Print-out size = 12 point

(1) What part did the red heifer have in Korach's challenge to Moshe's authority?

(1) The sefer Turei Zahav brings an astonishing Midrash, which says: What did Korach see that he contended with Moshe? He saw the red heifer.

Everyone is amazed by this Midrash - what does the red heifer have to do with Korach's dispute?

But it is possible to explain this according to the Midrash on parshas Ki Sisoh, which writes on the posuk (Shemos 32,11): "Moshe pleaded before Hashem" - R. Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of R. Shimon bar Yochai: Hashem made an opening for repentance at Mount Sinai when He said, "I am Hashem, your G-d". When Yisrael made the golden calf, Moshe tried to appease Hashem, but He would not listen to him. Hashem said to him: Is it possible that we should not carry out the demands of justice for their transgressing of My commandments "I am Hashem, your G-d" and "you shall no other gods" - I have already sworn that "he who slaughters to the gods shall be destroyed" (Shemos 22,19). Moshe replied: Master of the world, this is what You said on Mount Sinai, "I am Hashem, your G-d אלקיך", which is addressing an individual, and not אלקיכם, which would be addressing the many. You were speaking only to me, and I did not transgress your commandment.

According to this, how could Korach, who was very intelligent, challenge Moshe, by arguing "for the entire congregation are all holy", because we all heard at Mount Sinai "I am Hashem, your G-d" and "you shall have no other gods"? By doing so, he is arousing against Yisrael the sin of the golden calf, and Hashem's vow, "he who slaughters to the gods shall be destroyed" cannot be released.

But it is brought in the Midrash that the reason for the red heifer is that the mother should come and clean up the mess that her son made, and so it is an atonement for the sin of the calf. If so, they have now an atonement for their sin, and therefore this allowed Korach to claim that we all heard the commandments.

This is what the Midrash is saying: What did Korach see that he contended with Moshe? He is thereby arousing against them the sin of the calf! Therefore, the Midrash answers that he saw the red heifer, and since they have an atonement, he does not have to be concerned about arousing the sin of the calf.

An alternative explanation is that the Midrash had a difficulty with what Korach said to Moshe and Aharon, (Bamidbar 16,3) "why do you raise yourselves up over the assembly of Hashem?", which obviously implies that he was also challenging Moshe. Because granted he had a complaint against Aharon, since he was equal to the rest of Yisrael, but against Moshe he should have had no complaint about why he was raised up, since to him alone Hashem had commanded "I am Hashem, your G-d" and "you shall have no other gods", and so it was fitting that he was elevated. This is why the Midrash asked what Korach saw to contend with Moshe - the question was specifically concerning his challenge to Moshe.

The Midrash answered that he saw that the red heifer was an atonement for the sin of the golden calf, and therefore it was evident that Hashem had commanded the ten commandments to all of them, because if not so, they had not sinned, so why should they need an atonement? Thus they were all equal, and so he challenged also Moshe.

(3) How did Moshe use the bones of Yosef as an argument that he should be allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael?

(3) The sefer Korban Shabbos brings a puzzling Midrash - Said Moshe: The bones of Yosef entered the land of Yisrael, but I cannot?!

This Midrash is full of difficulties: Firstly, since Moshe specifically mentioned the bones of Yosef in his argument, (and it is true that only his bones entered), if so, he should have said "but my bones cannot enter!", because logic does not allow one to learn more than what one is learning from. Furthermore, why indeed did he depend his argument specifically on the bones of Yosef - surely there were many others who entered the land of Yisrael even after their death, like Yaakov and the bones of all the tribes. Many earlier and later commentators have discussed this Midrash, each one saying a different explanation, and I too wish to say an explanation.

The gemara Kiddushin 18 discusses the law of a handmaid, a young Jewish girl who was sold by her father to serve someone else for a period of time, but who subsequently left his service, and is still young enough for her father to sell her again. The posuk in the Torah which covers such a scenario says, (Shemos 21,8) "he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person בבגדו בה". But there is a dispute about the meaning of the last words of the posuk, and consequently what the law is in this case. R. Eliezer holds that it is an expression of betrayal, and so holds that a person cannot sell his daughter and then sell her again, "because he has betrayed her" by selling her the first time. But R. Akiva holds that it is an expression of clothing, and so holds that a person can sell and resell his daughter, until he spreads his garment over her, a euphemism which means until she gets married, at which point the father will not be able to sell her even if she becomes unmarried whilst still young.

The Tur in parshas Mishpotim writes that both R. Eliezer and R. Akiva learned their opinions from the posukim concerning Yosef and the wife of Potiphar, where it writes (Bereishsis 39,11) "And it happened on a certain day that he came to the house to do his work... and she seized בבגדו". R. Eliezer holds like the opinion that "to do his work" is a euphemism, meaning that he came with the intention to lie with his master's wife, and thus the continuation of the posuk means "and she seized his betrayal". And just as word בגד used in this incident with Yosef is an expression of betrayal, so too by the posukim concerning the handmaid is it an expression of betrayal. But R. Akiva holds like the opinion that it never occurred to Yosef to lie with his master's wife, and so "he came to the house to do his work" - literally, but "she seized his garment". And so the word בגד both there and here is an expression of clothing.

Now, it is a universal rule that Hashem fulfils everything which He commanded us in the Torah. If so, since Chazal taught that the posuk "and when a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant" refers exegetically to Klal Yisrael, who were sold by Hashem into servitude to the nations, then if the halachah is like R. Eliezer that once he has betrayed her he cannot sell her again, why did Hashem betray us a second time by subjugating us to another nation, after we had already been in servitude to Egypt? Perforce we have to say that Hashem holds like the opinion of R. Akiva, that one can sell and resell, until he spreads his garment over her, and this will be when the redeemer comes, may it be speedily in our days, who will spread over us his covering of peace, and then no nation will again rule over us.

And it is well known that the reason why Moshe did not enter the land of Yisrael was because had he entered, then the subjugation of Yisrael to the four kingdoms would not have occurred. And the truth is that it was very necessary that Hashem should exile us amongst the nations, for several reasons, and thus it was not possible for Moshe to enter the land and thereby cause this exile and subjugation to be nullified.

But this is only true if the halachah is like R. Akiva, that one can sell and resell, and if so, logic would dictate that Moshe should not enter Eretz Yisrael so as not to nullify the exile. But if in any case Hashem would not be able to resell us, that is, if the halachah is like R. Eliezer that once he betrayed her he cannot sell her again, then this raises the question of why Moshe should not be allowed to enter the land. We could not argue that it is in order that the exile, which is for Yisrael's benefit, will not be nullified, because it is in any case impossible that they should again go into exile, since they cannot be resold. If so, Moshe should certainly be allowed to enter the land.

Now, it is brought in the Midrash that the reason why only the bones of Yosef merited to enter the land, and not his whole body like his father, Yaakov, was because Yosef wanted to lie with his master's wife, but he envisioned the countenance of his father, and refrained from sinning. (I heard that there is an allusion to this in the posuk "and he fled and went outside" - ויצא is a mnemonic for וירא צורת אביו - and he saw the form of his father, therefore he fled outside). If so, since only the bones entered the land, this proves that he came with the intention to lie with his master's wife, and so בגד is an expression of betrayal.

With this, the puzzling words of the Midrash are resolved - said Moshe: The bones of Yosef entered the land, and I cannot! He was arguing: If not for the bones of Yosef, I would not have questioned why I cannot enter the land, because it is in order not to cause the subjugation in exile to the four kingdoms to be nullified. And I would not be able to argue that in any case it is not possible that there will be a futher exile, because the halachah could be like the opinion of R. Akiva, that the father can sell an resell, because בבגדו is an expression of garment, and so if I would enter the land all this would be nullified. And since in truth it is all for the Yisrael's benefit, it is not fitting that for my sake something bad should happen to Yisrael, G-d forbid. This is what I would have said.

But now that the bones of Yosef have entered the land, and this raises the question of why only his bones and not his whole body, and we must answer that it was because he wanted to lie with his master's wife, if so, this proves that "she grasped בבגדו" is an expression of betrayal. Therefore, by the handmaid it is also an expression of betrayal, and so we have proven that Hashem is not permitted to resell us, and so since he betrayed us once with the exile in Egypt, He is not able to betray us further with the exile of the four kingdoms. If so, why can I not enter the land - surely in any case they will never again go into exile!

(12) When does Yisrael require neither a shield nor a spear to protect themselves from the enemy?

(12) The sefer Ohev Yisrael brings a puzzling Midrash from the Tanna D'Bei Eliyohu, which says on the posuk in Judges (5,8), "was a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Yisrael?" - from here we learn that when forty thousand of Yisrael are gathered together and there is a pair of Torah sages amongst them, they require neither a shield nor a spear.

We can understand this puzzling statement according to what the Holy Rabbi Ephraim from Brody wrote to explain why this posuk mentions specifically the number forty thousand. He writes that we find that there is a dispute concerning the posuk in Isaiah (41,2) "He made his sword like dust, his bow like wind-blown stubble". One opinion holds that Avrohom (in his war against the four kings) threw dirt at them and it turned into swords, and he threw stubble at them and it turned into arrows. The other opinion holds that their swords turned into dirt on reaching Avrohom, and their arrows turned into stubble on reaching him. The difference between these two opinions, is that according to the first opinion, Avrohom did not require swords and arrows, but he did require a shield in order to defend himself from their swords and arrows. According to the second opinion, Avrohom did not require anything to defend himself, but he did require swords and arrows.

Now, it is brought on the posuk in Bereishis (18,18) "and Avrohom will surely become a great and powerful nation", that Hshaem promised to him that in every generation there will be thirty Tzaddikim like Avrohom. But behold, we do not find in every generation even one Tzaddik like Avrohom! But what Chazal meant was that the combined good deeds of six hundred thousand of Yisrael will together be thirty Tzaddikim like Avrohom. Now, when we divide six hundred thousand by thirty, it comes out that each of these Tzaddikim require the combined good deeds of twenty thousand of Yisrael.

This is the explanation of the posuk "was a shield or a spear seen among forty thousand of Yisrael?", that when forty thousand gather together they become two Tzaddikim like Avrohom, and so the miracle which occurred by Avrohom is doubled. Thus, they require neither a shield to defend themselves, nor weapons to smite the enemy.

This is what the Holy Rabbi wrote, and this exactly the words of the Tanna D'Bei Eliyohu, who also questioned why the posuk mentions specifically forty thousand. Therefore, he answered that from here we learn that when there are forty thousand from Yisrael gathered together, and there is therefore amongst them a pair of Torah sages from their combined good deeds, if so, they will assuredly require neither a shield to protect themselves, nor a spear to smite the enemy.

(23) One does not put on Tefillin except on Shabbos?

(23) The sefer S. C. in the name of the Vilna Gaon brings a puzzling Midrash, which says: One does not put on Tefillin except on Shabbos - בשבת.

He explained that the word בשבת is a mnemonic, which stands for במקום שיער - on the place of the hair, that is, on the head above the hairline, and במקום תפוח - on the place of the bulge, that is, on the arm on the place of the biceps.

He also brings in the name of R. Shimshon from Astripoli, that the meaning of the Midrash is according to what is written in the sefer Kanfei Yonah, that it is forbidden to put on tefillin except someone who has learned form the Torah - sefer Bereishis , from the Prophets - sefer Shmuel, and from the Writings - sefer Tehillim.

This then is the meaning of the Midrash, that one does not put on tefillin except on someone who has learned שבת, which is a mnemonic for שמואל בראשית תהילים.

(24) Where does the Torah allude as to which days we say the complete Hallel?

(24) R. Shimshon from Astropoli said: Many people asked me to give an explanation of the following Midrash, on the posuk (Bereishis 7,9) שנים שנים באו אל-נח - "Two by two they came to Noach" - these are the days when we say the complete Hallel. The meaning of this Midrash is very hidden.

I answered my humble opinion, which is that we have an established mnemonic to remember on which days we complete the Hallel, and that is בבט"ח, which stands for the two days of Shavuos, the two days of Pesach, the nine days of Succos, and the eight days of Chanukah.

Now we generally say that Hashem alluded to everything in the Torah, so where is this mnemonic alluded to? I think that in this posuk lies the allusion, in the words שנים שנים באו אל-נח. The first two words allude to the two days of Shavuos and the two days of Pesach, the third word has a gematria (numerical count) of 9, alluding to the nine days of Succos, and the last, hyphenated word has the exact gematria of Chanukah - these are the days on which we complete the Hallel!

(29) Which day was missing from the first year of creation?

(29) The sefer Ya'aros Devash brings a puzzling Midrash on the posuk in Tehillim 27, "Hashem is my light and my salvation; from whom shall I fear...from whom shall I be afraid". Hashem is my light - on Rosh Hashanah, And my salvation - on Yom Kippur.

To understand why the Midrash attributed the light to Rosh Hashanah and the salvation to Yom Kippur, we need to first understand the gemara in Mesechta Yoma 20a, which says that the word השטן - the satan, has a gematria of 364, which is the number of days in the year that he is allowed to make accusations, but on the 365th day, which is Yom Kippur, he is not allowed. We need to understand why this is so, and with this we will also understand why the Torah says in one place concerning Yom Kippur "and you shall afflict yourselves on the ninth of the month", but in another place it says "on the tenth of the month", and about which Chazal taught that anyone who eats and drinks on the ninth is considered as if he has fasted on both the ninth and the tenth.

We can understand all from the statement of Chazal that the two days of Rosh Hashanah are considered like one long day. The reason for this is because Adam HaRishon was created on Erev Shabbos, which was the first of Tishrei, and it is explained in the Midrash that the sun did not set from then until the end of Shabbos, and so the first and second of Tishrei are like one day. If so, in the year of creation, reckoning according to the sun, Yom Kippur was on the ninth of Tishrei, since the sun did not set on the first day, and this is why the Torah says that you shall afflict yourselves on the ninth of the month. However, according to the lunar cycle these first two days of Tishrei are considered as two days, and thus the Torah says that you shall afflict yourselves on the tenth. This is so because nine is the last of the single digits, and in combination with one makes ten, which is also one in terms of the double digits. Similarly Yom Kippur in combination with Rosh Hashanah makes ten.

Now, at the beginning of creation the satan, because of the sin of Adam HaRishon, was given permission to rule over all the days of the year with no exclusions. But this is according to the solar cycle, which is how the nations calculate the year, and that year was only 364 days long, and thus the satan has a gematria of 364. But in truth there was another day subsumed within the first Rosh Hashanah, and in subsequent years Rosh Hashanah was split into two, and from this came forth Yom Kippur, which is the tenth. And since this day did not exist in that first year which only had 364 days, therefore this day was not designated to the satan as one of the days of the year over which he rules.

Therefore, one should eat on the ninth, because on that day the satan has authority, and so it is necessary to give to him a portion in the eating which the satan has a part of, as is well known. But not on the tenth which is holy to Hashem, and thus it is the day on which there is salvation and help, because the satan has no authority over it. But all this is because there had been light on the two days of Rosh Hashanah thus making it like one long day, but if not for this the satan would rule even over Yom Kippur, and there would have been no room for atonement, G-d forbid, because of the abundance of accusations of the satan.

Thus the Midrash says that Hashem is my light on Rosh Hashanah, because there was an extended period of light lasting two days, but which was one long day, and because of this Hashem is my salvation, since therefore the satan has no permission to accuse on Yom Kippur, and so, the posuk concludes, from whom shall I fear and from whom shall I be afraid.

(31) Why will the mitzvah of polishing our shoes on Erev Shabbos cause us to grieve in the future?

(31) The sefer Rozin D'Oraissa brings a puzzling Midrash, which says that Yisrael do not appreciate the reward that they will receive for cleaning their shoes on Erev Shabbos, as it is written (Son of Songs 7,2) "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles". This is what is meant by the posuk (Isaiah 22,12) "Hashem called on that day for weeping, and for lamenting, and for baldness, and for girding with sackcloth". What is the connection between this posuk and cleaning shoes on Erev Shabbos?

He writes there that the Holy Rabbi from Apta explained this Midrash with a parable about a very wealthy man who lost all his wealth, until he was forced to go begging from door to door, and from village to village. One day, he came across a certain mountain upon which were some very beautiful stones, and he put some of them in his knapsack. However, as he walked along the burden became too heavy for him, and so he started to lighten it periodically by casting out some of the stones.

Eventually he came to a large city, and took lodgings with a poor teacher. He was very tired and hungry, and so he searched in his knapsack, thinking that perhaps he would find some money. But all he found was one of the stones which he had been carelessly casting away, but no money, and he excused himself greatly to the teacher. But when the teacher saw the stone in his hand, he said to him: Listen to my advice and come with me to a dealer in precious stones, because it appears to me that this stone is a gem. But this wretched pauper strongly pushed off his suggestion, because he was very hungry.

However, he pressured him until he was persuaded to go with him to the dealer. When they arrived at the house of the dealer and showed him this gem, the dealer said that he would give a thousand pieces of silver for it. But the owner of the stone just stood there dumbstruck, and the dealer, thinking that perhaps he wasn't pleased with the deal that he had offered him, started to increase his offer, until the price reached an absolute fortune.

And so it was, when the owner of the stone heard how incredibly valuble his stone was, he fell to the ground and tore at his hair, and cried out "Oy! I had so many of these stones, but I carelessly threw them away.

So too, when a person comes after a hundred and twenty years to the World of Truth, and all he has in his hand is the small mitzvah of cleaning his shoes Erev Shabbos for the honour of Shabbos, and sees how much bountiful reward he is given for this, then he will wail bitterly for his soul because of the many big mitzvos which he forsaken and not bothered with. Now the Midrash is clearly understood.

(35) Where does the Torah allude to the construction of the menorah?

(35) The sefer Divrei Noam writes that R. Yechezkel from Prague said to our Holy Rabbi, the Maharish from Shipitivki: I remember that when I was young, a certain Torah sage asked my father about a puzzling Midrash, but he did not explain it. So now I am asking His Honour to explain to me the words of the Midrash, which says: (Bamidbar 8,2) "towards the face of the menorah shall the seven lamps cast their light". This posuk is explained by (Tehillim 119,130) "The opening of Your words enlightens", and this is according to the opinion that the menorah was seventeen handbreadths tall.

The Holy Rabbi explained it to me thus: It is well known that on the menorah were eleven knobs, nine flowers, twenty-two goblets and seven branches. About the height there is a dispute - one opinion says it was seventeen handbreadths high, and the other opinion says it was eighteen. The Midrash which brings the posuk "the beginning of Your words enlighten", is referring to the beginning of each of the five books of the Torah, which allude to the construction of the menorah. 

Thus, the first posuk of sefer Bereishis which has seven words, corresponds to the seven branches of the menorah. The first posuk of sefer Shemos has eleven words, corresponding to the eleven knobs. That of Vayikra has nine words, corresponding to the nine flowers, and that of Devarim has twenty-two, corresponding to the twenty-two goblets. And the first posuk of Bamidbar has seventeen words, corresponding to the height, and therefore the Midrash concludes that this is according to the opinion that the height of the menorah was seventeen handbreadths, like the gematria of  טוב.

(43) Why did Adam start to speak Aramaic?

(43) The sefer Rozin D'Oraisa brings a puzzling Midrash, which says: From when Sarah Imeinu died, Adam started to speak Aramaic.

He writes in the name of R. Menachem Mendel from Vishnitz the following explanation:

It is written that when a Tzaddik dies he goes and complains to Adam HaRishon, saying "You caused death in the world!". He repiles that it is written (Koheles 7,20) "For there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and sins not". If so, your sin caused your death!

But by Sarah it is written (Bereishis 23,1) "And the life of Sarah was one hundred years, and twenty years, and seven years", and Chazal expounded that the reason why the posuk wrote the word "years" by every digit, was in order to teach that when she was a hundred she was like a twenty year old - without sin. Therefore, Adam was not able to answer her like he answered everyone else.

So therefore he started to speak Aramaic, because the Aramaic Targum (translation) is "And the life of Sarah was one hundred and twenty and seven years", and it does not specify the word "years" with every digit, and so there is no possibilty of expounding that she was without sin. Thus he was again able to respond to her "For there is not a righteous man on the earth who does good and sins not".

(44) What is the connection between the Mitzvah of sending away the mother bird and taking the eggs, and the Mitzvah of learning Torah?

(44) The sefer Rozin D'Oraisa brings another very puzzling Midrash, which says: A person should always learn Torah even not for its own sake, because from this he will come to learn for its own sake. This is what the posuk writes, (Devarim 22,7) "You shall surely send away the mother, and take for yourself the young".

He writes in the name of R. Dovid from Tolna, that the explanation of the Midrash is that the relationship between learning Torah not for its own sake, which is the start of the process, and learning for its own sake, which is the result, is the same as the relationship between a mother and her offspring. And in this case the child is better than the parent.

Thus the Midrash says that this is what the posuk writes, to send away the mother, that is, to abandon the learning that is not for its own sake, and to take the young, that is, the result of this learning, which is to learn Torah for its own sake. Then it will be good for you all of your days.