Balak Couldn’t See What He “Saw”

Parshat Balak

 by Rabbi Avi Billet

There is a very simple question that challenges the premise of Parshas Balak. 

Why is Balak getting involved in a fight that doesn’t concern him? 

We understand Bilaam. He is wired a different way. In many ways he is consumed by hatred for Bnei Yisrael. He demonstrates over and over that all he wants to do is curse the Bnei Yisrael, even though God told him he can’t. We can also understand him because he is a mercenary. He’ll go anywhere for money. And he’s a rabid anti-Semite. 

But Balak is the king of Moav. Moshe is going to tell us in Devarim 2:9 that he had been told אל תצר את מואב – essentially, leave Moav alone. As members of the family – remember that they are descendants of Lot, Avraham’s nephew, they were untouchables. Even with the incest that brought about the existence of Moav, the Torah nonetheless tells us that the Bnei Yisrael were to leave Moav alone! 

Rashi, Targum Yonatan and others note that Balak may have been the king of Moav, but he was a Midianite. This can help explain why he is going about this personally, and not as much as the king of Moav. In Balak’s view, it is Midian and Yisrael that have a conflict. 

Did the Mei Merivah Story Happen in the 40th Year?

Parshat Chukat 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

There is a common theme in Rashi in the Parshas in the book of Bamidbar. Rashi thematically connects certain pieces of narrative, suggesting they are presented in the Torah in a particular order so they may come across to teach us specific lessons. 

Bamidbar 6:2 – Rashi asks why the section on Nazir is presented next to the section on Sotah. He suggests they are thematically connected in that one who sees the Sotah procedure should refrain from drinking wine. 

Bamidbar 12:1 – Rashi says that Miriam opens the conversation about Moshe because the episode of Eldad and Meidad prophesying caused Tzipporah to lament over her husband ‘leaving her’ to always be available to talk to God [even though the Torah gives no indication about this – it seems Moshe sent her away (Shemos ch. 4 after the hotel incident) when he went to Egypt (see Shemos 18 when she returns to him with her father), and we never hear from her again]. But their separation (if indeed it remained) is not attached to Moshe being a prophet, but more due to ALL of his responsibilities. We have no indication in the Torah that Tzipporah stayed with the Bnei Yisrael. 

Holiness from the Anti-Holy [Reused Firepans]

Parshat Korach 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet 

One of the strangest instructions we find in the Torah comes in Chapter 17, when Moshe is told to tell his nephew Elazar to take the firepans of Korach’s 250-demised colleagues, hammer them out and make them into a cover for the Mizbe’ach. [Targum Yonatan says they were added to the body of the Mizbe’ach. Chizkuni says it was turned into some kind of canopy for the Mizbe’ach.] 

 Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi (a supercommentary on Rashi) notes that even though K’tores is burned on the small Mizbe’ach, since that Mizbe’ach is made of gold and located inside the Mishkan where everything is made of gold, putting copper on it would be inappropriate. Thus, the hammered out copper was put with the large outdoor Mizbe’ach despite the disparity of use (animals vs spices/k’tores). 

But there is a more pressing question. How could the firepans used by Korach and colleagues be added to something so holy, the actual Mizbe’ach where offerings to God are brought? Isn’t that the definition of sacrilege, using something so degraded – as evidenced by the deaths of those using them – for the purpose of “upgrading” the central location for the service of God? Furthermore, what is the message in the longer term? 

God’s Plans – Positives and Negatives are Different For Everyone

Parshat Shlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In his opening comment on the Parsha, Kli Yakar notes how Moshe describes the events of the sending of the Spies in Devarim as if an initiative from the people saying “We will send men in front of us to check out the land, and to give us a full report.” (נשלחה אנשים לפנינו ויחפרו לנו את הארץ) In our Parsha, the initiative seems to come from God when he told Moshe – שלח לך אנשים – send men FOR YOU. 

Why would the Torah report both ways – coming from God (for Moshe), and coming from the people, as their own initiative? 

His answer is a bit surprising, but nonetheless powerful. 

Drawing From the Greatest

Parshat B'haalot'kha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Miriam and Aharon have a conversation about Moshe’s Cushite wife, and about Moshe as a prophet. While the extent of what was said regarding the Cushite wife is unclear in the text, and somewhat expanded upon in the Midrash, it seems that the real beef God had with Miriam and Aharon was over their comments about Moshe’s status as a prophet. It would seem to me that speaking about Moshe’s wife (whoever and whatever that is about) is more of a Lashon Hora issue than comparing themselves as prophets to Moshe as a prophet, yet God makes clear to them that they are not on the same level as Moshe as a prophet. 

This could ostensibly mean that they were talking about Moshe separating from his wife – though the Torah makes no hint of that at all – on account of his being a prophet. The Rabbis certainly suggested that’s what God referred to in saying the Moshe is a one-of-a-kind prophet, who needs to be available to receive God’s word at any time. 

The Midrash (and Rashi on its coattails) suggests that God proved this to Miriam and Aharon through noting that both of them were tamei with the tumat zera – both having recently been intimate with their spouses – while Moshe was not tamei in that way, therefore more readily receptive, and at a higher level, to receive God’s word. 

Except that there is no indication anywhere that that kind of tumah is a preventative to a prophet being a prophet. 

A Relationship With God – Each In Our Own Way

Parshat Naso

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Anyone listening to Naso’s Torah reading can’t help but notice that 72 verses primarily seem as if they are repetitive. Aside from a couple of minor changes in the depicted Korbanos in #s 1, 2 and #11, they are mostly all the same, both words and melody. 

 And it begs a very simple question. Why all the repetition? Why not just say what each Nasi brought as a korban – say that ONCE – and then say “Each Nasi brought this same offering”? 

Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch explained, that when the Torah describes each Korban, introducing it with the word קרבנו, the Torah is telling us that each one brought HIS OWN Korban, irrespective of knowledge of what each Nasi brought before him. As it turned out, each set or group of offerings was the same. Which while requiring an explanation is not exactly shocking. 

Yizkor: If You Are Reading These Words

Yizkor on Shavuos 

presented by Rabbi Avi Billet, 5785 

In past Yizkors I’ve gone back and forth, either using Ruth as the impetus for the main theme of this talk or a more generic message. General themes I’ve shared here from Rus included: 

The concept of remembering the dead through establishing a future in their memory, as demonstrated through the concept of Yibum, and the emphasis on Ruth carrying Machlon’s child, though conceived with Boaz 

Another time I used Na’ami’s turnaround from being bitter over all her losses to finding a purpose in life through seeing Ruth find a spouse and have child, who Na’ami raises almost as her own