Chukas
1. Bring a raya from the words of the parsha that a Parah Adumah has to be 100% red, and rov is not good enough.
2. What can a non-kohen do in the process of the Parah Adumah
3. By all things that are Tamei, the Torah calls them Tamei. There is one exception the body of a dead person. The Torah never calls the body Tamei. It doesn’t say tamei hu, yihyeh tamei. It just says that one who touches it is tamei. How would you explain the difference?
4. Where did they keep the Matteh of Mei Meriva when it was not being used. What does this imply about whose matteh it was.
5, In Mitzrayim and at Krias Yam Suf, Moshe took the Matteh and used it. By the war with Amalek in Beshalach, Moshe took the Matteh but did not use it, he just raised his hands. For example, see Netziv there 17:9, where he says
אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי. באמת לא השתמש באותו מעשה במטה כלל.
According to the Netziv, taking the Matteh to the war with Amalek was in case the Jews were not משעבד לבם לאביהם שבשמים then Moshe would just do nissim with the matteh. Others say that it was taken as a sign of authority.
Where do we see in this parsha that Moshe was required to bring the Matteh but to not use it.
6. The Gemara in Moed Kattan 15b says that an aveil cannot go into the Mikdash. Where do we see that restriction playing out in our parsha.
7 A source for the idea that departed ancestors share the emotions of the living.
8. An example that people with impulse control problems should not rely on their resolutions.
9. According to Rav Tarfon, for a neder to be binding, it can not involve any element of doubt. Nedarim require Hafla'ah, clarity and certainty, and any neder that is based on an "if" is not a neder. Where do we see in our Parsha that a conditional neder is binding?
10. Is a kohen gadol allowed to be under the same roof as a dead person?
Balak
1. Targum Yonasan and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 105a say that Bilaam was Lavan, or he was a gilgul of Lavan. Lavan had given Rivka a bracha וַיְבָרְכוּ אֶת רִבְקָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ אֲחֹתֵנוּ אַתְּ הֲיִי לְאַלְפֵי רְבָבָה . How could a curse to destroy them be effective if he already gave them a bracha?
2. Our parsha says that Balak was not interested in getting a bracha that he should be strong and great. He wanted a klala on the Jews. Are we misunderstanding something? Can it really be that an enemy of the Jews would be totally reject the option of becoming a great nation on their own and instead use all their strength and everything they have to try to destroy us.
3. Unless you are under examination in a courtroom, a question means that the speaker does not know the answer. Where do we find that Hashem asks a question and implies that He needed to hear the answer or that He wants to establish a fact. Extra credit: find three other such cases, all in Sefer Breishis.
4. Who claps his hands even though he is not happy.
5. When chasidus began, misnagdim believed that some chasidim had a faith in their rebbes that was close to idol worship. Tell me two of the most famous early leaders of Chasidus whose names begin with the name of an avoda zara. This is just a joke.
6. Name the six weapons that appear in the parsha.
7. Find a bird and a nest in the parsha.
8. Chazal say that when the tzadikim of the generation saw what Zimri was doing, they were so shaken up that they gathered to say Krias Shema at the entrance of the Mishkan. How does this relate to the unusual name of Pinchas’ weapon, which appears only this one time in Chumash.
9. Chazal tell us that Bilaam knew the daily instant when Hashem invoked Middas Hadin and planned to use it for the klalah. In fact, the word he was going to use was כלם, kaleim, which are the first three letters after alef through yud, which represent the ten maamaros of brias haolam. To prevent this, Hashem rearranged the whole spiritual world and did not have that moment. How does this relate to an otherwise inexplicable change in the behavior of Klal Yisrael that followed immediately after? How did this show Bilaam’s brilliant strategy?
10. Pesachim 111a, do not walk between two women, nor allow a woman to walk between two men, probably because of Kishuf problems. If you have no choice, you should say a passuk that begins and ends with אל or a passuk that begins with לא and stop with the second or third time it says לא in that passuk.
תנו רבנן: שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין. ואלו הן: הכלב והדקל והאשה. ויש אומרים: אף החזיר, ויש אומרים: אף הנחש. ואי ממצעין מאי תקנתיה? אמר רב פפא: נפתח ב״אל״ ונפסיק ב״אל״. אי נמי, נפתח ב״לא״ ונפסיק ב״לא״. הני בי תרי דמצעא להו אשה נדה, אם תחלת נדתה היא — הורגת אחד מהן, אם סוף נדתה היא — מריבה עושה ביניהן. מאי תקנתיה? נפתח ב״אל״ ונפסיק ב״אל״.
מאי תקנתיה אמר רב פפא נפתח באל ונפסיק באל אי נמי נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא
Using the pesukim is definitely better than what happened in the Hesed Le’Avraham shul in 2023, when a poor yungerman was arrested on charges of child abduction because he was trying to get out after a bris, and the hallway was full of women, and he tried to get the boy to be mafsik, and the mother was sure he was kidnapping him.
Both are in our parsha, the first with Lo, and the second starts with Eil and the third ends with Eil.
CHUKAS
1. Bring a raya from the words of the parsha that a Parah Adumah has to be 100% red, and rov is not good enough.
The word “temimah” in 19:2
ויקחו אליך פרה אדמה תמימה אשר אין בה מום
It says in the end of the passuk that it has to be free of blemish. So what does it mean when it says temimah? It must mean that it adumah temimah, completely red.
ספרי פיסקא קכ"ג
פרה. שומע אני שחורה או לבנה – תלמוד לומר תמימה. תמימה באדמות או תמימה במומים? כשהוא אומר אשר אין בה מום אשר לא עלה עליה עול – הרי מומים אמורים; הא מה תלמוד לומר תמימה – שתהא תמימה באדמות.
There is a halacha l’Moshe miSinai that two black hairs make it passul. People think the halacha halacha l’Moshe miSinai is coming to be machmir, that it is passul even if it has only two. I think that it is coming to be meikil; that without the halacha halacha l’Moshe miSinai, even one hair would make it passul, because temimah means completely red, there's no din rov.
2. What can a non-kohen do in the process of the Parah Adumah
A non-Cohen can gather the ash, because it says “Ish Tahor”, meaning there are no other qualifications other than that. (Yoma 43)
The same is true for the mixing of the ash into water and the actual sprinkling on the tamei.
There is a machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether he can do the shechita.
3. By all things that are Tamei, the Torah calls them Tamei. There is one exception the body of a dead person. The Torah never calls the body Tamei. It doesn’t say tamei hu, yihyeh tamei. It just says that one who touches it is tamei. How would you explain the difference?
ספרי זוטא (חקת פי"ט י"א הובא בילקוט רמז תשס"א) הנוגע במת, נוגע במת טמא אין מת עצמו טמא נוגע במת טמא אין בנה של שונמית טמא אמרו בנה של שונמית כשמת כל שהיה עמו בבית טמא היה טומאת שבעה וכשחיה היה טהור לקודש חזרו ונגעו בו טמאוהו הם ה"ז אומר מטמאיך לא טמאוני ואתה טימאתני,
The Sifri says that unlike all other things that are tamei, the body of a dead person is not tamei. It just causes tumah in others. When the child of the Shunamis was revived, he was not tamei.
This is not unique. There are other tumos that are caused by objects that are not tamei, such as a נבילת עוף טהור, which causes tuma to one who eats it (מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה), but not to one who touches it. But see Reb Chaim Avos HaTuma 3:1 who says it is a tumah of maga, not maaseh, but it is only metamei maga in a particular place.
4. Where did they keep the Matteh of Mei Meriva when it was not being used. What does this imply about whose matteh it was.
20:9,
וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה מִלִּפְנֵי ה' כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ.
Milifnei Hashem sounds like it was Aharon’s matteh, because that's the only matteh we know was kept in the Mishkan.
The Chizkuni in 20:8 says this as well- it was the matteh with Aharon's name on it that was kept in the Kodesh Kodashim.
קח את המטה זה המטה של אהרן דהא כתיב כאן ויקח משה את המטה מלפני ה׳ וזהו מקלו של אהרן כדכתיב בפרשת קרח (17:25) השב את מטה אהרן לפני העדות למשמרת לאות לבני מרי, ועוד דמקלו של אהרן היה אות לבני מרי והיינו דאמר משה שמעו נא המורים וכבר טעה משה שאמר לו הקב״ה קח את המטה סבר משה להכות בסלע והקב״ה לא אמר קח את המטה אלא לפי שלא היה לאות לבני מרי.
But I have a hard time visualizing Moshe hitting the rock with a matteh that had flowers on it.
5, In Mitzrayim and at Krias Yam Suf, Moshe took the Matteh and used it. By the war with Amalek in Beshalach, Moshe took the Matteh but did not use it, he just raised his hands. For example, see Netziv there 17:9, where he says
אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה ומטה האלהים בידי. באמת לא השתמש באותו מעשה במטה כלל.
According to the Netziv, taking the Matteh to the war with Amalek was in case the Jews were not משעבד לבם לאביהם שבשמים then Moshe would just do nissim with the matteh. Others say that it was taken as a sign of authority.
Where do we see in this parsha that Moshe was required to bring the Matteh but to not use it.
By Mei Meriva, where Hashem told him (20:80)
קח את המטה והקהל את העדה אתה ואהרן אחיך ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם ונתן מימיו
6. The Gemara in Moed Kattan 15b says that an aveil cannot go into the Mikdash. Where do we see that restriction playing out in our parsha.
In 20:6, which was right after Miriam died, it says that Moshe and Aharon only went to the entrance of the Ohel Moed to daven.
ויבא משה ואהרן מפני הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד ויפלו על פניהם
Whereas after the story of Korach, when the people complained, (17:8) it says they went into the Ohel Moed.
ויבא משה ואהרן אל פני אהל מועד
7. A source for the idea that departed ancestors share the emotions of the living.
20:15
וַיֵּרְדוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ מִצְרַיְמָה וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּמִצְרַיִם יָמִים רַבִּים וַיָּרֵעוּ לָנוּ מִצְרַיִם וְלַאֲבֹתֵינוּ.
Rashi
ולאבתינו. מִכָּאן שֶׁהָאָבוֹת מִצְטַעֲרִים בַּקֶּבֶר כְּשֶׁפֻּרְעָנוּת בָּאָה עַל יִשְֹרָאֵל (עי' תנחומא י'ב):
Tanchuma
שֶׁל אָבוֹת כָּאן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיָּרֵעוּ לָנוּ מִצְרִים וְלַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל בַּצָּרָה, אַף הֵם בַּצָּרָה
It's not only to suffer. The Mekubalim tell us that the souls of the departed come to the wedding of their children and grandchildren (see Zohar Pinchas, Shu”t Maharash Engel vol. 7 page 119, and Yesod Veshoresh Haovodah Shaar Hakolel 15)
8. An example that people with impulse control problems should not rely on their resolutions.
20:18 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ אֱד֔וֹם לֹ֥א תַעֲבֹ֖ר בִּ֑י פֶּן־בַּחֶ֖רֶב אֵצֵ֥א לִקְרָאתֶֽךָ׃
The word “pen” indicates that they would agree to allow Bnei Yisrael safe passage, but they knew they were children of Eisav, and it was impossible to know what might trigger a violent reaction. They were saying, even if we sign an agreement, we can not trust ourselves to keep our word. If we lose our temper, agreements mean nothing.
9. According to Rav Tarfon, for a neder to be binding, it can not involve any element of doubt. Nedarim require Hafla'ah, clarity and certainty, and any neder that is based on an "if" is not a neder. Where do we see in our Parsha that a conditional neder is binding?
In our parsha (21:2-3) the nation said
וידר ישראל נדר לה' ויאמר אם נתן תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם
וישמע ה' בקול ישראל ויתן את הכנעני ויחרם אתהם ואת עריהם ויקרא שם המקום חרמה
We see that a conditional neder is binding. This seems to be contrary to Rav Tarfon who said that certainty at the time a neder is made is essential, and the neder is not binding without it. Nedarim 21a, where two people made conditional nedarim - one said "If he is X, I am a nazir," and the other said "If he is NOT X, I am a nazir."
ר' יהודה היא, דאמר משום רבי טרפון: לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר, לפי שלא ניתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה
Ran there-
לפי שלא ניתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה – וה"ה לנדרים דאיתקש לנזירות דלא חייל אלא א"כ יקבל בלא תנאי הלכך מוכר ולוקח שתלו נדרם בתנאי אף על פי שעברו על תנאם לא חיילי נדרייהו".
The Keren Orah asks from our Parsha and says it could be that the great danger they faced makes even an uncertain neder binding.
מאן תנא ארבעה נדרים, ר"י משום ר"ט היא, דאמר לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר, שלא ניתנה נזירות אלא להפלאה. ופי' ז"ל דבין בנזירות ובין בנדרים לר"ט לא הוי נדר ונזיר אם תלה באיזה תנאי, דבעינן שיהא הדבר מפורש בלי שום תנאי. ויש לדקדק מראשון לנודרים יעקב אבינו ע"ה (בראשית כ"ח, כ' – כ"ב) אם יהיה אלהים עמדי כו', וכל אשר תתן לי כו', ונענש על איחור נדרו (ב"ר פ"א, ב'). ולר"ט הא לא חל הנדר כלל, כיון שתלה בתנאי. וכן נאמר מפורש (במדבר כ"א, ב') וידר ישראל נדר אם כו' והחרמתי את עריהם כו', משמע דהוי נדר אפילו אם תלאו בתנאי. וכן חנה ויפתח כולם נדרו בתנאי. ובסנהדרין פרק זה בורר (כ"ה ע"א) אמרינן דהא דמשחקי בקוביא הוי אסמכתא הוא משום דר"י משום ר"ט. ופי' ז"ל דאי אסמכתא קניא אם כן ניתן להפלאה, ולמה ממעט ליה מכי יפליא. אלא ודאי שמע מינה דאסמכתא לא קניא משום דלא סמכא דעתיה, ומשום הכי לאו נדר הוא. ור' יהודה אליביה דנפשיה פליג התם וסבירא ליה דמשחק בקוביא לאו אסמכתא הוא. אבל גם הוא מודה דאיכא גוונא דאית ביה אסמכתא. כגון אם תלה בתנאי שהוא בידו. וכמו שכתבו התוס' ז"ל שם בסנהדרין (כ"ד ע"ב ד"ה כל כי האי) ובעירובין (פ"ב ע"א ד"ה אמר). ואם כן לדידיה נמי איכא למידרש דרשא דכי יפליא להאי גוונא, כגון שתלה בתנאי שבידו. וכן משמע בריש מכילתין (ה' ע"ב) דסתמא דגמרא דריש מה נזירות בהפלאה אף נדרים בהפלאה, עיין שם בדברי הר"ן ז"ל. אבל בחגיגה סוף פ"ק (דף י' ע"א) משמע דלרבנן דר"ט לא דרשינן כי יפליא להאי דרשא ע"ש. ומכל מקום צריך עיון בכל הני תנאים שהוזכרו אצל נזירות ונדרים והקדש אי שייך בהן אסמכתא. ואמאי פליג ר"ט בכולהו. ונדרים האמורים בכתובים יש לומר דנודר בעת צרה שאני, דגמר ומשעבד נפשיה, וגם ר"ט מודה, וצ"ע בזה
I never saw this as a problem. I do not think it has to be binding for it to be meaningful. It was a resolution, a promise, a statement of intent about what they would do if they won the war. For some reason, many achronim assume the opposite, that since it says "neder," that word means "a legally recognized neder," and that includes being enforceable. I do not know why that is true.
10. Is a kohen gadol allowed to be under the same roof as a dead person?
Eliezer became kohen gadol upon Aharon’s death, and he was in the cave with him.
Was this an exception to the rule?
Rav Shteinman (Ayeles HaShachar) brings the Baal HaTurim that implies that Elazar didn't become the Kohen Gadol until after he was anointed, in which case he was still a kohen hedyot and permitted to be present at Aharon's death. This is difficult, because that seems to be the whole point of Moshe dressing him in Aharon’s bigdei kohen gadol.
Sfas Emes (Kerisos5) says that Elazar did not need an additional anointing to become Kohen Gadol, since he had already been anointed during the seven days of the consecration of the Mishkan.
But the question can be answered with the Ramban in 19:2 who says that those who die through Neshikah, without the involvement of the malach hamaves, have no tumah and impart no tumah. Aharon died בנשיקה.
כִּי הַנִּפְטָרִים בִּנְשִׁיקָה לֹא יְטַמְּאוּ מִן הַדִּין, וְהוּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ: ״צַדִּיקִים אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין״.
Also the Recanati in Chukas 5.
הנוגע במת לכל נפש אדם וטמא שבעת ימים כבר כתבנו כי סבת טומאת המת הוא מצד מלאך המות שהטיל בו זוהמא והמטמא בו צריך טהרה. אמנם מי שמת בנשיקה מת על פי יי' כפי הדבקה בשכינה ואין רוח הטומאה שולט במיתתן לפיכך אין האויר נפסד לפי ששמרו נשמתן ולא נתפתו ביצר הרע ונשארו טהורות ולבנות כמו שנופחו מפי יי' יתברך ועל כן יציאתם גם כן היא על פי יי' יתברך ושם נדבקין
I am not sure if this is compatible with the Sifri Zuta I brought above.
BALAK
1. Targum Yonasan and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 105a say that Bilaam was Lavan, or he was a gilgul of Lavan. Lavan gave Rivka a bracha אֲחֹתֵ֕נוּ אַ֥תְּ הֲיִ֖י לְאַלְפֵ֣י רְבָבָ֑ה. How could a curse to destroy them be effective if he already gave them a bracha?
The bracha to Rivka could be fulfilled through Eisav. All the havtachos to Avraham and to Yitzchak could have been fulfilled through Eisav. That's why it says in the Hagada that there was a Gzeira on Avraham's descendants at the BBhB, and ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר ויעקב ובניו ירדו מצרים. It could have gone the other way.
In fact, many meforshim say that this is what Lavan meant in the bracha- You are our sister, and children take after their uncles. Achoseinu aht! May your children be like me, all little Lavans, not tzadikim like you and your husband. That is why we use the same nusach by a wedding- because when we say achoseinu aht, we mean that they should be like us, Shomrei Torah Umitzvos. So cursing them just meant that he wanted to make sure that his bracha should be fulfilled as he meant it.
Alternatively, that the klalah was only to scare them and chase them away, not to kill them. 22:6-
ועתה לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה כי עצום הוא ממני אולי אוכל נכה בו ואגרשנו מן הארץ
But that was just Balak. Bilaam wanted kilayon annihilation. So it's not a good answer.
2. Our parsha says that Balak was not interested in getting a bracha that he should be strong and great. He wanted a klala on the Jews. Are we misunderstanding something? Can it really be that an enemy of the Jews would be totally reject the option of becoming a great nation on their own and instead use all their strength and everything they have to try to destroy us.
No, that’s the mesorah of the Arabs, all the way down to the Arabs in Gaza. They could have built a magnificent country, extending through Sinai, if they had focused on personal success instead of murdering Jews.
3. Unless you are under examination in a courtroom, a question means that the speaker does not know the answer. Where do we find that Hashem asks a question and implies that He needed to hear the answer or that He wants to establish a fact. Extra credit: find three other such cases, all in Sefer Breishis.
22:9, מי האנשים האלה עמך
Breishis 3:9, אייכה. 4:9, אי הבל אחיך 18:13, למה זה צחקה שרה
4. Who clapped his hands even though he was not happy.
24:10 ויחר־אף בלק אל־בלעם ויספק את־כפיו
5. When chasidus began, misnagdim believed that some chasidim had faith in their rebbes that was close to worship. Tell me two early leaders of Chasidus whose names begin with the name of an avoda zara. This is a joke.
Baal. The Baal Shem Tov and the Baal HaTanya.
6. Name the six weapons that appear in the parsha.
Sword, Cherev twice, once Bilaam telling his donkey he would kill him if he had a sword, and once in the hand of the Malach.
Arrows in 24:8, וחיציו ימחץ.
A staff, makel and sheivet, twice: 22:26, Bilaam hit the asson with a מקל, and 25:17 וקם שבט מישראל ומחץ פאתי מואב וקרקר כל בני שת.
and Pinchas’ spear, romach.
7. Find a bird and a nest in the parsha.
Ben Tzipor,
and 24:21,וַיַּרְא אֶת הַקֵּינִי וַיִּשָּׂא מְשָׁלוֹ וַיֹּאמַר אֵיתָן מוֹשָׁבֶךָ וְשִׂים בַּסֶּלַע קִנֶּךָ.
8. Chazal say that when the tzadikim of the generation saw what Zimri was doing, they were so shaken up that they gathered to say Krias Shema at the entrance of the Mishkan. How does this relate to the unusual name of Pinchas’ weapon, which appears only this one time in Chumash.
וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וַיָּקׇם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ. 25:7
Romach appears only here in Chumash, but several times in Neviim.
Romach totals 248, the number of words in Krias Shema. The gedolim said Krias Shema, Pinchas took the lesson of mesiras nefesh of Krias Shema in his hands and did something about it.
9. Chazal tell us that Bilaam knew the daily instant when Hashem invoked Middas Hadin and planned to use it for the klalah. In fact, the word he was going to use was כלם, kaleim, which are the first three letters after alef through yud, which represent the ten maamaros of brias haolam. To prevent this, Hashem rearranged the whole spiritual world and did not have that moment. How does this relate to an otherwise inexplicable change in the behavior of Klal Yisrael that followed immediately after? How did this show Bilaam’s brilliant strategy?
In Mitzrayim, we lived for two hundred ten years with absolute tzniyus and chastity and total rejection of marrying a non-Jew. Now, after Yetzias Mitzrayim, and Mattan Torah, and forty years of eating lechem abirim, suddenly the men shamelessly start chasing shiksas??? The only explanation is that there was the sudden change in middas hadin, the absence of Zaam, caused a drop in yiras shamayim. That is why Pinchas is described as בקנאו את קנאתי, the Kinah Hashem would normally have had.
Bilaam’s plan from day one was either Hashem would have that moment of anger and he would exploit it with a curse; or if Hashem would avoid that moment, then Klal Yisrael would be more likely to sin, and he would send in the Bnos Moav.
I wonder if Bnos Moav was his main plan from the first moment. He knew that the RBSO was less likely to interfere with bechira, so all he had to do was weaken their yiras shamayim.
10. Pesachim 111a, do not walk between two women, nor allow a woman to walk between two men, probably because of Kishuf problems. If you have no choice, you should say a passuk that begins and ends with אל or a passuk that begins with לא and stop with the second or third time it says לא in that passuk.
תנו רבנן: שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין. ואלו הן: הכלב והדקל והאשה. ויש אומרים: אף החזיר, ויש אומרים: אף הנחש. ואי ממצעין מאי תקנתיה? אמר רב פפא: נפתח ב״אל״ ונפסיק ב״אל״. אי נמי, נפתח ב״לא״ ונפסיק ב״לא״. הני בי תרי דמצעא להו אשה נדה, אם תחלת נדתה היא — הורגת אחד מהן, אם סוף נדתה היא — מריבה עושה ביניהן. מאי תקנתיה? נפתח ב״אל״ ונפסיק ב״אל״.
מאי תקנתיה אמר רב פפא נפתח באל ונפסיק באל אי נמי נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא
Using the pesukim is definitely better than what happened in the Hesed Le’Avraham shul in 2023, when a poor yungerman was arrested on charges of child abduction because he was trying to get out after a bris, and the hallway was full of women, and he tried to get the boy to be mafsik, and the mother was sure he was kidnapping him.
Both are in our parsha, the first with Lo, and the second starts with Eil and the third ends with Eil.
23:19
לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם ההוא אמר ולא יעשה ודבר ולא יקימנה
23:22-23
אל מוציאם ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל אל
