1) Ch. 19, v. 2: "Zose chukas haTorah asher tzivoh Hashem leimore" – This is the statute of the Torah that Hashem commanded so saying – We have a dictum that once the Beis Hamikdosh is no longer existent whoever toils in the study of the laws of the sacrifices is considered as if he has actually brought those sacrifices and they afford him the appeasement/atonement the sacrifice provides (gemara M'nochos 110a). If so, why don’t we say the same with the purification process created by the red heifer?
2) Ch. 20, v. 8: "Kach es HAma'teh" - The word "ma'teh" is preceded by a definitive Hei, "THE staff." Which "known" staff is this?
3) Ch. 20, v. 10: "Shimu noh hamorim" – The rebellious ones please hear – Rashi says that this word is sourced in the Greek language to mean “fools.” Obviously it has the simple meaning of "teachers." Rashi combines both and says that Moshe rebuked them, saying that they were fools who attempt to teach their teachers. If this word has a straightforward meaning in Loshon Hakodesh, why is there a need to also give it another level of meaning in a foreign language?
4) Ch. 20, v. 26: "V'hafsheit es Aharon" – And undress Aharon – This would take place on Hor Hohor, removed from the Mishkon campus. How was he permitted to wear his priestly attire there, as it contains shatnez, which is only permitted when doing a priestly service?
5) Ch. 21, v. 3: "Va'yi'tein es haCanaani va'yacha'reim es'hem" – And He gave over the Canaanites and he devastated them – The verse does not tell us into whose hands the Canaanites were given. Who vanquished them?
1) Ch. 16, v. 1: "Va'yikach Korach" - The M.R. 18:3 says that Korach came to Moshe with the following question: "You have taught us that one needs a mezuzoh on the door posts of his home. If the home is filled with Torah Scrolls, does the door post still require a mezuzoh?" Moshe responded in the affirmative. At this point Korach retorted, "If a Torah Scroll which contains 275 parshios does not exempt the home from a mezuzoh, how can a mezuzoh which contains but ONE PARSHA satisfy this requirement?" We can easily see a parallel to his complaint that since the whole nation is holy, why is there a need for a leader.
What is most interesting to note is that the medrash quotes Korach as saying that a mezuzoh contains but ONE PARSHA. The Medrash Tanchuma and the Yalkut Shimoni both have a text which reads "TWO PARSHIOS," and the RSha"Sh adjusts the text in the M.R. to conform with these two medroshim. However, the original text found in all printings of the M.R. is "ONE PARSHA." I’m sure than you’ve seen a mezuzah script and noticed that there are two paragraphs. How are we to explain this medrash?
2) Ch. 16, v. 1: "Va'yikach Korach" – When did this uprising take place in relation to other desert incidents?
3) Ch. 16, v. 22: "Ho’ish echod yecheto v'al kol ho'eidoh tiktzofe" – Can it be that one person will sin and You will be angered on the whole congregation – Ramban cites Rabbeinu Chananeil who explains that Moshe said these words because he misunderstood Hashem, thinking that “the whole congregation” meant the whole Jewish nation, and Hashem responded to him that “kol ho’eidoh” only referred to the cohorts of Korach. The Raamban resoundingly disagrees with this interpretation because it is incomprehensible to say that Moshe, who received such clear messages of prophecy from Hashem, would misunderstand. He therefore explains these words differently. How can we answer the Ramban’s question and have a good understanding of Rabbeinu Chananeil’s position?
4) Ch. 17, v. 5: "V'lo yi'h'yeh ch'Korach v'chaadoso" – And - he shall not/there will not - be as Korach and his group – Which of these two translations is correct? Is this an exhortation or a statement of fact?
5) Ch. 17, v. 7: "Va'y'hi b'hiko'heil ho'eidoh al Moshe v'al Aharon" – And is was when all the group assembled upon Moshe and Aharon – Targum Yonoson ben Uziel writes that they assembled to kill Moshe and Aharon. How does he derive this from the words of our verse? We similarly find "va'yikohalu al Moshe v'al Aharon" in Bmidbar 20:2 and Targum Yonoson ben Uziel does not write the same there.
1) Ch. 13, v. 3: "Roshei bnei Yisroel heimoh" – What meaning can be put into these words besides the simple meaning that they were tribal heads?
2) Ch. 15, v. 32: "Eitzim" – Wood – Tosfos on the gemara B.B. 119b d.h. "afilu" brings in the name of the medrash that Tz'lofchod, the Shabbos desecrator, had a noble intention. Is there any indication for this in the words of the verses describing this incident?
3) Ch. 15, v. 34: "Va'yanichu oso bamishmor" - The Ram"o in O.Ch. #339:4 says that we may not incarcerate a person on Shabbos Kodesh. We see from our verse that the Shabbos transgressor was incarcerated on Shabbos.
4) Ch. 15, v. 37-41: PARSHAS TZITZIS - The Daas Z'keinim and the Rosh both cite a medrash that asks why the parsha of tzitzis is placed immediately after the parsha of Tzelofchod. The medrash relates that Moshe said to Hashem, "You have given the bnei Yisroel a mitzvoh of wearing tefillin. It serves as a reminder to fulfill all of the Torah's mitzvos, as is written, "l'maan ti'h'yeh Toras Hashem b'fichoh" (Shmos 13:9). However, You have forbidden wearing tefillin on Shabbos (gemara M'nochos 36b). Had Tzelofchod been allowed to wear tefillin on Shabbos he would have remembered to not desecrate it." Hashem responded that He would now give a new mitzvoh of wearing tzitzis which would be a constant reminder to fulfill all the Torah's mitzvos, as is written, "u'r'i'sem oso u'z'chartem es kol mitzvos Hashem" (15:39). This mitzvoh would apply to Shabbos as well. Why isn’t Shabbos alone a sufficient reminder to do all of Hashem's mitzvos? It is called a sign, just as tefillin are.
5) Ch. 15, v. 39: "V'ho'yoh lochem l'tzitzis" - The Ibn Ezra writes that it is more important for a person to wear tzitzis when he is not praying than during prayers. The tzitzis remind a person of all the mitzvos of the Torah, "u'r'i'sem oso u'z'chartem es kol mitzvos Hashem," and during prayer it is very unlikely for a person to sin. However, when he goes about his daily activities there is a much greater likelihood that he will sin, so he should wear his tzitzis all day. Why does the Ibn Ezra wait until the third mention of tzitzis to make this comment and is there any indication for his comment in the verses themselves?
1) Ch. 9, v. 21: "V'naaloh he'onon v'nosso'u" - In 10:5 the verse says "Us'ka'tem tru'oh v'nossu." Do they travel by virtue of the trumpet signals or the movement of the clouds of glory?
2) Ch. 11, v. 5: "Zocharnu es haDOGOH" – What is "dog" and what is "dogoh?"
3) Ch. 11, v. 22: "Kol d'gei ha'yom yei'o'seif" - We find that the bnei Yisroel demanded of Moshe to supply them with meat. Yet we see that Moshe mentioned to Hashem that if there were a possibility to amass the fish of the sea, then the bnei Yisroel's demand would be met. The Mogein Avrohom and the Machatzis Ha'shekel on O.Ch. #249 (s.k. 6) both say that one should make sure to serve meat at a meal celebrating a bris miloh. MVRHRH"G Rabbi Yaakov Kamenecki zt"l said that if one were to serve fish instead, he would also be considered as having served meat. A proof for this is that we find that the bnei Yisroel demanded meat and Moshe said that by serving them fish their demand would be fulfilled. We see that fish is also considered meat.
Shulchan Oruch Y.D. 13:1 rules that fish require no ritual slaughtering, shechitoh. This is derived from our verse which says that if bnei Yisroel were to receive meat it would require shechitoh, "Hatzone u'vokor YISHOCHEIT lo'hem." However, by fish it says "yei'o'seif," that they only require gathering.
Besides the obvious prohibition to not consume non-kosher fish, as detailed in parshios Shmini and R'ei, are there any circumstances where kosher fish may not be eaten?
4) Ch. 12, v. 8: "Peh el peh ada'beir BO" – The verse should have said "ada'beir LO."
5) Ch. 12, v. 10: "V’hi'nei Miryom m'tzoraas" – And behold Miriam is afflicted with tzoraas – Aharon was a partner in this wrongdoing. Was he also afflicted as was Miriam?
1) Ch. 5, v. 14: "V'hee nitmo'oh …… v'hee lo nitmo'oh" – Either she was defiled …… or she was not defiled – Why doesn't the verse simply say "v'lo noda im nitmo'oh,"– and it was not known if she was defiled?
2) Ch. 6, v. 5: "Kodosh yi'h'yeh" – He shall be holy – What level of sanctity does the nozir have?
3) Ch. 6, v. 5: "Ga'deil pera sar rosho" - We see that the nozir is not only prohibited to cut his hair, but that it is holy as well. What symbolic or ideological message is there in specifically having the hair holy?
4) Ch. 6, v. 7: "U'l'achoso" - The Torah gives us a list of relatives to whom the nozir may not defile himself. The mention of each additional relative teaches us that even when there is a more pressing need to avoid involvement with a burial, it is only for a person who has others to bury him that the nozir must remain "tohor," undefiled. However, for a dead person who has no one else to bury him, a "meis mitzvoh," he must defile himself (gemara Nozir 48b). "U'l'achoso" teaches us that he must defile himself to a "meis mitzvoh" even if he is a nozir who is on his way to perform a circumcision on his own son and also on the way to sacrifice his Paschal lamb.
On a simple level we might say that adding to the sanctity of being a nozir our Rabbis add on multiple other mitzvoh responsibilities that are pushed aside if he becomes defiled by virtue of the need to extrapolate something from the extra mention of relatives. However, here there is an allusion in the word “la’achoso” for circumcision and for "korban Pesach." What is it?
5) Ch. 7, v. 84: "ZOSE CHANUKAs hamizbei'ach b'yom himoshach oso." – This is the dedication of the altar on the day of its anointing – We call the last day of Chanukah "zose Chanukah," and the common understanding of this is because we read these words on the eighth day of Chanukah. This seems to be a very flimsy reason, as we don’t call other dates by some words that are read from the Torah on that day.
1) Ch. 2, v. 3: "Keidmoh mizrochoh" – To the east – How do you explain the double expression of east?
2) Ch. 2, v. 9: "Rishonoh yiso'u" – They should travel first – Why did the tribes of Yehudoh, Yisochor, and Z’vulun merit being at the head of the nation?
3) Ch. 3, v. 1: "V'ei'leh toldos Aharon u'Moshe" – And these are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe – The M.R. explains why Aharon is mentioned here ahead of Moshe. When Moshe and Aharon were involved with the census they also asked for the family lineage. People chided Aharon, "Before you ask for our lineage look at the lineage of the offspring of your son Elozor, who married the daughter of Puti'eil." Standing up for Aharon's honour, Hashem mentioned him ahead of Moshe in our chapter of the Levites offspring.
Why didn’t the people likewise chide Moshe, who did the exact same thing as Elozor, taking Tziporoh the daughter of Puti’eil as his wife? Actually, Moshe was even more open to criticism, as he himself took a daughter of Puti’eil, while it was only Aharon’s son who did so.
4) Ch. 3, v. 9: "Nsunim heimoh lo mei’eis bnei Yisroel" – They are given to him from the bnei Yisroel – Hashem appointed the Levites to serve the Kohanim. If so, if which way are they given by the bnei Yisroel?
5) Ch. 3, v. 26: "V'es mosach pesach hechotzeir …… l'chole avodoso" – And the curtain for the opening of the courtyard …… to all its service – Since our verse is discussing the disassembled Mishkon when traveling, what Mikdosh service is there?
1) Ch. 26, v. 3: "Im b'chukosai tei'leichu" – If you will go in My statutes – The Toras Kohanim says that "walking" in my statutes means toiling in the study of Torah, similar to the command Hashem gave to Avrohom, "Kum his'ha'leich bo'oretz l'orkoh ulrochboh" (Breishis 13:17). What is the comparison of Avrohom's "walking" the length and breadth of the land to "walking" in Hashem's statutes?
2) Ch. 26, v. 9: "Vahakimosi es brisi itchem" – And I will establish My covenant with you – Rashi writes, "bris chadoshoh," – a NEW covenant – as you have nullified the first one. The new one will never be negated. Is Rashi actually saying that the original covenant is no longer in force?
3) Ch. 26, v. 40,41: "V'hisvadu es avo'nom …… b'maalom asher mo'alu vi v'af asher holchu imi b'keri, Af ani eileich imom b'keri" – And they will confess their sin …… in their inequity that they have misbehaved against Me and also that they have to Me with happenstance, I will also respond in kind and act with happenstance – Since these people are confessing their sin, why does Hashem respond so negatively?
4) Ch. 26, v. 42: "V'zocharti brisi Yaakov" – And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov – This verse, one of comfort, seems totally out of place in the middle of this lengthy admonishment.
5) Ch. 27, v. 5: "V'im mi'ben cho'meish shonim v'ad ben esrim shonoh" – If he is between five and twenty years old – A) From the ages of twenty to sixty years (verses 3 and 4), and from one month to five years (verse 6), the ratio of redemption of male to female is 5 to 3. Above the age of 60 (verse 7) the gap closes, with a 3 to 2 ratio. Why? B) The ratio between male and female between the ages of 5 years and 20 years, is a 2 to 1 ratio. Why is a male so highly assessed during these years?
Important Numbers
