The Pshat Heard 'Round the World

Parashat Behar-Bechukotai (Revised May 8, 2026) This week's double parashah, Behar and Bechuotai, bring to a close the book of Vayikra, a book the all-consuming focus of which is, undoubtably, KEDUSHAH, holiness. The last chapter is concerned largely with the kind of vows people make in dedicating something to the service of Hashem in the Mikdash. There are many laws regulating this seemingly noble motivation and its accompanying action, but my attention was taken this time around by the following law: "If (the devoted thing) is an animal of the kind from which an offering is brought to Hashem, any one which is given to Hashem shall be kodesh . One shall not exchange it ( lo yachalifenu ) nor shall one substitute for it ( yamir oto ), good for bad or bad for good; now if one DOES substitute for it, it will be that it and its substitute will be kodesh ." Vayikra 27:10-11  This mitzvah turns out to be very curious, because one is lashed for its intentional violation...

Emor  (revised and updated April 2026) Parashat Emor concludes with one of the only narrative passages in all of Chumash Vayikra - the story of the man who blasphemes. Although the account is brief, it must be of critical importance, for otherwise, why interrupt the halachic flow of Vayikra, a Chumash suspended in time with almost no dateable events, to tell us about a single foul-mouthed boor?

 I created The Pshat Heard 'Round the World some eighteen years ago, and I posted weekly on the parashah for about two years. Other items were added here and there subsequently, but for a long time it's been inactive. IYH, I will be starting a new series of pieces on tefillah, with special attention to the first beracha of the Amidah. My claim and approach will be that the first beracha of the Amidah teaches us how to pray and how to pray it! We'll start with a few preparatory and introductory pieces before jumping in to the beracha itself, phrase by phrase. I am considering enabling comments and dealing with "hackish" comments as they inevitably come, so keep tuned.

Pshat: MiIgra Rama l'Bira Amikta!  From a high roof to a deep pit!  That's how some describe the sudden transition from the incomparable, dizzying spiritual heights of Matan Torah in last week's parasha to the mundane, all-too-earthly laws regulating such unspiritual acts as assault, murder, injury, property damage, enslavement and the like. How could Moshe one moment be reassuring the people regarding the lasting impact of their near-death spiritual high at Mt. Sinai, and the next minute be instructing them how properly to sell their daughters into slavery? How do WE move from the sublime and spiritual to the ever-so-concrete and material in a single week? The Midrash is also disturbed, it seems, by the shift to the mundane realm. Our Sages were constantly fending off the attacks of early Christianity and other sects who pointed to the preoccupation with concrete details as an indication that Jews had lost their spiritual way. Shemot Rabba chapter 30 devotes l...

The tefillin worn on the head (henceforth, “ shel rosh ”) differ in a number of respects from the tefillin worn on the arm (henceforth, “ shel yad ”). One of the differences is this: Though both must contain the four passages in the Torah which make mention of the mitzvah of tefillin, the shel yad has all four passages written on a single parchment, in the order they appear in the Torah, rolled up and placed in the single compartment of the shel yad . The shel rosh , however, is constructed such that it has four small compartments side by side. Though these compartments appear to be tightly bound to one another, in fact, they are almost actually completely separate from one another. They only join at a common base, like the fingers of one’s hand. Into each compartment is placed one of the four passages, written on four separate parchments. Here is a list of the passages, in the order they appear in the Torah: 1.        Kadesh Li – Shemot 13:1-10 ...

The brief exchange between Avraham and Yitzchak on the way to the Akeidah , less than two verses long, and sandwiched between the two phrases “and the two of them walked together” , is the only conversation between this primal father-and-son pair recorded in the Torah. It is all the more powerful because of its brevity, because of its singleness, and because of what it doesn’t say explicitly, yet, by omission, makes overwhelmingly present. When they set off for Har HaMoriah , Avraham takes only what the moment requires – he leaves behind his servants, the donkey and, presumably, any of the provisions they brought on their three-day journey, he takes the wood for the offering (placing it upon Yitzchak), the fire and the knife. That’s all there is – two men, wood, fire and knife. Thus provisioned, they set off together. Here is the conversation. Yitzchak says to Avraham, his father, he says, “my father”,  and Avraham says, “Here I am son”,  and he (Yitzchak) says, “here ...

" Mah Tovu Ohaleicha Ya'akov, Mishkenoteicha Yisrael" .  How good are your tents, Ya'akov; your dwellings, Yisrael!  These words, some of the first we utter each morning as we enter the Beit Knesset for Shacharit, are the opening words of the third and climactic blessing that Bil'am utters in place of the curse he was summoned from afar to place upon Israel. Though Bil'am was intent on cursing Yisrael one way or another, and sought some subterfuge through which to slip in a curse, Hashem placed His word in Bil'am's mouth like a bit in the mouth of a donkey, and compelled him to follow His original, unchanged instructions of blessing Israel. See Ramban, who explains that Hashem's consent to Bil'am's journey was predicated upon the latter's understanding that he may well end up blessing Israel in Balak's presence! So Bil'am knew he was going to be compelled to bless, and yet he went anyway, and uttered some of the most lo...

The end of Massechet Makkot, the end of larger single Massechet of old, a 14-chapter Sandhedrin which incorporated Makkot. So much focus on punishment, pain,  death and excision, despite the Messianic outburst of Perek Chelek, that Chazal in the final Mishnah feel it necessary to express the other side: mere lashings can remove the punishment of excision for eternity; if Hashem rewards those who merely abide by their natural abhorrence of ingesting blood, how much more will Hashem reward those who stay their natural urges; Hashem wanted to give us manifold opportunities to gain spiritual merit, THAT’S why He gave us so many mitzvot, not in order to make punishment and failure unavoidable, G-d forbid. And yet.. the Sages walk in the heart of Hashem’s land, His covenanted people broken and scattered, the city of eternity in ruins… do they hear their own encouragements, do they steer clear of anguish and despair? For a moment, it seems not: they see a fox emerge from the wrec...

Is a blessing a curse? What happens to people who are showered with goodness? Are we hard-wired to take things for granted and act out of a finally realized state of entitlement? In this last week’s parashah (Vayelech), Hashem has Moshe tell the people to write down this song (Ha’azinu, this next week’s parashah) to serve as a warning and testimony regarding the anticipating turning away from G-d which will follow upon Moshe’s passing.  “For I will bring them to the land which I have sworn to their forebears, flowing with milk and honey, and they will eat and become satiated and grow fat and they will turn to other gods and serve them and scorn Me and abrogate My covenant.” It is tempting to fit this verse into the time-worn theme, expressed at length in the second paragraph of the Shema, and encapsulated by three words from the upcoming parashah: “Jeshurun grew fat and kicked” (Devarim 32:15). Growing fat, satiated, complacent is inextricably bound up with corruption, ind...

Rav Kook speaks of transcending death in a number of places. Several of his teachings are gathered in Orot Hakodesh (pp. 381-384), vol. 2. One piece in particular, also published in Shmoneh Kevatzim (1:486), is an extended treatment, which focuses on freeing oneself from the fear of death. It's an exhiliarating piece, laying out the course of the transition to a point where the scholarly question, "Did Rav Kook believe that death will be defeated, or was he saying that it won't concern us" is left far behind. Toward the end of this piece, he discusses how humanity will reach that point. He says the necessary preparation cannot be achieved by an individual, but only by a holy people, chosen long ago for this priestly role, so devoted to the transcendent G-d in the entirety of their beings that they are commanded to leave no trace of death on their lived lives, and to remove its terror and psychic impact entirely, opening the path for the founding of a culture which r...

A thought, may it be a merit for the memory of R. Sholom Brodt, z"l: A pair of parallel famous stories regarding Hillel the Elder are related in Vayikra Rabba (Parashat Behar), the first of which is much better known than the second. “A lovingkind man benefits his life/soul …” (Mishlei 11:17) - this refers to Hillel the Elder, for when he took leave of his students, he would walk along with them. They asked him, “our master, to where are you going?”. “To do a mitzvah”, he responded. “What mitzvah might that be?”, they asked. “To bathe in the bathhouse”, he replied. “Is that a mitzvah?”, they challenged. “If regarding the (idolatrous) statue of the king which they place in theatres and circuses – the one who is appointed to care for them washes them and scrubs them and they pay him a salary and, further, his status is elevated amongst those close to the king, then I, who was created in the image and likeness, as it is written, “for in the image of G-d did He create man” ...

There has been much written about why the particular sets of tribes are stationed on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Eival for the blessings and curses. None of the approaches suggested have been generally accepted. Here's my take. I assume that the selection must be fairly straightforward and comprehensible based only on the preceding narrative in the Torah. What we find here is that all the tribes assigned to the blessing are "l'chatchila" sons (exception noted and explained below). That is, they are not sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, who were born only due to attempts to manipulate "fate" on the part of Rachel and Leah. They also are not sons of the second round of Leah's childbearing, initiated by the mandrakes. Shim'on, Levi, Yehudah, Yosef and Binyamin are all conceived in accordance with Hashem's will (and thus, blessing), without any manipulation. Believing that you can tamper with Hashem's will borders on idolatry (we won't get into the q...

Bava Batra 158b A house falls upon a mother and son, rachmana litzlan, the woman’s heirs claim, “he died first, then she died, so we inherit her property”; the man/boy’s heirs claim, “she died first, then he died, so we inherit her property”. Although in previous similar cases (a man and his son, a husband and wife) Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed as to who gets the property, with Beit Shammai ruling that the groups of heirs split it, and Beit Hillel ruling that the property remains in the presumptive possession of whoever's hands it was in previously – HERE, the anonymous first opinion of the Mishnah claims that Beit Hillel concedes to Beit Shammai’s position. Rabbi Akiva, however, says that, no, also here, Beit Hillel disputed with Beit Shammai and maintained their position. Ben Azzai observes to Rabbi Akiva “we are dismayed over the previous disputes, and you come to foment dispute where there is (a report of) agreement? The Gemara then takes up Rabbi Akiva’s positi...

Usually, the division of the aliyot in a parashah, while driven by a number of factors, is decided by where it ends. There is a fairly iron-clad principle to end an Aliyah on a positive note, and not on a negative note. This week’s parashah gives us plenty of opportunities to do so, since many of the sub-sections end on a positive note. That being the case, one would think that the fifth aliyah would encompass all of the sin-offerings ( Chatat ), covered in Vaykra, chapter 4, while the sixth aliyah would open with the beginning chapter 5, which deals with the guilt-offerings ( Asham ). But, instead, the fifth aliyah ends with 4:26, leaving two last Chattat offerings to be read with the Asham offerings. Why? Here’s an idea: all the animals offered in the fifth aliyah as it stands are males, and all the animals offered in the sixth aliyah are females. On the fifth and sixth days of creation, animals and humans - male and female - were created. When they sinned so egregiously ...

During Havdalah each week, we recite a verse taken from the Megillah: “Layhudim hayta orah v’simchah v’sason vicar ”.  ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר   Many, perhaps most, people mispronounce the last word. While it should be “vee-kar”     ויקר -“and honor”, usually people say “v’eekar” ועיקר . It’s a case of substituting a more familiar word for a less familiar one. People know the word עיקר , “root” or “main principle”, and are not familiar with the word יקר , taken here from the Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew כבוד , or “honor”. “Honor” as a meaning of both כבוד  and יקר is derivative of their primary meaning – weight, heaviness, substantiality. Now, in the Megillah, both the word כבוד   and the word יקר are used. But whereas the former is used only in connection with money and material wealth, the latter is reserved for honor emanated upon one by the king. Our honor as Jews is derived from the notion that our very existence points to...

In chapter 9 of the megillah, the violent encounters between those seeking to wipe out the Jews and the Jews seeking to defend themselves and take the battle to their would-be annihilators is described. It seems that while the Jews throughout the realm achieved victory in a single day, on the 13 th of Adar - the day slated by Haman for their destruction - the Jews of Shushan needed an additional day. This is what Esther asked of King Achashverosh and this is what was granted. So, the relief and celebration that is natural and automatic upon such a sudden turn of events came for the Jews throughout the realm on the 14 th , but for the Jews of Shushan, only on the 15 th . Then follows this verse: Esther 9:19 “Therefore, the unwalled Jews (see the kri/ketiv distinction there), dwelling in the unwalled cities, make the 14 th day of the month of Adar [a day of] joy and drinking-feasts, holiday, and sending portions to one’s fellow”. After this, Mordechai sends letters to the Jew...

The term “Act of Speech” is, from the point of view of Halachah, an oxymoron. Speech is neither fully an act nor merely a thought, but something in between, something which, in many ways, mediates between the two. So how to do we parcel out words and sentences, utterances and soliloquies? When is a break in the continuum of speech merely a pause and when does it indicated that an utterance is complete? The halachic notion of “Toch K’dei Dibbur” – within enough time to say something – is used in many contexts to determine whether a pause separates two utterances or should be ignored. To illustrate: If I say “This animal is a burnt-offering…a peace-offering”. If the ellipsis is a pause less than the time it takes to say, “How are you doing?” (there are fine points we’ll ignore for now), then it may well be that my utterance is meaningful and I’ve made my animal a mixture of the two kinds of offerings (with all the problematics that causes). But if the ellipsis is longer than that, w...

Just as Balak brings Bil’am to consider his enemy from various vantage point, likewise does Parashat Balak allow us to view ourselves from the vantage point of others. The main story in Balak is of a single piece, and Am Yisrael appear only as foils for the central story – the interaction of Bil’am with Hashem. What is curious is that not only does Am Yisrael not appear as a real character in the story, we don’t even get a mention. Every time Balak or Bil’am refer to Am Yisrael in the non-visionary passages, they employ indirection: “this people”, “my enemies”, but never Yisrael. It almost feels that they are avoiding speaking the name, one which Bil’am, at least, employs so beautifully in his prophetic speeches. Now, recalling that this story of the interaction of other nations with Am Yisrael is being told in the Torah, I think the message is this: Yisrael is our name in the context of our covenantal interactions with Hashem, just as Hashem’s real name is used only in the conte...