פנחס א

Okay, let's break down this sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's line of reasoning, the questions he raises, and the insights he offers, presented clearly for someone without a deep background in Torah study or Chasidic thought. **The Starting Point: A Verse and a Question** The sicha begins by looking at a verse from the Torah portion (Parsha) of Pinchas. This Parsha tells the story of the daughters of Tzelofchad, five sisters who approached the leadership because their father had died without sons, and they wanted to inherit his portion of the Land of Israel. The specific verse (Numbers 27:2) says: "**And they stood before Moshe and before Elazar the Kohen and before the Nesi'im (Princes/Leaders) and all the Edah (Congregation/Assembly) at the entrance of the Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting), saying...**" Now, an ancient collection of teachings called the *Sifri* discusses this verse and finds something puzzling. It presents a debate between two sages: 1. **Rabbi Yoshiya asks:** Does it make sense that they would ask Moshe first, and *then* go ask Elazar (the High Priest), the Nesi'im, etc., in that order? "If Moshe [the greatest leader and prophet] didn't know the answer, would Elazar know?" Logically, if the top authority doesn't know, why ask those below him? * **Rabbi Yoshiya's Solution:** Therefore, he says, you have to "reverse the verse and interpret it" (*Siris ha'mikra v'dorsheihu*). This means we should understand that they actually approached the lower-ranking people *first*, and worked their way up to Moshe. The Torah lists them in order of importance, but the actual event happened in reverse order. Rabbi Yoshiya himself notes this is an *interpretation* (*drash*), not the most straightforward reading (*pshat*). 2. **Abba Chanan offers a different solution:** He says they weren't approaching them one by one. Instead, "they were [all sitting together] in the *Beis Midrash* (House of Study), and [the daughters] came and stood before them [all at once]." **The Same Debate Elsewhere** The Rebbe points out that this exact same debate (Rabbi Yoshiya vs. Abba Chanan) appears in the Sifri regarding two *other* incidents mentioned in earlier Parshiyos: * **Pesach Sheni (Second Passover):** In Parshas Behaalotecha (Numbers 9:6), some men who were ritually impure couldn't bring the Passover offering. They complained, "Why should we be excluded?" The verse says they "approached **before Moshe and before Aharon**." * **The Wood Gatherer on Shabbat:** In Parshas Shelach (Numbers 15:33), a man was caught gathering wood on Shabbat. The verse says they "brought him **to Moshe and to Aharon and to all the Edah**." **The Problem: Rashi's Seemingly Inconsistent Explanations** Now we get to the core issue the Rebbe wants to explore: How does Rashi – the most fundamental and essential commentator on the Torah – explain these verses? * **Pesach Sheni (Behaalotecha):** Rashi *only* gives Abba Chanan's explanation. He writes: "Before Moshe and before Aharon – When both were sitting in the Beis Midrash, they came and asked them. **And it is impossible to say one after the other, because if Moshe didn't know, from where would Aharon know?**" * **Rebbe's Observation:** By only giving this explanation and explicitly rejecting the logic behind Rabbi Yoshiya's view, Rashi seems to be saying that Abba Chanan's view ("they were together in the Beis Midrash") is the simple, correct meaning (*Pshat*) of the verse. He also strongly implies that "reversing the verse" (*Siris HaMikra*) is *not* the simple meaning. * **Wood Gatherer (Shelach):** Rashi *doesn't comment at all* on the phrase "to Moshe and to Aharon and to all the Edah" in the context of this debate. * **Daughters of Tzelofchad (Pinchas - Our Parsha):** Here, Rashi does something surprising. He quotes **both** opinions from the Sifri, **and he even names the sages**! He first quotes Rabbi Yoshiya ("If Moshe didn't know...") and *then* quotes Abba Chanan ("they were in the Beis Midrash..."). **Why is this so puzzling? (The Rebbe's Questions)** 1. **Contradiction:** If Rashi established in Behaalotecha that only Abba Chanan's view fits the simple meaning (*Pshat*), why does he suddenly present *both* views in Pinchas? And why does he put Rabbi Yoshiya's view (*Siris HaMikra*, which seemed rejected as *Pshat* earlier) *first* in Pinchas? This implies that *here*, Rabbi Yoshiya's view *is* also considered a valid simple meaning. How can this be? 2. **Increased Difficulty:** Rabbi Yoshiya's solution ("reverse the verse") is much more complicated in Pinchas. In Behaalotecha, you only need to reverse the order of two people (Moshe and Aharon). In Pinchas, you have to reverse the order of Moshe, Elazar, *and* the Nesi'im – a three-way (or more) reversal. Why would Rashi introduce this more complex "reversal" explanation specifically here, when he avoided it earlier? 3. **The Silence in Shelach:** Why did Rashi say nothing in Shelach? The Rebbe initially suggests maybe Rashi assumed we'd remember his comment from Behaalotecha. But, as we'll see, this assumption becomes problematic later. **Attempt #1 to Resolve the Inconsistency: Maybe it's because of "Kol HaEdah"?** * **The Idea:** Perhaps the difference lies in the wording. Behaalotecha just says "Moshe and Aharon." Pinchas (and Shelach) add "**and all the Edah**" (the entire congregation/assembly). * **The Reasoning:** Maybe Rashi felt it was plausible for Moshe and Aharon to be sitting together in the *Beis Midrash* (House of Study). But how could "all the Edah" fit inside the Beis Midrash? Therefore, in Pinchas, the "Beis Midrash" explanation (Abba Chanan) seems less likely according to the simple meaning. This might force Rashi to also consider Rabbi Yoshiya's "reverse the order" explanation as a primary possibility here. * **Why This Doesn't Work (The Rebbe's Rebuttal):** * **Problem with Shelach:** If the presence of "Kol HaEdah" makes the "Beis Midrash" explanation problematic, then why was Rashi *silent* in Shelach (the Wood Gatherer)? He should have addressed the issue there too, perhaps by bringing both opinions as he did in Pinchas. The argument that Rashi relied on his earlier comment in Behaalotecha falls apart if the situations are fundamentally different ("Kol HaEdah" vs. no "Kol HaEdah"). * **"Kol HaEdah" Doesn't Mean Everyone:** Rashi himself explains elsewhere (end of Parshat Tisa) that when the Torah describes Moshe teaching, "all the people (*Kol Ha'am*)" entered the study area. This doesn't mean literally every single Israelite, but rather those who came to learn, or perhaps representatives. So, "Kol HaEdah" could easily mean a large group, but not necessarily millions, and they *could* potentially fit or gather near a central study/meeting place. * **"Kol HaEdah" Can Mean the Sanhedrin:** Even more significantly, Rashi himself, in other places, explains that "Kol HaEdah" can specifically refer to the *Sanhedrin* – the High Court or Rabbinic Assembly of 71 elders. They would certainly fit in the Beis Midrash. * **Conclusion of Attempt #1:** The presence of "Kol HaEdah" doesn't seem to be the reason for Rashi's different approach in Pinchas. The original question remains: Why doesn't Rashi just stick with the "Beis Midrash" explanation (Abba Chanan) as the primary simple meaning in Pinchas, like he did in Behaalotecha? **Attempt #2: Maybe it's because of "Petach Ohel Moed"?** * **The Idea:** Another difference in the Pinchas verse is the specified location: "**Petach Ohel Moed**" (Entrance of the Tent of Meeting). This location isn't mentioned in the Behaalotecha verse. * **The Reasoning:** Maybe the Beis Midrash *wasn't* at the Petach Ohel Moed. If the verse explicitly states the location was the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting, then Rashi couldn't simply say, as his primary explanation, "they were in the Beis Midrash." This might again push him to consider Rabbi Yoshiya's "reverse the order" explanation first. * **Why This Also Doesn't Work (The Rebbe's Rebuttal):** * **Location Overlap:** The "Petach Ohel Moed" generally refers to the courtyard of the *Mishkan* (Tabernacle). Where was the highest court, the Sanhedrin (which often functioned as the main Beis Midrash)? Rashi himself states (in Parshat Mishpatim, explaining Exodus 21:6) that the Sanhedrin should be situated near the Altar, which *was* in the courtyard. So, it's very likely that the Beis Midrash *was* located at, or was functionally equivalent to, the "Petach Ohel Moed." They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive locations. * **Why Mention Beis Midrash Anyway?** Even if we assume Petach Ohel Moed and Beis Midrash are distinct places, look at Rashi's *second* explanation in Pinchas (Abba Chanan's view). Rashi *still* quotes Abba Chanan saying "they were in the Beis Midrash"! If the point was just that they were asked simultaneously, Abba Chanan could have just said "they came and stood before all of them together," and the location is already given by the verse ("Petach Ohel Moed"). Why does the explanation Rashi quotes *insist* on the Beis Midrash setting, even as a second possibility, if the verse specifies a different location? This suggests there's something important about the *concept* of the Beis Midrash itself. **Getting to the Core: What Does "If Moshe Didn't Know..." Really Imply?** The Rebbe now takes a step back to understand the fundamental issue. * **The Implication of "V'Lifnei" (And Before):** Rashi's rejection of the "one after the other" scenario ("If Moshe didn't know...") suggests that the plain meaning of the verse, especially with the repeated "**v'lifnei**" ("**and** before Elazar **and** before the Nesi'im..."), implies that each person or group mentioned was addressed *distinctly*. If the verse had just said "before Moshe, Elazar, the Nesi'im..." it could simply mean Moshe was the main addressee, and the others were just present. But the repetition of "**and before**" emphasizes that the daughters directed their plea *specifically* to each listed party. The Rebbe even notes Rashi emphasizes this in Pinchas by adding words: Rashi quotes "before Moshe" and then adds "*and afterwards* before Elazar," stressing the sequential implication of the plain text. * **The Dilemma:** So, the text implies they asked each one separately. But logic dictates ("If Moshe didn't know...") that asking sequentially *in the order written* (Moshe first, then others) doesn't make sense. * **The Solution:** This leads to the two possibilities discussed by the Sifri and Rashi: 1. **Rabbi Yoshiya:** They *did* ask sequentially, just not in the order written. They asked the lower ranks first, then Moshe (*Siris HaMikra* - reverse the text). 2. **Abba Chanan:** They asked them all *simultaneously* because they were all together in a specific type of setting – the *Beis Midrash*. **What's Special About a Beis Midrash?** * **Collaborative Learning:** The Rebbe emphasizes that a Beis Midrash isn't just a lecture hall. It's a dynamic environment for *joint study and debate* (*shakla v'tarya*). Everyone present – the head sage, the students – participates. Questions are thrown out for collective consideration. * **Questions Are Addressed to All:** Therefore, a question posed in a Beis Midrash isn't directed solely at the Rosh Yeshiva (head of the academy). It's implicitly addressed to *everyone* present. Everyone is expected to think about it, discuss it, and potentially offer insights. * **Why Abba Chanan's Explanation Works:** This is why saying "they were in the Beis Midrash" solves the problem! If Moshe and Aharon (or Moshe, Elazar, Nesi'im) were sitting together *in a Beis Midrash session*, the daughters' plea, even if primarily aimed at Moshe, would naturally be considered as being presented "before Moshe *and before* Aharon" (etc.) simultaneously and equally, because that's the nature of discourse in a Beis Midrash. It perfectly explains the "v'lifnei" phrasing without resorting to the illogical "one after the other" sequence. * **Explaining the Persistence of "Beis Midrash":** This also clarifies why Rashi's second explanation in Pinchas (quoting Abba Chanan) *still* mentions "Beis Midrash" even though the verse says "Petach Ohel Moed." The crucial element isn't just physical proximity; it's the *type* of gathering – a collaborative study session – that makes simultaneous address logical and fitting with the verse's language. **Finally, Solving the Rashi Puzzle in Pinchas** Now the Rebbe puts it all together to explain why Rashi treats Pinchas differently. * **What "Petach Ohel Moed" Represents:** Rashi understands "Petach Ohel Moed" not just as a location, but as signifying a particular *type* of assembly. It's the place where the *Edah* (congregation) gathers, primarily to *hear* pronouncements or decisions from leadership (like Moshe), rather than to engage in the interactive debate typical of a Beis Midrash. Think of it more as an official assembly point or town square meeting. * **The Situation in Pinchas:** The verse describes Moshe, Elazar, the Nesi'im (leaders potentially involved in study/judgment) *AND* "Kol HaEdah" (the assembled public) gathered at the "Petach Ohel Moed" (the public assembly point). * **Why Abba Chanan's View is Now Strained (*Dochek*):** In *this* context, applying the "Beis Midrash" explanation becomes difficult. To make it work, you'd have to imagine a somewhat awkward scenario: Moshe, Elazar, and the Nesi'im are having a Beis Midrash-style discussion, while *simultaneously*, the entire Edah is assembled nearby at the Petach Ohel Moed, waiting to hear the outcome. Splitting the group and the nature of their gathering like this is a forced interpretation (*dochek*). * **Why Rabbi Yoshiya's View Becomes Primary:** Because Abba Chanan's "Beis Midrash" explanation fits awkwardly with the "Petach Ohel Moed / Kol HaEdah" setting described in Pinchas, Rashi presents Rabbi Yoshiya's explanation ("reverse the verse") as the *primary* simple meaning (*Pshat*) here. This approach accepts the gathering described in the verse more naturally (everyone assembled at the entrance) and only requires adjusting the *temporal sequence* of who was asked when. While "reversing the verse" isn't ideal Pshat, in *this specific context*, Rashi deems it less forced than Abba Chanan's explanation. * **Why Name the Sages?:** Rashi quotes both sages by name here specifically to highlight that this isn't just about this one verse. It's about a known, fundamental difference in interpretive methodology between Rabbi Yoshiya (more willing to reorder text – *Siris HaMikra*) and Abba Chanan (preferring to keep the text sequential, even if it requires a more strained interpretation of the situation – *dochek*). Rashi shows how the specific details of the verse in Pinchas lead him to favor Rabbi Yoshiya's methodology *here*, even though he preferred Abba Chanan's in Behaalotecha where it fit more smoothly. **Explaining Rashi's Silence on the Wood Gatherer (Shelach)** * **Not a Halachic Question:** The core logic "If Moshe didn't know..." applies when people are asking a question about *what the law is*. * **The Wood Gatherer Case:** Rashi clarifies they *knew* the man deserved death for breaking Shabbat; they just didn't know *which specific type* of death penalty. * **Handing Over to Authorities:** Therefore, bringing him "to Moshe and to Aharon and to all the Edah" wasn't primarily about asking Moshe a question he might not know. It was about bringing a known capital offender before the recognized public authorities (Moshe, Aharon, the Edah/Sanhedrin) for judgment and sentencing. The act was one of *transferring custody* to the judicial body. * **No Logical Problem:** Since the main action wasn't asking a question that depended solely on Moshe's knowledge, but rather delivering the accused to the collective leadership, there's no logical difficulty in bringing him before all of them. The "If Moshe didn't know..." problem doesn't arise. Thus, Rashi had no need to bring up the Sifri's debate here. **Side Point: Why Was the Blasphemer Brought Only to Moshe?** * **The Blasphemer (Parshat Emor):** The verse (Leviticus 24:11) says they brought him "*to Moshe*" alone. * **The Question:** Rashi notes the Blasphemer and Wood Gatherer incidents happened around the same time. Why the difference in who they were brought to? * **The Answer (Based on the Above):** Rashi explains that with the Blasphemer, they *didn't know if he deserved death at all*. It was a fundamental Halachic question. Therefore, it was appropriate to bring him directly and solely to Moshe, the ultimate arbiter of new or unclear areas of law. The Wood Gatherer, whose capital guilt was known, was brought to the broader leadership/judicial body for sentencing. **The Deeper, Chasidic Insight ("Wine of Torah")** The Rebbe often seeks the inner, spiritual meaning behind the technical details of Torah interpretation. * **Why These Specific Cases?** Why does Rashi engage with this debate specifically regarding Pesach Sheni and the Daughters of Tzelofchad (and not the Wood Gatherer)? * **Common Theme: Prompted from Below:** Both Pesach Sheni and the inheritance laws for daughters were given by G-d *in response to a plea or demand initiated by people "below"*. * Pesach Sheni came from the men asking, "Why should we lose out?" * The inheritance law came from the daughters asking, "Give us an inheritance!" * **Connection to the Explanations:** The two explanations themselves highlight the importance of human effort and intellect ("from below") in bringing Torah into the world: * **Siris HaMikra (Reverse the Verse):** The Torah, as it comes "from Above," sometimes needs human intellect to reorder or interpret it to reveal its understandable meaning. The human mind actively engages to clarify the Divine word. * **Beis Midrash (House of Study):** This represents the process of human study, debate, and intellectual striving (*pilpul*). It's through this human effort that new insights (*chiddushim*) in Torah are generated. This contrasts with a passive assembly (like *Hakhel*, the septennial gathering, or the assembly at Petach Ohel Moed) where the main role is to *receive* wisdom from above (from the King or Moshe). The Beis Midrash emphasizes the human contribution to Torah understanding, much like the Oral Torah elaborates on the Written Torah through human analysis and deduction. It's even said, "A Beis Midrash cannot exist without *chiddush* (novel insights)." **Refining the Insight: Why Different Primary Explanations?** * **Siris HaMikra vs. Beis Midrash:** * "Siris HaMikra" focuses on understanding the *Torah text* as written, needing human input to grasp its intended order/meaning. * "Beis Midrash" focuses on the *process* of learning and debate through which laws are clarified or even newly revealed. * **Pesach Sheni:** Rashi presents this as a *completely new law* prompted by the people. The emphasis is on the *emergence of a new Halacha* through human initiative. This aligns perfectly with the "Beis Midrash" concept – the place where new understanding and laws are generated. Therefore, Rashi *only* gives the "Beis Midrash" explanation here. * **Daughters of Tzelofchad:** Here, Rashi states that Moshe had *forgotten* the law ("the Halacha escaped him"). The law already existed, but the daughters' plea caused it to be *reiterated and written down* through their merit. The focus is less on a totally new law and more on how human action prompted the *clarification and inscription* of an existing (though temporarily hidden) law in the Torah text. This aligns more closely with "Siris HaMikra" – human involvement is needed to make sense of or bring forth the *written* Torah's message. This is why Rashi makes "Siris HaMikra" the *primary* explanation here. * **Why Both Explanations in Pinchas:** However, since there *is* another view (in the Talmud) that the inheritance laws *were* indeed entirely new, prompted by the daughters, Rashi includes Abba Chanan's "Beis Midrash" explanation as the second possibility, acknowledging the aspect of a *new* law emerging from human request. **The Final Takeaway Message** * **The Power of Request:** Just as the sincere plea of the daughters of Tzelofchad ("Give us an inheritance!") resulted in G-d revealing the relevant laws and them actually receiving their inheritance in the Land of Israel... * **Our Plea Today:** So too, our persistent prayers and requests to G-d in these final moments of exile – prayers like "Speedily cause the offspring of Your servant David to flourish" and "May our eyes behold Your merciful return to Zion" – should have a similar effect. * **The Ultimate Inheritance:** May these heartfelt requests bring about the immediate arrival of the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu (our righteous Messiah). At that time, every single Jew will clearly and openly receive their eternal portion and inheritance in the Holy Land, allocated by G-d Himself, speedily in our days!