Ki Sisa 5779

Why Did They Worship the Golden Calf?

The Torah writes (Exodus 32:7-8):

The LORD spoke to Moses, “Hurry down, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted basely. They have been quick to turn aside from the way that I enjoined upon them. They have made themselves a molten calf and bowed low to it and sacrificed to it, saying: ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!’”

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 4b) cites an opinion:

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The Jewish people fashioned the Golden Calf only to give a claim to penitents, as it is stated after the revelation at Sinai: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever”. If the nation was truly at such a lofty spiritual state, how could they worship the Golden Calf? Rather, their sin occurred so that it would be made clear that one can repent for any sin, as even a sin as severe as the Golden Calf was forgiven.

Rashi (ibid):

They were strong and controlled their desires and it shouldn't happened that their desires overpowered them, but it was a decree of the King for [their desires] to overpower them in order to give an opening for those who want to repent, so if a sinner says "I won't repent for I won't be accepted" they will answer him "Go and learn from the story of the Golden Calf that they repented and were accepted"

(Rabbi Hershel Schechter interprets this as having their freedom of choice taken away. He also discusses sources that think there is a commandment to lain the Parsha of the Golden Calf every year)

Maharsha (ibid) explains:

To me it seems that the Israelites were fit that G-d would save them from a great sin like this one, even though "everything is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven" ... but why did they do it and were not saved from this sin? [so it would be made clear that one can repent...

Identity of "Aromatic Cane"

The Torah writes (Exodus 30:23):

Next take choice spices: five hundred weight of solidified myrrh, half as much—two hundred and fifty—of fragrant cinnamon, two hundred and fifty of aromatic cane,

Rashi (ibid):

cane of sweet spices. Because there are canes which do not bear sweet spices Scripture had to state (add the word) בֹשֶׂם

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (ibid) provides additional sources:

• Ancient sources identify this with the sweet calmus (Septuagint; Rambam on Kerithoth 1:1; Saadia; Ibn Janach)
• This is the sweetflag or flag-root, Acoras calamus which grows in Europe. It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7).
• Other sources apparently indicate that it was the Indian plant, Cympopogan martini, which has the form of red straw (Yad, Kley HaMikdash 1:3).
• On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant.
• There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim).
• Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel).

Misc:

• R' Josh Waxman explains about why the famous statute of Moses has horns 
• Rabbi Jonathan Sacks discusses why being a stiff necked people is a good thing 
• The Rambam talks about the plural and singular versions of the word "Elokim"