Torah Parallels

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~ Parshas Balak The Letter S: Which Side Are You On? By: Daniel Listhaus וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם לָאָתוֹן כִּי הִתְעַלַּלְתְּ בִּי לוּ יֶשׁ חֶרֶב בְּיָדִי כִּי עַתָּה הֲרַגְתִּיךְ “Billam said to the she-donkey, ‘Because you have mocked me! If there were a sword in my hand I would now have killed you!’” - Balak  22:29 The Torah [1] relates that Balak, king of Moav, realized that  B’nei Yisroel  a small nation of slaves that recently escaped Egypt, not only managed to defeat the Emori, but even obliterate the giant guardians Sichon and Og who Moav. [2] This made Balak and all of Moav very worried and they went to seek counsel from the elders of Midian. Rashi [3] points out that Moav seeking advice from Midian was not typical as the two nations hated each other. However, the circumstances were such that they found themselves hating a common enemy even more - the  B’nei Yisroel , and they were willing to look the other way from their differ

~ Something to Think About ~ בלק     פרשת Parsha Stumpers By: Daniel Listhaus (22:22) Why does the Torah describe Balak as “seeing” what B’nei Yisroel did as whereas by Yisro the Torah refers to Yisro’s “hearing”? What is the difference? (22:4) The Torah relates that Moav said to the elders of Midian that B’nei Yisroel will chew up their surroundings like an ox chews up its food. What was the point of this simile and why does the Torah feel the need to write it? (22:21) Why did Billam ride a donkey and not a horse? (22:28) Billam’s hit his donkey three times. When Hashem opened the donkey’s mouth, the first thing its first words to Billam was asking him, “What have I done to you that you have struck me these three times?”  Rashi writes that besides for giving Billam  mussar , the donkey was also hinting to him that he will not be able to succeed in trying to uproot a nation which keeps the  shalosh regalim . What is it about the  shalosh regalim  specifi

~ Thoughts on The Parsha ~ Parshas Chukas The Power of a Zechus By: Daniel Listhaus וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל הָעֵדָה מִדְבַּר צִן בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם בְּקָדֵשׁ וַתָּמָת שָׁם מִרְיָם וַתִּקָּבֵר שָׁם וְלֹא הָיָה מַיִם לָעֵדָה וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן “The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Tzin the first month, and the people settled in Kadeish. Miriam died there and was buried there. And there was no water for the assembly so they assembled against Moses and Aharon.” -Chukas  20:1-2              Rashi [1] comments that from the juxtaposition of these  passukim  (verses) we see that for the entire forty years in the desert prior to this point, the well that the Jews had access to, which followed them on their journey, was only deserved through Miriam's  zechus  (merit). This is why when she died, the well disappeared and hid among the other rocks.             What was Miriam's

~ Something to Think About ~ פרשת חקת Parsha Stumpers By: Daniel Listhaus Rashi (19:22) writes that the parah adumah is a kapparah for the eigel ha'zahav – it is the mother cleaning after its baby. In fact, the Torah stresses six similarities between the parah adumah and eigel ha'zahav. What exactly is the connection, though, between mitzva of parah adumah and eigel haz'zahav (other than the fact that they are both cows) that it should be chosen to be its kaparah? (19:22) Why should the  parah adumah  cow act as a kapparah for the eigel? What about the concept of  ein k’teigar na’aseh s’neiger –  that the prosecutor does not become the defense counselor? (See Rashi 19:3 for example) Why is it that the eigel ha'zahav has no “settling of its debt”? The Torah states that the Parah Adumah had to be perfectly red. The  Meforshim  explain that even two black or white hairs would disqualify it from being a valid Parah Adumah. Why is it that  two

~ Thoughts on The Parsha ~ Parshas Korach To Kill a Mockingbird: Dutch Tulips and Mad Crowd Disease By: Daniel Listhaus וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן ““Korach son of Yitzhar son of Kehas son of Levi seperated himself, with Dasan and Aviram, sons of Eliav, and On son of Peles, sons of Reuvein.” -Korach  16:1             Rashi [1] and the  Medrash [2] describe that Korach came to Moshe with the following two questions. The first was, “Does a  tallis  made entirely of  techeiles  (blue-dyed wool) require a string of  techeiles ”? The logic behind this question is that we know that we are required to put  tzitzis  strings on each corner of every four-cornered garment that we wear. [3] The real  mitzva  of  tzitzis  includes that one of the strings on each corner be  techeiles [4] . So, essentially, Korach was asking that if, for a regular  tallis,  a single string of  techeil