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. 

We are introduced to Balak with the word וירא בלק בן ציפור..., and Balak son of Tzipor “saw.” 

Kli Yakar asks, “What did he see? The battles against Emori were relatively quick and one-sided. But if you weren’t there you didn’t see it. [At best] You HEARD about it!” Think about how Parshas Yisro begins. וישמע יתרו כהן מדין… (“Yisro, priest of Midyan ‘heard’… all that God had done”) – he hadn’t been there, but he heard about it all! And here we see Balak SEEING what Yisrael did to Emori?! 

Kli Yakar notes that it doesn’t say that he saw what עם ישראל did or what בני ישראל (the nation or the children of Israel) did. It says he saw what YISRAEL did. Kli Yakar suggests that to actually “see it,” Balak must have read this in a book – as all kings of that time had their own private chronicles. And if he read it in a book, it must refer to something that happened in history, not in current events. Remember that when Yaakov gives Shechem to Yosef, he says he is doing so because he took it from the Emori – אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי. [There happens to be a lengthy passage in Yalkut Shimoni on Vayishlach which describes an incredible battle which took place after Shimon and Levi destroyed the male population of Shechem. This could ostensibly be referencing a battle which actually took place.] 

Balak extrapolated that if as a relatively small family and band of people Yisrael were able to wreak such havoc and cause so much devastation then, imagine what this huge horde could achieve against his nation now. 

This does lose sight of the place Moav has in the annals of the people (distant cousins), and perhaps it’s part and parcel with living in that time. After all, when we met Yisro in Parshas Yisro there is an approach that when he came after hearing of the great miracles, he may have thought that he and Midian were the next in line to be attacked by Israel, despite the gratitude Moshe may have had for the time he spent in Midian! 

In fact, this may be a reason for the otherwise inexplicable reason for Midian getting involved at all in this conflict now! Moav brings Midian into the fight, when it is Moav who sees themselves as vulnerable! Consider 22:4: וַיֹּאמֶר מוֹאָב אֶל-זִקְנֵי מִדְיָן, עַתָּה יְלַחֲכוּ הַקָּהָל אֶת-כָּל-סְבִיבֹתֵינוּ, כִּלְחֹךְ הַשּׁוֹר, אֵת יֶרֶק הַשָּׂדֶה; וּבָלָק בֶּן-צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב, בָּעֵת הַהִוא. “And Moav said unto the elders of Midian: 'Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.'--And Balak the son of Zippor was king of Moav at that time.”

Kli Yakar says that what’s really going on here is the revisiting of an ancient feud, that which began around the time of the sale of Yosef.

Who took Yosef out of the pit and sold him? According to the Torah’s text it was “Midianim.” See Bereshis 37:28 - וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה: 

Midianites sold him to Ishmaelites who brought him to Egypt. Once there, Yosef was rising in the ranks of servitude, head of the household of one of the officers of the king. And yet he had a downfall that sent him to prison. And that downfall which stripped him of his position and put him in prison? An accusation of a liaison between himself and Mrs. Potiphar, a.k.a. the “oldest sin in the book” that can destroy a reputation. 

After “seeing” what a small horde could do to an entire nation (in the chronicles of Yisrael the man against Emori), perhaps Balak’s chronicles gave him an idea of how to cause the nation of Israel’s downfall: forbidden relationships. 

The great irony, that even Balak couldn’t foresee, is that once the ruse and effort to destroy Israel is initially successful, someone rises to stop the plague. And who is that person? 

Pinchas. Whose efforts to counter the near destruction of the nation at the end of the parsha, when 24,000 people die on account of the plague associated with the sin of immorality, destroyed all hopes of Moavite success. 

Why is that significant? Because, as Rashi – who mentions both options as true, while others list both options as possible – points out, Pinchas is a descendant of Putiel (see Rashi Shemos 4:18, 6:25, 18:1 and Bamidbar 31:6), which refers to both (1) Yosef and (2) Yisro, for different reasons. 

Kli Yakar quotes from the blessing given to Yaakov (Bereshis 35:11) פְּרֵ֣ה וּרְבֵ֔ה גּ֛וֹי וּקְהַ֥ל גּוֹיִ֖ם יִהְיֶ֣ה מִמֶּ֑ךָּ – noting that the goy and k’hal goyim that Yaakov is promised to have refers to the children of Rachel. Specifically, the k’hal goyim refers to the children of Yosef. When Balak says (Bamidbar 22:4) ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו כלחוך השור – the words kahal and shor refer to Yosef. Balak is concerned that Yosef’s power will be his nation’s undoing, as payback for how Midianites treated him back in the day. [The word שור appears twice in the blessings/comments Yaakov makes to his sons at the end of his life. Once it is in the context of the blessing to Yosef (though it is pronounced there “shur”). And once it is in the comments to Shimon and Levi, who are generally deemed most responsible among the brothers for the sale of Yosef. It is possible Yaakov is referring to that in talking about what they did to a shor. (See Rashi Bereshis 49:6, where he also references that Moshe refers to Yosef as shor in Devarim 33:17)] 

Midianite involvement, though odd – as they are not exactly in the line of sight in terms of the land Israel is looking to take, and they are also distant cousins to Israel as Midian was one of the sons of Keturah – can yet be pinned on a feeling Midian may have had for having been “rejected” by Avraham, sent off to the east. 

How Midian chose to deal with that difficult time is demonstrated in Midian’s history versus the Bnei Yisrael. But Kli Yakar says that Pinchas is exclusively the one who rises to stop the plague because he is the scion of the family who is in the greatest position to singlehandedly bring this conflict to a resolution. 

If we explore the possibility Rashi raises that Putiel on the one hand refers to Yisro, and that Putiel on the other hand refers to Yosef, we see that within this single individual Pinchas, the conflict of Yosef and Midian comes to its own resolution, because he follows in the footsteps of the man who rejected Midian for monotheism, as well as the man who rejected the wife of Potiphar, to stand tall for his morals, even in the face of a determined woman who offered herself in every way, whose goal was to bring him down and destroy his place in the World to Come for the price of her own satisfaction. 

Balak saw this history. Instead of aiming to come to terms with what happened in the past – that Emori was defeated by Israel, that Midian’s involvement with Yosef only sowed seeds of animus, that Yosef was imprisoned – he failed to see that Yosef’s imprisonment was not because of guilt but just a false accusation, and that Yisro had rejected Midian’s ways to embrace Israel. Balak felt he could use their history as a way of avenging the past and defeating Yisrael. 

Those who died in the plague (mostly of the tribe of Shimon) did not have the strength of Yisro or Yosef behind them. But Pinchas, who had the blood of Yisro and Yosef coursing through his veins, had what it took to confront evil and destroy it, to stop the plague and save Bnei Yisrael. 

 What Balak “saw” is also what he failed to see. He could get some Israelites to fall. But just ONE MAN could stop the plague. Balak’s efforts to destroy Israel resulted in Israel destroying Midian for the time being (see the war with Midian in Bamibar 31:7-20 plus the aftermath). They won’t resurface until well into the book of Shoftim. 

This is the legacy of Pinchas, scion of Yosef and Yisro, who singlehandedly defeated the aims of Balak, unofficial representative of Midian, current king of Moav, who can’t move on from past defeats in history, to accept that some battles are not meant to be waged. As Bilaam said: “God shall consume the nations which are his adversaries.” (24:8) That is the guarantee Balak should have paid attention to, as should Israel’s enemies in our time.

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 

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! Rashi on 10:25 indicates they picked up dropped and lost items… but that doesn’t refer to garbage!] 

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

We Are Avadim (Servants) and We Are Banim (Children)

 Subsequent to writing this I came across this sermon by Rabbi Norman Lamm

Parshat Behar-Bechukotai

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the worst case scenario, the Torah describes how the Eved Ivri (Hebrew slave) is to be freed at the time of the Yovel year. In other words, even if he had wanted to remain a slave (Shemos 21:5-6), he is released at Yovel (see Rashi there). 

Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein noted that there are two verses that describe God’s relationship to us, or our relationship to Him. One of them is in our parsha, which describes why the slave must go free at Yovel – “For Israel are servants unto Me” (25:55), and therefore cannot remain enslaved to man forever. The second verse is in Parshas Re’eh when Moshe tells the people “You are children unto the Lord your God.” (Devarim 14:1) 

The Talmud says (Baba Basra 10a) “When Israel is doing the will of their creator, they are called children. When they do not, they are called servants.” 

Is There a Place for the Death Penalty?

Parshat Emor

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Confession: I am a believer that there are some crimes which go beyond the pale of what it means to be a human being, and that those who commit them have forfeited their right to live in a civil society. 

 I also wonder about people who are so sick-in-the-head that they either justify their evil or don’t understand why they are evil – do they fall into a different category? Or is there hope for Teshuvah? 

To the opening statement, I would imagine that most people who would never harm anyone would agree that dangerous people have forfeited their right to live in a civil society. This might mean they should go to prison for life, or it might mean that the death penalty is on the table. [Experience has shown that very few people who are so evil ever truly have remorse, regret, and do real Teshuvah.]

We can argue whether either of these (life in prison or execution) are humane, but we also have to ask ‘humane to whom?’ A serial rapist, a serial killer, a terrorist, etc. were surely not humane to their victims. Why should they get a nicer outcome than their victims got? 

Seeking Purity Before [Seeking] God

ACHAREI MOT - Kedoshim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

As we read the first Aliyah of Acharei Mos in the three opportunities before Shabbos rolls around, we get a taste of the Yom Kippur service as depicted in the Torah. Those who pay careful attention to Torah readings hear the Yom Kippur Torah reading (albeit in a different ‘trop’) quite clearly, bringing Yom Kippur to the forefront, and a similar sentiment into the background of our day. Do we think of Teshuvah when we hear these things? 

The instruction was given to Aharon (and sons) around the time of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, so we are still in the month of Nissan (as is the duration of the entire book of Vayikra). This is an indicator that Teshuvah is not limited to the time surrounding Yom Kippur. It is appropriate all year round. 

Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein has an interesting insight on a verse we are all familiar with, because it is repeated so many times in the Yom Kippur service: 

Of Sons and Daughters

Parshat Tazria Metzora*

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Parshat Tazria begins with the depiction of a woman who gives birth to a male, followed by her days of impurification then her days of purification. Then it describes her giving birth to a female, followed by her days of impurification then her days of purification, which in both cases are double that which she had after birthing the male. [Why double is a subject of a different discussion.] 

Is having a daughter or is having a son a greater blessing? 

In much of Rabbinic Literature, there is an emphasis on aiming to have male children. This sentiment crosses cultures, as per the famous mini-speech given by Luca Brasi: “Don Corleone, I am honored and grateful that you have invited me to your home on the wedding day of your daughter. And may their first child be a masculine child.” But it’s not limited to Italians – this was certainly the case throughout history. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_preference] 

Nadav and Avihu Died... Because they were unmarried?

In 2009, I wrote an article entitled the "Post Shidduch Crisis" lamenting the number of first time marriages of young people I had personally seen that were dissolved within months. I suppose this is a follow up to that. While there is much more to say, this is a start to an important subject. 

Parshat Shemini

by Rabbi Avi Billet

At the beginning of his comment on Vayikra 10:1, Kli Yakar lists 7 or 8 (depending how you count) possible reasons for why Nadav and Avihu died, some recorded in Yalkut Shimoni. One of those reasons is “because they did not take wives.” In explaining each reason, he suggests there is a connection to fire (what took their lives) because “those unmarried are filled with flame of desire and sinful thoughts” (based on Sanhedrin 108b and Kiddushin 81a) [All of the reasons given by the Rabbis are included in a list at the end of this link and an even longer list in the middle of this sermon - in brackets]

Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky asked, “Why did Chazal heap so many possible sins on these “Kedoshim” (how Moshe referred to them)? Why wasn’t the Torah’s explanation – they died for bringing a strange fire they had not been commanded to bring – sufficient?” He answers (as does Kli Yakar) that all of the sins in question focus on a “Nekudah Merkazit” (main point) of haughtiness, and in the case of this specific “reason,” of thinking they were better than all prospective brides. 

The Zohar has unflattering things to say about someone who goes unmarried (see the comments below this article), and notes that this was a blemish in Nadav and Avihu, which contributed to God removing them from preventing His presence to fully be brought into the Mishkan. 

Pharaoh Encroached

 Passover - 7th Day (Sermon)

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Torah doesn’t give us a timeline for the events of today’s Torah reading. Chazal do – but the Torah does not. 

 In all likelihood, the timeline that is given, of the Bnei Yisrael traveling three days and getting stuck at the sea, and then Pharaoh giving chase and catching up within a day or a day and a half (depending which version of that Midrash you like) comes from the parallel of Yaakov running away from Lavan’s house. There are many parallels between the two stories. Just to give the most obvious one. 

 The section begins with the words בשלח פרעה את העם, when Pharaoh “SENT” the nation. And a few verses later, we are told, without telling us when or how much time after he SENT THEM, וַיֻּגַּד֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרַ֔יִם כִּ֥י בָרַ֖ח הָעָ֑ם. The king of Egypt was told that the nation had fled. 

Consistency and Growth in Becoming Holy

 Parshat Tzav

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There is a known passage in the Ein Yaakov which pits Ben Zoma, Ben Nanas, and Ben Pazi against one another in a bout to discover the most inclusive verse that describes the religious life. Ben Zoma – the verse of Shema Yisrael, Ben Nanas – the verse of Love thy neighbor, Pen Pazi – the verse of ‘one lamb in the morning, the second lamb in the afternoon.’ 

There are related teachings attributed to others: 

 "'Love your fellow as yourself,' R. Akiva says: This is the guiding principle of the Torah" (Sifra Vayikra 19:18). The Midrash quotes another opinion (of Ben Azai): "'This is the record of the genealogy of Man, when God created him' (Bereishit 5:1) — this is an even greater principle." The Maharal's version of the midrash presents yet a third opinion: the ultimate guiding principle is "Et ha-keves echad ta'aseh va-boker, ve-et ha-keves ha-sheni ta'aseh bein ha-arbayim" - "You shall offer the one lamb in the morning and the other in the afternoon" (Shemot 29:39 and Bamidbar 28:4). 

Thoughts and Prayers

 This is based on a sermon I gave several years ago on a Shabbos we had dedicated to "infertility awareness"

Parshat Vayikra

by Rabbi Avi Billet

A number of Midrashim pose the question (ascribed either to Rabbi Yoseh, Yosi, or Dosa), "Why do children begin learning the [Chumash] from the section about korbanot [offerings]?" And the answer is, "Because just as the korbanot are pure, so are the children pure." 

Rabbenu Bachaye looks at the word ויקרא, which has a small Alef, and tells us (after a lengthy analysis) that it is not God who is speaking to Moshe. It is the 'כבוד ה that we saw at the end of the book of Shmos, filling the Mishkan, talking to Moshe. That 'כבוד ה refers to a different small letter which is involved in creation – the ה in אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם. There the ה is also small. In other words, the ה of בהבראם references the Glory of God which calls Moshe with a small א. Connecting the dots, both small letters together remind us that even the sacrificial order is part of God’s plan for His world. 

Blessing Our Works – with Strength and the Divine

I often check to see what I've written in the past to avoid repeating. Would have been a good move, especially since this Parsha has limited components where most commentaries bother at all to comment. What follows is a different take on one source quoted in last year's (so sorry!) comments on this Parsha, though it goes in a different direction. 

Parshat Eileh Fekudei

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After seeing that all of the work for the Mishkan was concluded, with everything having been done exactly as God had commanded Moshe, the Torah reports to us that Moshe blessed the people. 

 That blessing, according to Rashi, was “It should be that His Shekhinah should be present in all the works of your hands.” (יהי רצון שתשרה שכינה במעשה ידיכם) In other words, God’s contribution to your success in building the Mishkan should be palpable. 

Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein asks why this blessing was necessary at all. After all, God had promised in Terumah (25:8) that “when you make a Mishkan, I will dwell (ושכנתי – the Shekhinah) in it.” It would seem that by dint of finishing the job, Moshe’s blessing now, in 39:43, is superfluous.

Honoring Our Past and Building Our Future (homage to Betzalel and his forebears)

Parshat Vayakhel

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

While he was introduced to us in last week’s parsha, the Midrash goes on a bit of a wild tangent over the introduction of Betzalel this week, when we meet him along with his father and grandfather and Shevet. The Midrash ties this introduction to the concept of שבח לו ולמפשחתו ולשבטו (praise for him, his family, and his tribe), for both Betzalel and Oholiav, while comparing to other characters who are introduced to us with ancestry (the megadef in Emor – שם אמו שלומית בת דברי) and Akhan - עכן בן כרמי בן זבדי בן זרח למטה יהודה, who was from the tribe of Yehuda and stole from the Cherem against the city of Yericho in the time of Yehoshua. 

Man Plans and God Also Plans

 Parshat Ki Sisa

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Many years ago I read an essay entitled “Welcome to Holland” written by Emily Perl Kingsley to try to explain what life as a parent to a child with a disability is like – in her case, I believe it was Downs Syndrome. She compares it to intending to go on a trip to Italy, which ends with the flight attendant welcoming you to Holland.  Apparently there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay. Her point being it’s a journey – not what you expected – but Holland has its fine points as well. It's not a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place. So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met. It's different! It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your breath, you look around.... and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills....and Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts. 

Zachor Sermon: Mitzvot of Memory – and Aharon HaKohen

Zachor and Tetzaveh

Mitzvot of Memory – and Aharon HaKohen

Parshas Zachor literally means the section of memory. Its name comes from the first word of the segment – זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק – Remember that which Amalek did to you. But the message of זכור is much bigger and much greater than just remembering what Amalek did. 

While it is summarized in today’s Maftir, the story is the last 9 Pesukim in Parshas B’Shalach. It will be our Torah reading Purim morning. It concerns Amalek attacking a fledgling nation, just recently having experienced the Exodus, the Splitting of the Sea, and being recipients of Manna from heaven. Amalek took advantage of a weak point in the story of Bnei Yisrael, their fights with Moshe concerning water in Rephidim, and aimed to further weaken Bnei Yisrael at a time when Bnei Yisrael felt God had taken them out of Egypt to have them die in the wilderness. Amalek came… to remind them that abandoning their Father in Heaven was a recipe for disaster. 

Using Religion Improperly – Can We Atone For a Lack of Sechel?

Parshat Tetzaveh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the context of a discussion surrounding tzara’as and Lashon Hora, the Talmud in Arakhin 16a asks “Why are the vestments of the Kohanim mentioned near the section about offerings? To teach us that just as offerings bring atonement, the Kohen vestments bring atonement.” 

The Talmud goes on to list what sin each garment atoned for: 

The tunic (כתונת) atones for murder; the pants (מכנסים) atone for sexual sins/immorality; the hat (מצנפת) atones for those who are haughty; the belt (אבנט) atones for sins of the heart; the breastplate (חשן) atones for sins in judgment and law (דינין); the apron (אפוד) atones for idolatry; the cloak (מעיל) atones for lashon hora; the forehead plate (ציץ) atones for those who are bold-faced (in a negative way). 

(This is also discussed in Zevachim 88b)

Clearly the significance of the Kohanim wearing their garments is meant to not only make them look polished and holy, but to work behind the scenes so that those who see the garments would achieve atonement for certain private sins. 

Finding Our Potential For This World and Next – Through Body and Soul

Parshat Terumah

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

In his comments on the Menorah, Kli Yakar (Rabbi Shlomo Efraim Luntzchitz) goes into great detail about the 3 indoor Mishkan vessels instructed consecutively in our Parsha: the Aron (Ark), Shulchan (Table for Showbread), and the Menorah. [The small Mizbeach is instructed at the end of Parshat Tetzaveh.]

“These include [a reference to] all successes of a person in this world and the next world. 

“The Ark is the guide for a person to achieve one’s potential… which is through the Torah which provides for lengthened days on its right, and wealth and honor on its left. (אורך ימים בימינה לעולם שכולו ארוך ועושר וכבוד בשמאלה). The section on the Ark simply focuses on its design and how to build it without referencing the benefit the person gets from it. In truth it has its own benefit in that when one studies the Torah it is its own rewards… 

Distance From Falsehoods

 Parshat Mishpatim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There is a passage in the Talmud Shavuos 30b-31a. which asks the question – how do we know…. (there are many fillings for that blank - though most deal with the behavior of judges in a courtroom). And the answer, in each case, is מדבר שקר תרחק – because we are commanded to distance ourselves from falsehoods (23:7) 

 These are the questions the Gemara asks – and the answer is always the same (translation is from Sefaria, with a slight expansion to explain the words of the Talmud): Because the Torah says to distance from falsehood. 

Note To Congregation On Return of Bibas Children HYD

 February 20, 2025

Dear Friends 

For those watching the news out of Israel, today is a very dark day. 

In thinking through what to share with you, I was reminded of the first time I went to Yad Vashem – I was probably 11 or 12 years old. In going through one of the rooms that is filled wall to wall with photographs, I recall seeing faces of a few babies. The photos being in black and white made it a little harder to relate to. Though in thinking about it now, over 30 years later, I imagine that had those babies lived, they’d only be 8-10 years older than my parents. They were most likely born between 1938-1941. I was looking at their faces less than 50 years after they had been murdered. 

 The photos of smiling babies in various poses were from a happier time, a photoshoot of some kind, and bore no resemblance to their fate at the hands of their murderers, nor their final moments prior to their murders. 

 We have all seen photos and videos of happier times of the Bibas children, HYD, with their bright red hair and adorable ways. It gave us hope that they’d run again and play again and have a chance to live out their lives. 

 But today I saw a photo of Shiri HYD holding her children, taken shortly after they were captured (see below). The look of terror in her eyes is haunting. Her clinging to her children, hoping against hope to be able to protect them from the barbarism they were already subject to… this is a picture straight out of the Shoah. Except this time it is in color. The crime: being Jewish in the Holy Land. Their tormentors: Islamo-fascists who gleefully fulfill their mission of Jew-hatred in the same manner as the Nazis, y’mach sh’mam v’zikhram. This follows the release of the tortured and gaunt men last week, who looked every bit like Holocaust survivors minus the striped “uniform” of the concentration camps. 

 For a reminder that this is part of a larger saga of barbarism and a war against innocent children, Sivan Rahav Meir posted on Facebook that 38 children were murdered on Simchat Torah (October 7). 20 children were orphaned of both parents. 96 children lost one parent. 42 children were kidnapped and taken hostage. She went on to mention families that have been murdered in the past – Kopsheter, Hatuel, Fogel, Kedem-Siman Tov. 

 The loss of most of the Bibas family is heartbreaking – as is the latest news that the woman “returned” is not Shiri! It is the same heartbreak we have felt off and on since October 7th, contemplating the unimaginable numbers – a pogrom in Israel, committed by a “society” of evil barbarians who delight in the murder of Jews, and all atrocities against Jewish people – and every fallen soldier since, and the news of every hostage we find out is no longer alive. Not to mention the many maimed soldiers who have paid a different heavy price to root out Hamas. And of course, the remaining hostages who are still held in captivity, both alive and dead.

 Even those of us who feared for a long time that this was the fate of the Bibas family still held onto a thread that they’d live to tell the tale of their awful imprisonment, and how a nation rallied for them, seeing them as the litmus test of hope for a brighter day for them and all of Israel. Hence this being a very dark day. The thought that murderers were released in exchange for dead babies sickens us to our core. That anyone sees the Jews in a bad light over this kind of “deal” boggles the mind.

 The enemy knows our weakness. Our weakness is the love of life. Our weakness is our desire to see the fulfillment of וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל (Tehillim 128:6). We want to live to see children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, future generations of the Jewish people. And we give up terrorists who have blood on their hands (who are not starving or horribly mistreated), in exchange for a living victim of their depravities, or even a dead victim – to have closure for our people. And we only want to be left alone to live in peace.

 Shame on any nation in the world (including the US - particularly through USAID) who have given money to these terrorists. Shame on the “civilized” nations of the world that turned a blind eye to how their “aid” to the “poor palestinians” was spent. Shame on every “useless idiot” on a college campus who buys the propaganda of al Jazeera and Hamas. Shame on the Red Cross – the most useless and corrupt organization of Uber-drivers-for-Hamas the world has ever seen. Shame on anyone who can’t see the difference between a defensive war fought by Israel to protect its citizens, which inevitably has some civilian casualties, but is by no means a genocide, and an all out attack by a terrorist group invading private homes and a peace-loving music festival on a Shabbat and holiday – which saw murder, rape, mutilation of the dead, burning people alive, seeking out men, women, children, elderly for target practice, and a celebration of all of the above – who wouldn’t stop their genocidal intent were it not for civilians and soldiers rising to defend themselves. Every casualty of this war is on their hands. 

 A million times over I would rather be one of us than one of them. 

 My heart isn’t broken specifically for the Bibas family, though obviously they are a piece of a larger breaking of the heart. I am shocked Yarden is alive. I hope he can find a path forward in life, get the help he needs, and rebuild a life. My heart is broken because despite all the rhetoric of “NEVER AGAIN” of the last 80 years, we have seen in the last 500 days that it happened again. The dead babies of October 7 did not have a campaign to save them. For them it was too late. But we all "knew" these children. They are enshrined in the Shoah Hall of Memory with a name and an identity - not just an unknown face. And for all the talk of the world that the Jews will have a safe haven for themselves, that safe haven has never been fully safe, and people are still saying it shouldn’t exist at all.

 Shame on all of them for not learning from history. Shame on all of those who see Jews – especially after the collective and moral guilt of the Shoah – as anything other than “people who should be left alone.” 

 I hope Israel learns the lesson from history, and finishes the mission – eradicating Hamas, and removing all terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers from its borders, so we can have the best chance of seeing our hopes and dreams fulfilled - וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל

 Amen! 

Rabbi Avi Billet

Different Meanings of Eating “Lifnei HaElohim”

Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

After getting through the formalities of their reunion, which takes place in Moshe’s tent, Yisro brings offerings to God, and then sits down for a celebratory meal. The Torah’s way of describing it is “And Aharon and all the elders of Israel came to eat with Moshe’s father-in-law Lifnei HaElohim.” (18:12) Targum Yonatan (and others) note that Moshe isn’t mentioned because he is serving the food to the guests. Rashbam feels Moshe did not need to be mentioned because it was his tent – obviously he is there. 

Is that what “Lifnei HaElohim” means? We know that sometimes the word Elohim is לשון חול – meaning it does not refer to God, but refers to human leaders. (See Shmos 22:27) So perhaps the verse is simply saying Yisro is eating in Moshe’s presence. (see the 4th approach below) 

Most of the Midrashim and commentaries, however, see things differently, in that the phrase Lifnei HaElohim refers to the Divine, though there are different ways they come around to understanding what that means. 

The Two Tests of Faith

Parshat B’Shalach

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

I recall hearing the following conversation several times in school. 

Student: Why did you fail me on the test? 

Teacher: I didn’t “fail you.” The grade you got is the grade you earned!

A school test has several purposes. It is meant for the teacher to assess what the students have learned. It is for the students to demonstrate their mastery of the material, and when done right, their ability to transfer their knowledge and skills to new information, scenarios, examples that they haven’t studied yet, but which are solvable with the information they possess. 

There are other kinds of tests as well, such as tests of character, grit, ability, mental capacity, stamina, and even tests of faith. 

No House Which Did Not Have a Corpse

Parshat Bo

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In the prelude to the 10th plague, the verse says (11:5) וּמֵ֣ת כָּל־בְּכוֹר֘ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַיִם֒ מִבְּכ֤וֹר פַּרְעֹה֙ הַיֹּשֵׁ֣ב עַל־כִּסְא֔וֹ עַ֚ד בְּכ֣וֹר הַשִּׁפְחָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר אַחַ֣ר הָרֵחָ֑יִם וְכֹ֖ל בְּכ֥וֹר בְּהֵמָֽה: In the actual plague it says (12:30) - וַיְהִ֣י׀ בַּחֲצִ֣י הַלַּ֗יְלָה וַֽיקֹוָק֘ הִכָּ֣ה כָל־בְּכוֹר֘ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַיִם֒ מִבְּכֹ֤ר פַּרְעֹה֙ הַיֹּשֵׁ֣ב עַל־כִּסְא֔וֹ עַ֚ד בְּכ֣וֹר הַשְּׁבִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית הַבּ֑וֹר וְכֹ֖ל בְּכ֥וֹר בְּהֵמָֽה: Both describe that the death toll encompasses the first borns, from the first born of Pharaoh to the lowest status Egyptian (though it changes from the warning to the actuality as noted in bold above– which will be addressed below), and the first born animals. The verses which follow each of the above verses talk about how there will be, and indeed there was, a terribly huge cry in all of Egypt, with the verse in chapter 12:31 concluding with our title – no house was spared. 

How could that be? If a first born for the purpose of this plague is a male, not every household’s firstborn is a son. The father might not be a firstborn. And if he has only daughters, then how could his house NOT be spared? [Rashi and Ibn Ezra say that the Pasuk is generalizing, and that since it was a majority of houses, that is what the Pasuk refers to, even though it says no house was spared…] 

The Many Faces of the Plague of Blood

Parshat Va'era 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Rabbi Meir Soloveichik wrote regarding the plagues – firstly noting that the first sign to Pharaoh was of a staff becoming a tannin, which is most accurately translated as a crocodile*: 

Aaron’s rod transforms into a crocodile and swallows the others. The reference here, obvious to all in Pharaoh’s court, is to Sobek, the Egyptian god of the Nile who takes on the form of a crocodile. Aaron is signaling that the Nile, the source of Egyptian prosperity, is about to be undone. The waters will turn to blood. Thus begins the steady, unremitting attack on the Ma’at of Egypt, where every aspect of the natural order, and the animal gods that embody them, turn on their master, on Pharaoh. This brings us to our next plague, which is tzefardea, frogs. Here too, as noted by both Rabbi Sacks and the Hertog Koren Tanakh, what is being described is no mere affliction… Heqet is the frog goddess of fertility, and this is a clear ironic reference to the Egyptians being punished for throwing the Israelite babies into the Nile. Thus plague after plague—each one symbolically linked with purported divinity or agricultural prosperity in Egypt—steadily strips away the theological claims of the tyrant Pharaoh himself, 

It’s an old argument, that the plagues are not only to afflict the Egyptians but also to prove the defeat of Egypt’s many gods. Rabbi Soloveichik notes that the plague of darkness is the penultimate plague as it darkens the sun, whose god, Ra, was of the greatest in Egyptian culture. 

On the Doubling of the Name "Moshe Moshe"

Parshat Shemot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

When God first addresses Moshe at the burning bush, He calls out “Moshe Moshe!” (3:4) We know that in the Torah Moshe has one name. And unlike the former UN Secretary-General (last name Ghali), that was not a doubled name. Why is God saying Moshe’s name twice? Is He stuttering, mocking the stammering prophet/soon-to-be-deliverer? 

The classic answer, as noted in the Pesikta and other Midrashim, is that this doubling of the name is called לשון חבה, a demonstration of God’s love for Moshe. The Midrash Sechel Tov attaches the same meaning to when Avraham is called אברהם אברהם, and when Yaakov is called יעקב יעקב, and when Shmuel is called שמואל שמואל. 

Hadar Zekenim takes this to a bit of a stretch as far as the “trop” (cantillation marks) presents things (for this argument he ignores the טעם מפסיק, the trop that causes a pause), but he adds that everyone whose name is doubled, which not only includes Avraham and Yaakov, but also Noach and Terach, merits two worlds. Terach must have therefore done Teshuvah in his life (Noach, of course, is defined in the Torah as an איש צדיק -righteous). 

Preparing for Olam Haba Means Not Being Afraid of Olam Haba

Parshat Vaychi 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 In Pirkei Avos there are several teachings that encourage people to consider paths of behavior that prevent a person from coming to sin.

 • “Know what is above you – including a seeing eye, a hearing ear, and that all things are written down.”

 • “Know where you’re coming from, where you’re going, and before Whom you’ll need to give a reckoning for your deeds.”

 • “Rabbi Yaakov would say this world is a hallway leading into the next world. In this world you prepare to enter the banquet hall.” 

 There’s a pasuk in Koheles:

 קהלת ח:ח אֵ֣ין אָדָ֞ם שַׁלִּ֤יט בָּר֙וּחַ֙ לִכְל֣וֹא אֶת־הָר֔וּחַ וְאֵ֤ין שִׁלְטוֹן֙ בְּי֣וֹם הַמָּ֔וֶת וְאֵ֥ין מִשְׁלַ֖חַת בַּמִּלְחָמָ֑ה וְלֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֥ט רֶ֖שַׁע אֶת־בְּעָלָֽיו׃ 

“No man has authority over the lifebreath—to hold back the lifebreath; there is no authority over the day of death. There is no mustering out from that war; wickedness is powerless to save its owner.” 

Yosef's Relationship to Pharaoh

Parshat Vayigash

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After revealing himself to his brothers, Yosef tells them to go home and to tell their father that he has become an אב to Pharaoh, and an אדון to all of Pharaoh’s household, and a משל in all of the land of Egypt. Then he says to tell their father “God has placed me as an אדון for all of Egypt.” 

The words presented above in Hebrew require explanation. Most of us would likely translate the word אב, for example, as a father, or a father figure. This would only make sense, however, if Pharaoh were a child-king (which isn’t impossible), or if he were insecure enough (or perhaps secure enough!) to see Yosef in that way. 

Rashi (quoting Bereshis Raba) says that אב means לחבר ולפטרון, simply translated as a colleague and a patron. 

Sifsei Chachamim explains that if the Midrash had simply said patron, it would imply that Yosef was above Pharaoh and could make decrees over him. Therefore he is described as a colleague as well, indicating that he has a similar power to be able to decree. Had he only been called a חבר (and not also a patron) the implication would be that he’d have to run any idea past Pharaoh before making it a rule or law. Having both titles indicates that he is a colleague, who also has similar power to Pharaoh and doesn’t need to ask permission.