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 

כאיש אחד בלב אחד

Shavuos

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Israelites arrive at Sinai, and the Torah describes their encampment there in the singular. ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר. Israel (in the singular) encamped opposite the mountain.

Rashi famously writes: 

and Israel encamped there. Heb. וַיִחַן, [the singular form, denoting that they encamped there] as one man with one heart, but all the other encampments were [divided] with complaints and with strife. — [from Mechilta]

וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל.  כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד בְּלֵב אֶחָד, אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַחֲנִיּוֹת בְּתַרְעוֹמוֹת וּבְמַחֲלֹקֶת:

In the book Chesed L’Avraham, the author notes that the people Israel were like an איש אחד – a man who is known as אחד, with לב אחד – one unique heart. 

The Tribe of Dan - Qualities That Present a Fuller Picture

Parshat Bamidbar

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The book of Bamidbar begins with a lot of pomp. Leaders of tribes are designated. The instruction for census is sent out. The people assemble in the manner in which they will travel. 

 Ibn Ezra (1:19) notes the 4 camps – of 3 tribes each – that were to travel around the Mishkan, and how Reuven’s camp was in the south and Dan’s was in the North. For whatever reason, (he actually says לא אוכל לפרש) Reuven’s camp is considered the “Rosh” – the head, and Dan’s is considered the “Zanav” – the tail. 

 This is likely partially why some identify Dan as being the lowest of the tribes. I recall being told in elementary school that Dan was the least of the tribes, because their job was to pick up the garbage. [I don’t know the source for this. Nor is it clear that Bnei Yisrael even produced garbage!] 

 But nonetheless let’s ask the question: does picking up the garbage indicate being the least of people?