We are introduced to a very complex parsha of the corpse found between two cities. A measurement is done and the closest city is considered liable for the death of the individual. That of course in of itself is an interesting point to reflect upon but beyond that the end of the parsha has a very fascinating twist.
The end of the parsha deals with animals that we are prohibited to consume. The commentators intertwine the theme of sanctity which defines the nation with the ban against those forbidden animals. Nachmonides and others explain that the essence of the proscribed animals is antithesis to the very nature of the Jewish people.
The mitzvah to thank Hashem after a meal, specifically one of bread, is mentioned in the parsha. However, the context of this mitzvah is very puzzling. Obviously, one must thank Hashem for the meal that he has just enjoyed. But the language used in the Torah does not emphasize that theme.
Moshe provides a glimpse of the future challenges that the nation will engage. Idol worship will entice them and some will indeed fall prey to the falsehoods of emptiness that appear to be real and existent. Of course, eventually the people will awaken to their massive error and return to Hashem after many years of futility and vacuity.
We often don’t assess well the results of our decisions. Being short-sighted is a problem which can lead to long term disastrous consequences. Perhaps that is a lesson to be learned from the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash that occurred on Tisha B’av.
The end of sefer Bamidbar concludes that these are the mitzvos that were conveyed to the people ‘in the hand of Moshe’ whereas the conclusion of the previous sefer Vayikra ends that these are the mitzvos that were transmitted to Moshe. Why is there a variation of the language between the end of Bamidbar and Vayikra?
Pinchas killed a prince of the nation who was intimately involved with a non-Jewish princess from Midian. Certainly, one would praise such an act of bravery ignoring the status of the person involved and instead protecting the nation from experiencing within its midst such a travesty. However, just the opposite took place.
The episode of Moshe hitting the rock instead of speaking to it is quite puzzling. It seems as though the punishment does not fit the crime. Although as the Midrash states if Moshe would have spoken to the rock the nation would have clearly perceived the greatness and magnitude of Torah
The episode of Korach dampened the prestige of the Kohanim. Perhaps after Korach challenged Moshe’s authority to bestow upon Ahron and his children the opportunity and obligation to serve in the Mishkan and later in the Beis Hamikdash the nation would not respect them.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, the supreme halachic decider of the previous generation asks why the parsha of Tzitzis begins on a different note then most of the mitzvos presented in the Torah. Usually, the introduction of a mitzvah is with the words “And Hashem spoke” whereas when Moshe relays the mitzvah of tzitzis the introductory phrase is “And Hashem said” a considerably more softer tone.