Chasidut · Izhbitz
Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Numbers, Pinchas/מי השלוח·
אוַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא כִלִּיתִי כוּ׳. בַּגְּמָרָא (סנהדרין פ"ב:) אַמְרִינַן בִּקְשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לְדָחֳפוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם הַש"י הַנִּיחוּ לוֹ קַנַּאי בֶּן קַנַּאי מֵשִׁיב חֵמָה בֶּן מֵשִׁיב חֵמָה כוּ׳. בִּקְשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לְדָחֳפוֹ כִּי אֵין אָדָם יָכוֹל לְקַנֵּא וְלִנְקֹם נִקְמַת ה' לַחֲבֵירוֹ, רַק בְּאִם יִהְיֶה הוּא נָקִי בַּמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת, וְלָזֶה הֵעִיד הַש"י קַנַּאי בֶּן קַנַּאי כוּ׳ הוּא נָקִי וְטָהוֹר בַּמִּדָּה הַזֹּאת, הִתְחִילוּ הַשְּׁבָטִים מְבַזִּין אוֹתוֹ כִּי אָמְרוּ כִּי הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה זֹאת מֵחֲמַת שִׂנְאָתוֹ לְזִמְרִי וְהֵשִׁיב הַש"י "בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם", פֵּירוּשׁ שֶׁקִּנְאָתוֹ הָיְתָה מֵחֲמַת גֹּדֶל אַהֲבָתוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְזֶה מְרַמֵּז תֵּיבַת "בְּתוֹכָם".
1“And God spoke to Moses saying, ‘Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon haCohen has removed My fury from being sent upon the children of Israel in taking My vengeance among them, and I did not destroy .…” (Bamidbar, 25:10)It is written in the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 82b), “The ministering angels asked to punish Pinchas. God said to them, ‘let him go, he is a zealot, the son of my zealot [being from the tribe of Levi], an appeaser of my wrath, the son of one who appeased my wrath [being the grandson of Aharon who appeased God’s wrath in the affair of Korach].’” “The angels asked to punish Pinchas,” for a man may not take up the vengeance of God unless he is clean in this aspect. On this God testified, “he is a zealot, the son of my zealot,” to show that (just as were Shimon and Levi when they destroyed Shchem) he was clean and pure in this aspect. Furthermore, the tribes began to shame him, saying that he did it because of his hatred for Zimri. God answered them, “in taking up My vengeance among them,” meaning that his vengeance was owing to his great love for Israel, hinted at in the words “among them.”
בוַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, וַיִּקַּח כוּ׳. וְלֹא יַעֲלֶה חַס וְשָׁלוֹם עַל הַדַּעַת לוֹמַר שֶׁזִּמְרִי הָיָה נוֹאֵף חַס וְשָׁלוֹם כִּי מִן הַנּוֹאֵף לֹא עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פָּרָשָׁה בַּתּוֹרָה, אַךְ יֵשׁ סוֹד בַּדָּבָר זֶה, דְּהִנֵּה יֵשׁ יוֹ"ד נְקֻדּוֹת בַּזְּנוּת, הַנְּקֻדָּה הָא' מִי שֶׁמְּקַשֵּׁט עַצְמוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּמֵזִיד לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה הַיְינוּ שֶׁהָאָדָם בְּעַצְמוֹ מוֹשֵׁךְ עָלָיו הַיֵּצֶר הָרָע וְאַחַר זֶה יֵשׁ עוֹד ט' מַדְרֵגוֹת, וּבְכָל הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת שֶׁנִּטָּל מֵהָאָדָם כֹּחַ בְּחִירָתוֹ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהִמָּלֵט מֵעֲבֵרָה, עַד הַמַּדְרֵגָה הַיּוֹ"ד, הַיְינוּ מִי שֶׁמַּרְחִיק עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיֵּצֶר הָרָע וְשׁוֹמֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הָעֲבֵרָה בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ עַד שֶׁאֵין בִּיכָלְתּוֹ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹתֵר מִזֶּה, וְאָז כְּשֶׁנִּתְגַּבֵּר יִצְרוֹ עָלָיו וְעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה אָז הוּא בְּוַדַּאי רְצוֹן הַש"י, וּכְעִנְיַן יְהוּדָה וְתָמָר, וְאִיהִי בַּת זוּגוֹ מַמָּשׁ וְזֶה הָעִנְיָן הָיָה גַּם כָּאן, כִּי זִמְרִי הָיָה בֶּאֱמֶת שׁוֹמֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכָּל הַתַּאֲווֹת הָרָעוֹת, וְעַתָּה עָלְתָה בְּדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁהִיא בַּת זוּגוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּכֹחוֹ לְסַלֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ מִזֶּה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּפִינְחָס אָמַר לְהֵיפֶךְ שֶׁעֲדַיִן יֵשׁ בְּכֹחוֹ לְסַלֵּק עַצְמוֹ מִזֶּה, וְזֶה שֶׁמְּרַמֵּז הַגְּמָרָא (סנהדרין פ"ב:) ו' נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לְפִינְחָס, וְכִדְאִיתָא שָׁם אִלּוּ פֵּירַשׁ זִמְרִי וַהֲרָגוֹ לְפִינְחָס הָיָה פָּטוּר, כִּי בֶּאֱמֶת הָיָה כָּאן שִׁקּוּל הַדַּעַת, כִּי גַּם עַל פִּינְחָס הָיָה מָקוֹם לְבַעַל הַדִּין לַחְלוֹק שֶׁמָּצוּי בּוֹ מִדָּה הַנִּרְאֶה לָעֵינַיִם שֶׁהוּא כַּעַס כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֶּאֱמֶת טָעֲנוּ עָלָיו זֹאת, וְהָיָה הַדִּין בָּזֶה שׁוּדָא דְּדַיָּינֵי וּפֵירֵשׁ רַבֵּינוּ תָּם [תוס' ב"ב ל"ה. ד"ה שודא] עַל זֶה שֶׁיְּכוֹלֶת הַדַּיָּין לִיתֵּן לִקְרוֹבָיו, וּלְכָךְ יָצָא פִּינְחָס זַכַּאי לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה קָרוֹב לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְזֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב "וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה", הַיְינוּ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֶרְאָה לְפִינְחָס אַחַר מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשָׂה עִם מִי הָיָה הַמִּלְחָמָה שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאַל יַחְשֹׁב כִּי נוֹאֵף גָּמוּר הָיָה חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּפִינְחָס מֵחֲמַת שֶׁהָיָה בָּא מִזֶּרַע יוֹסֵף שֶׁנִּתְבָּרֵר בְּסִיגּוּפִים וְנִסְיוֹנוֹת בְּעִנְיָן זֶה וּלְכָךְ הֵרַע בְּעֵינָיו מְאֹד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה זִמְרִי, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (הושע י"א,א') "כִּי נַעַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וָאֹהֲבֵהוּ", וְזֶה מַמָּשׁ עִנְיַן פִּינְחָס שֶׁהָיָה דָּן אֶת זִמְרִי לְנוֹאֵף בְּעָלְמָא, עַל כֵּן דָּן אוֹתוֹ קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ עוֹמֶק יְסוֹד הַדָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּזִמְרִי, כִּי הִיא הָיְתָה בַּת זוּגוֹ מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּבוֹאָר בְּכִתְבֵי הָאֲרִ"י ז"ל, עַד שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם לֹא הִכְנִיס אֶת עַצְמוֹ בָּזֶה לְדוּנוֹ בְּמִיתָה, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁפִּינְחָס הָיָה בַּמַּעֲשֶׂה הַזֶּה כְּנַעַר הַיְינוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ עַמְקוּת הַדָּבָר רַק עַל פִּי עֵינֵי שֵׂכֶל אֱנוֹשִׁי וְלֹא יוֹתֵר, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הַש"י אוֹהֲבוֹ וְהִסְכִּים עִמּוֹ, כִּי לְפִי שִׂכְלוֹ עָשָׂה דָּבָר גָּדוֹל בְּקִנְאָתוֹ וּמָסַר אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ.
2“And Pinchas son of Elazar son of Aharon haCohen saw … and took a spear .…” (Bamidbar, 25:7)It would not, God forbid, occur to anyone to say that Zimri was licentious, for the Holy One, blessed be He, would never have dedicated an entire Parsha in the holy Torah to licentionsness. Rather, there is a secret in this whole affair. There are ten levels of lechery. the first (and lowest) level is when one dresses up and goes intentionally to commit a sexual transgression, meaning one who deliberately invites the evil inclination upon himself. After this there are nine other levels, with each one a man’s power of free choice is taken from him a little more. (With the first level it was totally within his power to refrain), and with each level it becomes more and more difficult to escape the transgression. Finally at the tenth level, where one distances himself from the evil inclination and guards himself from transgression with all his power until it is impossible to guard himself anymore, if his evil inclination still overpowers him and he does such an action, then it certainly must be God’s will. Such was the case with Yehuda and Tamar, for she was his true soulmate. This is also the case here, as Zimri truly guarded himself from all evil desires. And now it occurred to him that she was his soulmate, since it was not within his power to remove himself from the action. Pinchas said the opposite, that it was still in Zimri’s power to refrain.This is hinted at in the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 82b), “six miracles were performed for Pinchas,” and as it is said there, “if Zimri had separated from Cosbi, and risen up to kill Pinchas, then Zimri would have been found innocent of murder [acting in self-defense. That he did not do this was the miracle.]” Here there was a deliberation of each side, for with Pinchas there is also room for criticism. It seemed as if Pinchas was angry. Truly they claimed this against him, and here the judgment is at the discretion of the judge. As Rabeynu Tam explained (Tosefot Baba Batra, 35a,), “it is possible for the judge to give to those close to him,” therefore Pinchas emerged blameless because he was close to Moshe Rabeynu. This is why it said, “the name of the Israelite man who had been struck,” for afterwards, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Pinchas with whom his struggle was really with (because he was Zimri— “who truly guarded himself,” etc.). He was not to think that Zimri was completely lecherous, God forbid. And in Pinchas’s eyes, since he had come from the seed of Yosef and had become purified concerning this through mortification of the flesh and trials, Zimri’s action was a great evil.On this it is written (Hoshea, 11:1), “for Israel is a child, and I loved him.” This is precisely the matter of Pinchas, for he judged Zimri as lecherous, and in this case the judgment is that a zealot may kill him.76 81b, where if one sees another having intercourse with an Aramite, he may kill him in the heat of zealotry, but if he stops to consider the situation, there must be a trial. However, the depth of the foundation of the matter with Zimri was hidden from him. Cosbi was indeed his soulmate from the six days of creation, as explained in the writings of R. Isaac Luria, Z’L. Owing to this, Moshe Rabeynu didn’t become involved and sentence Zimri to death. Pinchas’s response in this action is thus compared to a child, meaning that he didn’t know the depth of the situation, seeing only through human eyes and no further. Nevertheless, God loved him and agreed with him, for in Pinchas’s mind he had done a great and self-sacrificing act in his zealotry.*, “Israel is a child, we find that Yosef, Pinchas’ predecessor, was also called “a lad” (Breishiet 37:10) when he resisted his evil inclination when he was tempted by in Egypt by Potiphar’s wife. The Midrash tells us that he was rewarded, seing in a vision that his children would actually descend from her. And so it was that he married her Daugther, Osnat.[Hagahot Peretz]) 77 are from New Writings of Chaim Vital, Jerusalem 5748, where it is written:Dinah’s root was in Gevurah—Dina Qashia or severe judgments—therefore Shimon took her. (Shimon was also rooted in Gevurah.) Since she was not yet purified, and also had intercourse with the Canaanite, who is the snake, of whom it is said, ‘cursed is Canaan,’ as is known, therefore Shaul son of the Canaanite descended from her (perhaps was reincarnated, or really descended). Our sages say Shaul is the same as Shlumiel ben TsooriShadai (prince of the tribe of Shimon), who is actually Zimri ben Salu. (See Sanhedrin 83a, which says that these are three different names for the same person.) The power of this contamination (of the snake) had been contacted by Cosbi, for Cosbi is also from the remains of the klipah (force of evil) of Dinah mother of Shaul, and she was his soulmate, except that she “ate an unripe fruit,” meaning that she was still not ready for him. Therefore he was called Shlumiel ben “Tsoori” Shadai and she was Cosbi bat “Tsoor.” Yet “Tsoor,” the father of Shlumiel, was Shimon, where “Tsoori” (“My rock” in Hebrew) is “Shaddai” (the name of God the “Almighty’), which survives the klipot and subdues them, and not so the “Tsoor” of the side of evil the father of Cosbi. We return to the subject. All the actions of our Biblical forebears, and all that is mentioned in the Torah, is not understood only according to its simple meaning and is not governed by chance, God forbid. So do not think that Shlumiel, who was the second-greatest prince, the chosen of the generation of the desert in the days of our master Moshe, was rushing out to commit forbidden sexual acts, as is understood in the small minds of fools. I have not come to explain all the verses necessary for these homilies, for the time would end but not the verses, for the Torah is not “old wives’ tales,” or the chatter of birds, God forbid, and this will suffice for those who understand. For these things are the furnace of the universe, and if these matters were to fall into the hands of one who has no brain in his skull to understand, he will just speak insolently, for a fool does not desire wisdom. Though these things appear strange … they stand at the pinnacle of the universe.
גלָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם. מֹשֶׁה לֹא הָיָה רָאוּי לְקַנּאוֹת כִּי בְּאוֹרוֹ הַגָּדוֹל הָיָה מַעֲנִישׁ אוֹתוֹ עִם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אֲבָל פִּינְחָס חַכִּים וְיָנִיק לֹא עֲנָשׁוֹ רַק בַּגּוּף, וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִיתֵּן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם.
3“Therefore say, I give him My covenant of Peace.” (Bamidbar, 25:12)Moshe was not fit for zealotry, for in his great light he would have punished him in body and soul. But Pinchas, a young sage, only punished him in body. Therefore it was proper to give him “My covenant of Peace.”
דכִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם. כִּי בֶּאֱמֶת לֵב יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנֻקֶּה מִכָּל סִיג וּפְסֹלֶת וְלֹא יִמָּשֵׁךְ לְהַטּוֹת מֵרְצוֹן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַךְ מַה שֶּׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵם נֶגֶד רְצוֹן הַש"י אֵינוֹ מִצִּדָּם רַק מִכֹּחַ הָאֻמּוֹת וּבָא לָהֶם, כִּי הָאֻמּוֹת מְלֵאִים חֶמְדּוֹת וְתַאֲווֹת רָעוֹת וּמִכֹּחָם יָבֹא גַּם בְּלֵב יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב "כִּי צוֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם", הַיְינוּ עַל יְדֵי מַחְשַׁבְתָּם הָרַע יָצֵירוּ גַּם לָכֶם, וְכַאֲשֶׁר יֹאבְדוּ הָאֻמּוֹת אָז יִהְיֶה לֵב יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקֻשָּׁר בְּהַש"י מִבְּלִי שׁוּם נְטִיָּה.
4“Harass the Midianites … for they harass you in their wiles with which they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor .…” (Bamidbar, 25:17–18)Truly the heart of Israel is clean of all dross and refuse, and will not be drawn away from the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. However, when Israel has transgressed God’s will, it was not from within themselves, but from the power of the nations that entered into them. The nations are filled with lusts and evil desires, and the heart of Israel can be affected by their power. This is as the verse says, “for they harass you in their wiles,” meaning that by means of their evil thoughts they will also harm you. Yet when the evil power in the nations has been destroyed, then the heart of Israel will be connected to God without the slightest deviation.
הוַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה'. אִיתָא בַּמִּדְרָשׁ [רבה פרשה כ"א, י"ב] שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת וְלִפְנֵי שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת וְכֻלָּם יָרְאוּ לִשְׁפּוֹט בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְגַם מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם יָרֵא עַד שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה'. וְהָעִנְיָן בָּזֶה כִּי חֵטְא מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ הָיָה שֶׁחָטָא נֶגֶד מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם כִּדְאִיתָא בַּזֹּהַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ (במדבר ר"ה:) כִּי חֵלֶק מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם הָיָה שַׁבָּת כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב "יִשְׂמַח מֹשֶׁה בְּמַתְּנַת חֶלְקוֹ", וּצְלָפְחָד לֹא קִיֵּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בַּשַּׁבָּת הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְאִם הָיוּ מְקַיְּמִים מִצְוַת שַׁבָּת בַּשַּׁבָּת הַשֵּׁנִי, הָיָה אָז תֵּכֶף נִכָּר לְעֵין כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מַדְרֵגוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁהוּא מַדְרֵגוֹת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְעַל יְדֵי חֵטְא צְלָפְחָד שֶׁעָבַר עַל שַׁבָּת הַשֵּׁנִי נִסְתַּם הָאוֹר הַזֶּה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם מְסֻפָּק אִם יוּכַל לַעֲבוֹר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו אוֹ לֹא, כִּי בְּצַעֲרָא דְגוּפָא אָסוּר לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם לַעֲבוֹר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו (יומא כ"ג.), וּבְצַעֲרָא דְמָמוֹנָא מִצְוָה לַעֲבוֹר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו, כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָרָא (ראש השנה י"ז.) "כָּל הָעוֹבֵר עַל מִדּוֹתָיו מַעֲבִירִין לוֹ עַל כָּל פְּשָׁעָיו", וְהָעִנְיָן כִּי צַעֲרָא דְמָמוֹנָא אֵינוֹ רַק בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁיּוּכַל לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ, וְצַעֲרָא דְגוּפָא הוּא דָּבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁאָר רֹשֶׁם לָעַד, וְלָכֵן הָיָה מְסֻפָּק אִם זֶה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה צַעֲרָא דְמָמוֹנָא שֶׁלֶּעָתִיד יַחֲזִיר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זֶה הָאוֹר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִתְרָאֶה לְעֵין כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל טוּב מַעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא נֶאֱבַד הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה מֵאִתָּם רַק לִזְמַן, אוֹ הוּא צַעֲרָא דְגוּפָא כִּי כַּמָּה נְפָשׁוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּאִם הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים עֹמֶק יַקְרוּת הַשַּׁבָּת הָיוּ עוֹבְדִים אֶת ה' בְּיֶתֶר שְׂאֵת, וְהָיָה מְסֻפָּק בָּזֶה, עַל כֵּן לֹא יָכְלוּ שׁוּם אֶחָד מֵהַדַּיָּנִים לִשְׁפּוֹט אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי יָרְאוּ פֶּן יִפְגְּעוּ בִּכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְהֵשִׁיב הַש"י לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתַּם הָאוֹר שֶׁל שַׁבָּת רַק לִזְמַן, אֵינוֹ נִקְרָא רַק צַעֲרָא דְמָמוֹנָא וְיָכוֹל לִמְחוֹל.
5“And Moses brought their case [of the daughters of Tslofchad] before God.” (Bamidbar, 27:5)It is said in the Midrash (Rabba, 21:13), “they came before the princes of tens and the princes of hundreds, and all feared to rule on their case, and even Moshe Rabeynu feared this until he brought the case before the Holy One, blessed be He.” Here we may explain that the sin of the one found gathering wood on Shabbat (Tslofchad) was that he sinned against Moshe Rabeynu. It is said in the Zohar (Bamidbar, 205b), “the portion of Moshe Rabeynu was Shabbat, as it is said [in the morning prayer of Shabbat], ‘Moses rejoiced at the granting of his portion.’” Tslofchad did not uphold the Shabbat on the second Shabbat that was commanded of Israel (since the giving of the Torah), yet if he had only fulfilled the commandment of Shabbat on this second Shabbat, the level of Shabbat that is the level of Moshe Rabeynu would have been immediately revealed to all. Because of the sin of Tslofchad, who had transgressed the second Shabbat, this light was closed from Israel. Because of this Moshe Rabeynu was uncertain whether he could be lenient (with Tslofchad’s daughters) or not. In the realm of physical damage it is forbidden for a scholar to be lenient (Yoma, 23a), yet with monetary damage he has the option to be lenient. As it also says there, “all who restrain their anger and act towards others with lenience, all their sins are forgiven.” Monetary damage is something of this world and can be returned, while physical injury is something that leaves a scar forever.Moshe was thus uncertain. Perhaps this action was (on the level of) monetary damage, meaning that in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, would return this light to Israel, and it would be clear to all of Israel the goodness of the level of Shabbat, and that it was only lost temporarily. Or maybe it was (on the level of) physical damage, that if the souls of Israel only knew the precious depth of Shabbat, with what great strength and awe they would have served God. Because Moshe was uncertain of this, all the judges were afraid to rule on the case of the daughters of Tslofchad fearing that they would insult Moshe Rabeynu. God answered Moshe that since the light of Shabbat was only closed from them temporarily, it is called monetary damage, and he could be forgiving.