Parsha Questions

Beshalach answers

2012-01-31T12:56:00.001+02:00

Alef.

What was the nature of Amalek’s transgression that it elicits such an extreme response from God, i.e., the Jews must obliterate literally and figuratively all remembrance of Amalek and what this people did.
Tanchuma: Amalek failed to be intimidated by the miracles that God Performed on behalf of the Jews as they left Egypt. Whereas Shemot 15:14-5 lists four great civilizations in the Middle east, i.e., the Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites and the Canaanites, as being incredibly fearful, Amalek demonstrated their lack of concern by attacking the Jews and thereby indirectly, the Jewish God.

Ibn Kaspi: God Judiciously Decides when to Forgive and when to Avenge, in accordance with the perpetrator and the offense. Apparently in this case, He Decided that Amalek deserved harsh treatment rather than compassion. (However, the commentator does not identify what precisely was Amalek’s sin.)

HaNeTzIV: God Wished to Impose His Authority upon the world via Israel and Giving them the Tora. Since Amalek was opposed to this, in effect, this nation was opposing the development of the ultimate plan that HaShem had Worked out for His Creation. Until Amalek would be eliminated, the plan could not go forward, thereby necessitating Amalek’s elimination.

Cassuto: Amalek was a threat to Israel’s security on its southern border. Israel would not be able to live in peace as long as Amalek lurked ready to strike and raid. Consequently Amalek had to be eliminated.

Tanchuma: The nations of the world were wary of taking on the Jews and God their Protector following the miracles associated with the Exodus.

Ibn Kaspi: The nations of the world posed the question why isn’t the Jewish God a Forgiving God, and despite what Amalek might have done, isn’t is appropriate to forgive, rather than desire to avenge or bear a grudge going into the future?

Whereas the other three interpretations deal in theological matters, (Tanchuma: daring to challenge God’s Omnipotence; Ibn Kaspi: questioning God’s Kindness and Compassion; HaNeTzIV: preventing the Tora from being given to humanity), Cassuto explains the issue as a national security matter. RaMBaM seems to state that unless there is a stable society, religious development will be unable to take place (See Guide II:40; “Igerret HaShmad”, in Igerot HaRaMBaM, RaMBaM LeAm, Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, pp. 64 ff.). Consequently it could be said that Cassuto sees Amalek as interfering with a pre-requisite for the Jews becoming more comfortable with their religion, while the others are discussing that very development itself and how Amalek was interfering with it.

I Shmuel 30 describes how Amalek came from the south and invaded the city Ziklag which David had used as his base. The Amalekites despoiled the city and took captive the women and children within it.

If one is supposed to remember everything written in the Tora, why are certain Mitzvot emphasized, including remembering what Amalek did, and we are Commanded to particularly remember these events?
Perhaps HaNeTzIV could rely on the phrase “Milchama LaShem Ba’Amalek MiDor Dor”. If the issue was whether God would be able to impose His Law on the world, then if Amalek opposes such a development, God will have to Fight against Amalek in order to eventually Get His Way.

Beit.

Yalkut Shimoni, reflecting on why the incident with Amalek is phrased in the manner that it is in Devarim, suggests that Amalek came to punish the Jews for their shortcomings. However, if this was directly mentioned, it would be embarrassing to the Jews. Consequently the emphasis is upon what Amalek did to them, rather than their role in setting Amalek loose upon them.

Gimel.

. According to Mizrachi, whereas the Midrash’s interpretation of the Semichut HaParshiot is understandable in the sense that the methodology of this Rabbinic text is to look for any and all connections that could be made when two topics are juxtaposed next to one another in the biblical text, what is difficult re RaShI is that he chooses to cite this type of Midrash only when a textual difficulty is solved by the interpretation. However, since in this case, the juxtaposition is obvious due to both events taking place in Refidim, why did RaShI see fit to cite the Midrash’s interpretation, when the reason for why the incidents are placed next to one another seems not to demand any sort of additional explanation?

. Siftei Chachamim offers two explanations for Mizrachi’s question:

a. Gur Aryeh: The verb “

ויבא

” is inappropriate, and “

ויצא

”, as in the case of Devarim 2:32 “And Sichon went out to meet us” describing a military attack, would have been expected to be used regarding Amalek’s attack. Consequently, RaShI looked for an internal connection between the two events, i.e., Amalek came as a result of something that the Jews had done/said.

b. Nachalat Yaakov: Since it had already been established that the people were encamped at Refidim (17:1) and it later states that they journeyed away from Refidim (19:2), the mention of Refidim yet again in 17:8 is superfluous. The additional usage of the place name suggests that it was something that took place in this location that generated Amalek’s attack.

. The concept underlying the Midrash is that God’s Abstractness leads people to either take for granted His Existence or even consider His non-Existence, so to speak. Consequently, when there is some need that is going unfulfilled, it raises questions in the minds of skeptics or non-believers whether or not Hashgacha Pratit is operating. Such doubts precipitate the creation of a situation whereby it becomes obvious that God is indeed Present and Overseeing what is happening to the people. Regrettably, even after the rather powerful Revelation at Sinai, the people revert to another form of such doubts and fabricate the Golden Calf (Shemot 32).

2. Perhaps RashI is bringing into line with the account of Amalek’s account in Shemot, what we are told about the incident in Devarim 25:17-9 :

Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath Given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God Giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.

RaShI explains the underlined phrase as follows:

כל הנחשלים אחריך - חסרי כח מחמת חטאם, שהיה הענן פולטן:

Lacking in strength due to their sin, that the Cloud had expelled them (from its protection).

If the victims of Amalek’s attack were not being protected by the Cloud of Glory emanating from God, then everyone else was under the Cloud and had nothing to fear from the marauding Amalekites. Nevertheless, Moshe felt that the objects of attack, however undeserving of defense they may have been due to their spiritual transgressions, were deserving of protection. Moshe therefore gives Yehoshua the order to expose himself and those who would fight along with him to Amalek in order to remove the threat that was levied against the Jews lacking in Divine Protection.

מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בשלח - מסכתא דויהי פתיחתא

(שמ' יג:כא) "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם", נמצאת אומר שבעה עננים הם והשם הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן ועננך עומד עליהם ובעמוד ענן (במדבר יד יד) ובהאריך הענן (שם /במדבר/ ט יט) ובהעלות הענן ואם לא יעלה הענן כי ענן ה' על המשכן (שמות מ לו - לח) הא שבעה עננים ארבעה מארבע רוחותיהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה אחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם כל הנמוך מגביהו וכל הגבוה משפילו שנ' כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו והיה העקוב למישור והרכסים לבקעה (ישעיה מ ד) והיה מכה נחשים ועקרבים מכבד ומרבץ לפניהם. ר' יהודה אומר שלשה עשר עננים היו שנים שנים לכל רוח ורוח שנים מלמעלה ושנים מלמטה ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם. ר' יאשיה אומר ארבעה אחד לפניהם ואחד לאחריהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה.

Maskil LeDavid explains that the sentence appears to be missing a future “being” verb:

שמות פרק יז

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים בְּיָדִי:

And Moses said unto Joshua: 'Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I am standing on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'

Without additional clarification, it sounds like Moshe will begin to stand now even if the battle will take place at a later point. Consequently, RaShI clarifies that Moshe’s intention is that he will take up his position as soon as the battle begins, which appears to be the next day.

Parshat Beshalach

2012-01-30T08:16:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/233.html

Bo answers

2012-01-25T09:35:00.001+02:00

Bo 5715

1. The “heretical” question would be: if the Jews indeed only “borrowed” the various jewels and garments from the Egyptians under the pretext that they would be returning to Egypt after travelling into the desert for three days to worship HaShem,¹ implying that even when Pharaoh begrudgingly granted permission for the Jews to leave after the plague of the first-born,² it was with the understanding that the Jews would only be gone only temporarily, in the end, when it became obvious that they have no intention to return,³ wouldn’t their retaining what they “borrowed” constitute thievery, with HaShem’s having Put them up to this deception, being “guilty”, as it were, of deceiving the Egyptians, an example of Geneivat Da’at?

2. Josephus: The gifts were in order to a) speed them on their way and b) demonstrate that the Egyptians regretted having treated the Jews so harshly.

Sanhedrin 91b: What was taken from the Egyptians constituted at least part of c) the wages owed to 600,000 workers for 430 years of labor.

Midrash Chemdat Yamim: The women were the ones who specifically took jewels, etc. from the Egyptians, because despite the decree that the male newborns were to be cast into the river,⁴ the text never decisively states that this was carried out to the letter. This suggests that bribery went on allowing at least some of the children to be saved. Consequently, d) theJewish women⁵ were given the opportunity to recover their property that had been used for bribes by means of this “borrowing.”

Rabbeinu Yona, Rabbeinu Bechaye, RaShBaM: e) The term “She’ela” is used in biblical passages as a reference to gift giving, and not only borrowing. Obviously in this context, the Egyptians gave outright gifts to the Jews, thereby obviating the ethical issue.

Rabbeinu Chananel, Chizkuni, Cassuto: f) The Commandment of “Ha’anaka”⁶ that provides for a Jewish master to give his newly-freed Jewish servant possessions (ostensibly to prevent him from immediately slipping back into poverty which led him to become a Jewish servant for six years in the first place), serves as a paradigm for Jews being entitled to gifts from the Egyptians upon their release from slavery.

Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav: The commentator implies that when the Jews became enslaved, their property had been confiscated by the Egyptians, and therefore g) the “borrowing” was a means for recovering these possessions.

Benno Jakob: In order that Jews would eventually be able to apply to Egyptian converts the same positive attitude that the Tora enjoined them to apply to all converts to Judaism,⁷ an attempt had to be made h) to mitigate the resentment and bitterness arising from the harsh servitude that the Jews experienced in Egypt. Consequently, the Egyptians were made to give the Jews gifts by means of God Manipulating their emotional attitudes and placing the grace of the Jews in their eyes.

3. The passage in Sanhedrin suggests that despite the fact that God Placed the grace of the Jews in the eyes of the Egyptians to influence them to offer their precious possessions to the Jews, this feeling “wore off” and eventually the Egyptians resented having parted with their valuables. Perhaps it wasn’t only Pharoah and his servants who exclaimed their dismay when they realized that the Jews had fled (see fn. 3) , but all of the people, feeling cheated by having their possessions taken from them under false pretenses or psychological manipulation.

4. a) In the example from Yehoshua 15, although in v. 18, the term “

לשאול

” appears, it is defined in v. 19 by the verbs “

תנה

”, “

נתתני

”, “

ונתנה

”, “

ויתן

”. Just as she already possessed Gulot Mayim, she was given in addition Gulot Aliyot and Gulot Tachtiyot. Furthermore, when it comes to asking to be given land, one does not “borrow” the land, but rather asks for it be given outright and permanently. Consequently this is a support to the contention that in the context of taking valuables from the Egyptians they were not borrowed but rather given.

יהושע פרק טו

(יח) וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָהּ וַתְּסִיתֵהוּ לִשְׁאוֹל מֵאֵת אָבִיהָ שָׂדֶה וַתִּצְנַח מֵעַל הַחֲמוֹר וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ כָּלֵב מַה לָּךְ:

(יט) וַתֹּאמֶר תְּנָה לִּי בְרָכָה כִּי אֶרֶץ הַנֶּגֶב נְתַתָּנִי וְנָתַתָּה לִי גֻּלֹּת מָיִם וַיִּתֶּן לָהּ אֵת גֻּלֹּת עִלִּיּוֹת וְאֵת גֻּלֹּת תַּחְתִּיּוֹת: פ

And it came to pass, when she came unto him, that she persuaded him to ask of her father a field; and she alighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her: 'What wouldest thou?' And she said: 'Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the Southland, give me therefore springs of water.' And he gave her the Upper Springs and the Nether Springs.

b) In the example from I Melachim 2:20, Adoniyahu has a request of Bat Sheva, i.e., that Avishag, David’s concubine, be given to him, his intention being to try to publicly demonstrate that he should succeed his father in the kingship. When Bat Sheva relays this request, although she uses the language “

שאלה

” initially, what is being requested is not that Avishag be loaned, but rather permanently given to Adoniyahu, as becomes clear in v. 21. Once again, the language of “

שאלה

” connotes permanent giving.

מלכים א פרק ב

(כ) וַתֹּאמֶר שְׁאֵלָה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁאֶלֶת מֵאִתָּךְ אַל תָּשֶׁב אֶת פָּנָי וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שַׁאֲלִי אִמִּי כִּי לֹא אָשִׁיב אֶת פָּנָיִךְ:

(כא) וַתֹּאמֶר יֻתַּן אֶת אֲבִישַׁג הַשֻּׁנַמִּית לַאֲדֹנִיָּהוּ אָחִיךָ לְאִשָּׁה:

c) In the final example from Shemot 22:13, what is being discussed is liability of one of the forms of “guards”:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף צג עמוד א

משנה. ארבע שומרים הן: שומר חנם והשואל, נושא שכר והשוכר

THERE ARE FOUR BAILEES: A GRATUITOUS BAILEE, A BORROWER, A PAID BAILEE AND A HIRER. A GRATUITOUS BAILEE MUST SWEAR FOR EVERYTHING.

A BORROWER MUST PAY FOR EVERYTHING.

A PAID BAILEE OR A HIRER MUST SWEAR CONCERNING AN ANIMAL THAT WAS INJURED,

CAPTURED [IN A RAID] OR THAT PERISHED;

BUT MUST PAY FOR LOSS OR THEFT.

If the object had been given as a gift to the “borrower”, why is there any liability vis-à-vis the one who had given the gift, since it is now the complete property of the receiver? The only way that this context would make sense is if the verse in Shemot 22 is talking about someone who literally borrowed an object from another and then the object is damaged, destroyed or stolen.

5. Both Rabbeinu Chananel and Benno Jakob are referencing the verse in Devarim 15 to explain why it is totally appropriate for a former master to give his slave parting gifts when the slave goes free. If the Tora institutionalizes such a practice re a Jewish master and a Jewish slave, even if such a law cannot be imposed in places which are not Jewish theocracies or even if there were, since the Egyptians are not Jewish and this law is not one of the Noachide Commandments, it would not be the letter of the law in a relationship between an Egyptian master and a Jewish slave,⁸ nevertheless it can serve as a paradigm of ideal relationships between masters and former servants. In other words, while it may be Din when it comes to situations where both parties are Jews, it is Lifnim MiShurat HaDin in cases where either one or neither parties are Jews. Benno Jakob even supplies a psychological rationale for such a Commandment: during the course of the servitude, due to the demands made by the master upon the servant, a certain resentment may have grown. Consequently, the gift will hopefully make up for those less than pleasant moments so that the two would be able to have a positive relationship going forward.

6. See 2 “Chizkuni on Shemot 11:2, d.h. Kelai Kesef U’Klai Zahav” above.

7. The word does not only connote “despoiling” but also “saving”, as in MaLBI’M’s commentary below:

יחזקאל פרק יד

(יד) וְהָיוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּתוֹכָהּ נֹחַ דנאל דָּנִיֵּאל וְאִיּוֹב הֵמָּה בְצִדְקָתָם יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְקֹוִק:

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD

מלבי"ם יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

…ודניאל ניצול מחרב ומחי'ה רעה. המה בצדקתם ינצלו נפשם, פה אמר רבותא שהגם שבא התוכחה היותר קשה בכ"ז יועיל צדקתם להציל נפשם, ואין צריך לומר פה שלא יצילו בנים שזה פשיטא:

Consequently, particularly if we follow Midrash Chemdat Yamim as well as the additional comment of Chizkuni, i.e., that the possessions of the Jews had either been given as bribes or had been confiscated from the Jews when they were enslaved, then the interpretation of Ohr HaChayim becomes relevant:

אור החיים שמות פרשת שמות פרק ג פסוק כב

(כב) ונצלתם וגו'. כאן רמז היתר הצלת אדם ממונו מאנס...

From here is a hint that it is permitted to save one’s possessions from someone who has taken them by force.

8. See fn. 5.

9. If the purpose of taking the possessions of the Egyptians is in order to establish a positive relationship between the Jews and the Egyptians post-Exodus, why does HaShem have to Manipulate their minds to make them give the Jews their valuables. Both Benno Jakob and Cassuto answer that since the Egyptians would not do this naturally on their own and there is no Beit Din that would enforce such a rule, HaShem had to Influence the Egyptians to give giftrs to the Jews.

10. Benno Jakob: The Egyptians would not take the initiative to give gifts.

Cassuto: There is no Beit Din that could enforce such a rule. (In effect, according to Sanhedrin 91b, Alexander the Great enforces the rule, albeit only after the Egyptians initiate a claim to recover what they gave the Jews.)

Vaera Answers and Bo questions

2012-01-22T21:06:00.000+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/596.html

VaEra 5731
Alef.

1. R. Yochanan assumes that an individual can only be held responsible for his deeds assuming that he has free choice concerning whether or not to carry out his thinking. If Pharoah’s heart was manipulated by God, then he cannot be held accountable for what he did, nor would it be possible for him to repent, if his actions were not up to him.

2. Reish Lakish argues that as long as the individual has some opportunities to act freely, if after a number of objectionable actions, God Suspends the individual’s free choice in order to punish him for what he has done freely until this point, there should be no objection. In the case of Pharoah, the first five times, God did not Interfere with Pharoah’s decision-making.

3. Beginning with 9:12, the text states that HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart, as opposed to the previous five instances where the text attributes Pharoah’s obstinacy to himself. The problem is with 9:35 which appears to be a reversion to the previous sequence of Pharoah deciding on his own. A way to address this problem is to look at the two verses that immediately follow in which HaShem States that He will Harden Pharoah’s heart. Consequently we could use the hermeneutic rule Prat U’Kellal to assume that the specific detail in v. 35 is broadened by the general statement in v. 1 that immediately follows.

שמות פרק ז

(כב) וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם בְּלָטֵיהֶם וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק:

שם ח

(יא) וַיַּרְא פַּרְעֹה כִּי הָיְתָה הָרְוָחָה וְהַכְבֵּד אֶת לִבּוֹ וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק: ס

(טו) וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל פַּרְעֹה אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק: ס

(כח) וַיַּכְבֵּד פַּרְעֹה אֶת לִבּוֹ גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַזֹּאת וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם: פ

שם ט

)ז) וַיִּשְׁלַח פַּרְעֹה וְהִנֵּה לֹא מֵת מִמִּקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֶחָד וַיִּכְבַּד לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם: פ

(יב) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה: ס

(לה) וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה: פ

שם י

(א) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה בֹּא אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו לְמַעַן שִׁתִי אֹתֹתַי אֵלֶּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ:

(ב) וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בָם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

(כ) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ

(כז) וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא אָבָה לְשַׁלְּחָם:

שם יא

(י) וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עָשׂוּ אֶת כָּל הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וַיְחַזֵּק יְקֹוָק אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא שִׁלַּח אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ:

Beit.

1. Re the first five plagues, there was no outside interference. Pharoah was given license to do whatever he wished and therefore could be held accountable for his deeds and he also was capable of doing Teshuva at any time during this period.

2. Re R. Yochanan’s complaint that it appeared as if Pharoah was deprived of the opportunity to repent, according to Reish Lakish, had Pharoah actually wanted to repent, not only would HaShem not have Prevented him, but even would have helped him to repent.

Gimel.

1+2. There appear to be two distinct approaches to addressing R. Yochanan’s question.

RaMBaM (who would seem to parallel Reish Lakish)—Initially Pharoah had the opportunity to do whatever he wished. It is only later, after he showed that he was not prepared to repent or change, that the possibility of repentance was removed in order for him to punished in accordance with his transgressions.

R. Yosef Albo; R. Ovadia Sephorno—the hardening of the heart was to give Pharoah the inner fortitude not to be intimidated by the plagues to do anything that he really did not wish to do. Consequently, Pharoah acted as a free agent not only during the first five plagues, but during the last five as well.

3. The passage from the RaMBaM quoted in association with q. 3 describes how the person is given full control of his actions at the outset. However, after a series of transgressions, his free choice can be suspended in order that the suffer punishments for his sins.

רמב"ן שמות פרק ז פסוק ג

(ג) ואני אקשה את לב פרעה - אמרו במדרש רבה (שמו"ר ה ו) גילה לו שהוא עתיד לחזק את לבו 1) 1) בעבור לעשות בו הדין, תחת שהעבידם בעבודה קשה.

2) ועוד שם (יג ד) כי אני הכבדתי את לבו (להלן י א), אמר רבי יוחנן מכאן פתחון פה למינין לומר לא היתה ממנו שיעשה תשובה. אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש יסתם פיהם של מינין, אלא אם ללצים הוא יליץ (משלי ג לד), מתרה בו פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית ואינו חוזר בו והוא נועל בו דלת מן התשובה כדי לפרוע ממנו מה שחטא. כך פרעה הרשע, כיון ששגר הקדוש ברוך הוא אצלו חמש פעמים ולא השגיח על דבריו, אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא אתה הקשית את ערפך והכבדת את לבך, הריני מוסיף לך טומאה על טומאתך:

והנה פירשו בשאלה אשר ישאלו הכל, אם השם הקשה את לבו מה פשעו, ויש בו שני טעמים ושניהם אמת.

1) האחד, כי פרעה ברשעו אשר עשה לישראל רעות גדולות חנם, נתחייב למנוע ממנו דרכי תשובה, כאשר באו בזה פסוקים רבים בתורה ובכתובים, ולפי מעשיו הראשונים נדון.

2) והטעם השני, כי היו חצי המכות עליו בפשעו, כי לא נאמר בהן רק ויחזק לב פרעה (להלן פסוק יג, כב, ח טו), ויכבד פרעה את לבו (להלן ח כח, ט ז).

3) הנה לא רצה לשלחם לכבוד השם, אבל כאשר גברו המכות עליו ונלאה לסבול אותם, רך לבו והיה נמלך לשלחם מכובד המכות, לא לעשות רצון בוראו.

4) ואז הקשה השם את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו למען ספר שמו, כענין שכתוב והתגדלתי והתקדשתי ונודעתי לעיני גוים רבים וגו' (יחזקאל לח כג):

ואשר אמר קודם המכות (לעיל ד כא) ואני אחזק את לבו ולא ישלח את העם, יודיע למשה העתיד לעשות בו במכות האחרונות, כענין שאמר (לעיל ג יט) ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלוך. וזה טעם ואני אקשה את לב פרעה והרבתי את אותותי, כלומר שאקשה לבו למען רבות מופתי בארץ מצרים. כי בחמש מכות האחרונות גם בטביעת הים נאמר ויחזק ה' (להלן יד ח), כי לב מלך ביד ה' על כל אשר יחפוץ יטנו (משלי כא א):

רמב"ן שמות פרק ט פסוק יב

(יב) ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה – 5) ויתכן שבמכות הראשונות היו החרטומים מחזקים את לבו להתפאר אצלו בחכמתם, ועתה לא באו לפניו, ואין עוזר לו ואין סומך באולתו רק עונותיו אשר ילכדונו. או שירמוז הכתוב למה שפירשו רבותינו, כי במכות הראשונות בפשעו היה הדבר, ועתה סבה מאת ה' כמו שביארתי למעלה (ז ג). והוא האמת:

. In my opinion, RaMBaN during the course of these two commentaries, raises five possible explanations for responding to R. Yochanan’s question:

1. Pharoah had already sinned in terms of applying to the Jews inordinately difficult work. Consequently he already had to be punished right from the outset of the plagues.

2. (The opinion of Reish Lakish and RaMBaM): After each of the first five plagues, Pharoah refused to let the Jews leave on his own volition. Only after these plagues, did HaShem Begin to Manipulate Pharoah in order to punish him for his stubbornness.

3. (The opinions of Albo and Sephorno): The hardening of the heart was in order for Pharoah not to be unduly swayed by the pressure of the plagues to surrender, but rather he should be able to continue to resist giving the Jews their freedom if that is what he wished.

4. The hardening of Pharoah heart was intended to allow HaShem to be able to Display His formidable powers. Had Pharoah let the people go, HaShem would not have had such an opportunity.

5. During the first five plagues, Pharoah’s heart was hardened in the sense that he was convinced not to let the Jews go by his magicians paralleling what Moshe set into motion. When the magicians could no longer keep up, HaShem by hardening Pharoah’s heart, played the same role that the magicians had previously played.

ב. See my introductions to #2, 3 above.

Vaera

2012-01-16T08:15:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1433.html

Whoops, that was a repeat. New Shemot Questions with Answers

2012-01-11T08:41:00.002+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/20.html

Shemot 5728

Alef.

The reason why the “

”’s are placed in different places in each one of the verses is to reflect the groupings of Yaakov’s sons in accordance with the mothers of the children:

שמות פרק א

(ב) רְאוּבֵן שִׁמְעוֹן לֵוִי וִיהוּדָה:

These four were the first children consecutively born to Leah herself. The “

” before the last name links all four together.

(ג) יִשָּׂשכָר זְבוּלֻן וּבִנְיָמִן:

Yissachar and Zevulun were also born to Leah, but at a later point, after other children had been born to the handmaidens. Consequently they are set off from the first group of four. However Binyamin was Rachel’s son. Consequently the “

” divides the first two from the third.

(ד) דָּן וְנַפְתָּלִי גָּד וְאָשֵׁר:

Once the children of Yaakov’s actual wives are listed, we turn to the children born to the handmaidens. Dan and Naftali were born to Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden. Gad and Asher were then born to Zilpa, Leah’s handmaiden. The “

” joining each pair, sets that pair off from the other pair.

Beit.

1. RaShI: The generation that died refers to Yosef and his brothers.

Ibn Ezra, RaLBaG: The generation that died refers to the Egyptians who had known Yosef first-hand.

2. Verse 7 appears to continue talking about the Jews, and only after the Petucha at the end of v. 7 does the Tora begin to discuss the Egyptians. So why should the reference at the end of v.6 be a reference to the Egyptians?

שמות פרק א

(ו) וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף וְכָל אֶחָיו וְכֹל הַדּוֹר הַהוּא:

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם: פ

(ח) וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ עַל מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף:

Gimel.

1. The Midrash is based upon the superfluity of verbs in v. 7:

שמות פרק א

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (1) פָּרוּ (2) וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ (3) וַיִּרְבּוּ (4) וַיַּעַצְמוּ (5) בִּמְאֹד (6) מְאֹד וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם:

2. The first word in the series,

פרו

, is not superfluous and therefore if that would have been all that the verse stated, attention would not have been drawn to it. Furthermore,

פרו

is a word that applies typically to people, which is not the case with

וישרצו

, which at its core refers to creeping animals.

3. The verse in Yehoshua is not about the birthrate, but rather the quantity of people in these tribes. Ibn Ezra could similarly be attributing the first two words in Shemot 1:7 to the manner in which the people were reproducing, while the words of the verse that appear subsequently could relate to other factors that contributed to the Jewish people constituting a large group. Even if the birth rate would be high, if the mortality rate would similarly be high, the people would not grow. For growth, there have to be not only births but also longevity.

Even without the verse in Yehoshua, since typically

פרו ורבו

appear together, and in this case they are broken up by

וישרצו

, this opens up the possibility to interpret

ורבו

in a different manner.

יהושע פרק יז

(יד) וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּה לִּי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב עַד אֲשֶׁר

עַד כֹּה בֵּרְכַנִי יְקֹוָק:

And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying: 'Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me thus

4. Ibn Ezra: The expression

במאד מאד

connotes that in all areas, i.e., birthrate, longevity, strength and health, were all at maximum levels.

RaLBaG: The phrase in question refers to the extraordinary strength and vigor of the members of the Jewish people.

(ז) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (1) פָּרוּ (2) וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ (3) וַיִּרְבּוּ (4) וַיַּעַצְמוּ (5) בִּמְאֹד (6) מְאֹד (7) וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם:

. The number “seven” is associated with the Creation of the World over the course of seven “days”. Since the assumption is that this Creation was perfect, harmonious and the Work of God, so too other entities that are associated with the number “seven”.

Daled.

Whereas in most instances, Pharoah could relate to his inner circle, i.e.,

עבדיו

, when it came to undertaking persecuting the Jews in order that they not overrun Egypt (Shemot 1:9), the entire nation’s help had to be enlisted. Therefore Pharoah speaks to

עמו

rather than only

עבדיו

Heh.

Shemot 1:9

And he said unto his people: 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us;

The interpretation of

ממנו

in the above verse is different from its interpretation in the other verses that are listed on the Gilayon:

Beraishit 26:16

And Abimelech said unto Isaac: 'Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we.'

BaMidbar 13:31

But the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

Devarim 1:28

Whither are we going up? our brethren have made our heart to melt, saying: The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.'

I Melachim 20:23

And the servants of the king of Aram said unto him: 'Their God is a God of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.

Vav.

1. The problem in the verse is to know who might have to leave Egypt as a result of an outside attack—the Egyptians or the Jews? From the point of view of syntax,

שמות פרק א

(י) הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה לוֹ פֶּן יִרְבֶּה וְהָיָה כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ:

the pronoun

הוא

which precedes the verbs

ונלחם

and

ועלה

refers to the Jewish people.

2. According to the simple meaning, i.e., that the Jews might leave Egypt, why is this such a terrible thing for the Egyptians? This is before slavery was imposed, and if a portion of the population were to leave, it would mean that the remaining resources could be distributed to indigenous Egyptians. Consequently, to explain the fear of

ועלה מן הארץ

coming about, the Midrash suggests that it will be the Egyptians who feared that they would have to forsake their homeland and go elsewhere.

ויעלה לו מן הארץ הזאת אל ארץ כנען עם כל אשר לנו

The addition of the prepositional pronoun

לו

makes clear that we are talking about the Jewish people leaving rather than the Egyptians.

Shemot questions

2012-01-08T19:01:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/314.html

Vayechi Answers

2012-01-02T13:49:00.001+02:00

VaYechi 5718

Alef.

1. Beraishit 50:15 ties together as a Hekesh the death of Yaakov and the fact that the brothers feared that Yosef would finally avenge himself upon them. The Midrashim are trying to explain what change happened immediately after the death of Yaakov that precipitated the brothers thinking that Yosef would now treat them harshly.

2. Beraishit Rabba: Following Yaakov’s death, Yosef seated the brothers differently when they would eat together. While the Midrash supplies a rationale for Yosef’s doing this, i.e., Yosef wished to seat the brothers in the order that he thought they were entitled, they saw the rearrangement as an indication that Yosef would now treat them as they feared he would from the time he identified himself to his brothers. What Yosef did to them with respect to court etiquette.

Mishnat R. Eliezer: Upon returning from his father’s burial, Yosef made a detour to revisit the pit into which his brothers had thrown him. According to the Midrash, he was appreciating the amazing intercession of HaShem that brought him from this pit to the second highest position in Egypt. The brothers when they saw Yosef doing this, thought that he was arousing his past resentment in preparation for attacking them in response to their having treated him so badly. How Yosef acted in relation to what had happened to him because of his brothers.

3. The brothers’ misunderstanding of Yosef’s actions is due to their own sense of guilt over what they had done. Yosef has gone out of his way to try to reassure the brothers that he saw all that had happened as the Hand of God Guiding the fate of the Jewish people. Yet because the brothers were so consumed with guilt over what they had done, and also because they thought that if the situation was reversed, they certainly would have sought revenge against Yosef, therefore they just can’t bring themselves to interpret his actions in any way other than what they think they deserve.

4. The verb “VaYiru” is understood by the two Midrashim as “And they understood/interpreted the implications” of actions coming on the heels of the death of Yaakov.

5. The second Midrash criticizes Yosef for not making clearer his intentions. If he had articulated that by going to the pit he was acknowledging HaShem’s Hashgacha Pratit, then the brothers might have worried far less. It is the responsibility of a person to not only avoid doing the wrong thing, but not to give others the impression that he is doing the wrong thing. The fact that Yosef failed to inform his brothers about why he was revisiting the pit caused them not only consternation, but even to lie regarding Yaakov’s having demanded that Yosef swear not to harm them.

6. Just as it was inconsiderate for Yaakov to have said to Rachel in her desperation that he was not God to Decide whether or not she would have children—he should have tried to comfort her rather than berated her, that same insensitivity was in turn expressed to the rest of Yaakov’s male offspring by Yosef, Rachel’s son, to the effect that God is Following some master plan and therefore all of us, Yosef included, are mere pawns with respect to how this works out. The brothers at that point were not interested in God’s Plans, but were frightened over what exactly Yosef proposed to do to make up for their almost killing him and then selling him over two decades previously. Yosef should have been sensitive to their worry.

7. Iyov 15:2 “Should a wise man make answer with windy knowledge, (and fill his belly with the east wind?)”. In this context, the Midrash is suggesting that Yosef’s words to the brothers were foolish and inappropriate. At this point, the brothers needed to be comforted due to their guilt and fear of Yosef’s retribution. They didn’t need to hear a theology lesson.

8. Since the brothers were obviously in emotional difficulty, why is Yosef accusing them of thinking badly of him? Isn’t this just adding salt to their wounds? The Midrash wishes to demonstrate that Yosef was interested in getting everything out in the open. He was going to be frank with the brothers and he wanted them to be frank with him. So if everyone could speak openly they had a chance to truly reconcile, which would not be possible if everyone continued to harbor unstated resentment towards one another.

Beit.

1. In the case of Yaakov and Rachel, one could say that conception of a child is truly not subject to a human being’s control. Consequently for Rachel to accuse Yaakov of not trying to exert influence with HaShem was unreasonable and Yaakov was justified in saying that he was not in any position to address her complaint. (Nevertheless, even if what he said was justified, it was still insensitive to blurt this out to a desperate Rachel.) However, as far as the relationship between Yosef and his brothers was concerned, this, their mutual resentments and suspicions, was something that they all could address and control. To attribute all the events to HaShem and for this reason to argue that neither Yosef nor the brothers should be blamed for their hostilities towards one another would appear to be inappropriate.

2. In II Melachim 5. The king of Aram sends a request to the king of Israel that he see to it that the prophet Elisha cure the Aramite general Na’amon of his Tzora’at condition. When the king of Israel receives the request he is fearful because he recognizes that if he fails to affect a cure for Na’amon, the king of Aram may feel it appropriate to attack Israel. He cries out, “Am I in God’s Place to take and give life?” This would appear to be similar to what Yaakov tells Rachel when she asks that he intercede with God so that she would finally conceive a child. Both human conception as well as the cure for Tzora’at lie beyond human capacities and only reside with God Himself. (It is interesting to note that in both instances, the comparison to life and death is invoked, first by Rachel who says that if she remains childless, it is as if she is dead, and then by the King of Israel who compares the state of the Metzora with someone who is dead. The Talmud in Avoda Zora 5a states that there are people who while alive are considered at least metaphorically dead, and included in the list are those who are childless as well as those who suffer from Tzora’at.)

Gimel.

1. The two usages of “VaYiru” appear to be different. In the case of BaMidbar 20 describing the death of Aharon, the people simply could not believe that Aharon who had defeated death in the plague of the snakes as well as the plague following the Korach rebellion, had met his own end. So they had to be shown in a supernatural manner that Aharon in fact had died. (Parallel visions are associated with what led to Sara’s death—she was prophetically shown what Avraham was intending to do to Yitzchak at the Akeida—as well as what led to the sin of the Golden Calf, the people being shown that Moshe had died atop Mt. Sinai and for this reason he was not coming down the mountain at the time that they expected him to rejoin them.)

In the case of Yosef’s brothers, it was not what they didn’t see that led to them to be shown a vision, but rather what they thought they saw in Yosef’s ambiguous actions, that led to Yosef’s pleading with them not to suspect him of plotting against them.

2. Apparently, RaShI does not feel that simply changing the seating order would have created a large enough buzz to make the brothers suspicious of Yosef. Therefore RaShI ups the ante by claiming that his brothers were never invited to any of the royal meals following Yaakov’s death, something that the brothers thought could not be explained away other than to realize that Yosef feels animus towards them and will let them feel his wrath now that Yaakov has passed away.

Parshat Vayechi

2012-01-02T12:02:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/515.html

Vayigash answers

2011-12-28T09:47:00.001+02:00

VaYigash 5728
Alef.

1. Beraishit 45:16-20 indicate that Pharoah even before the family comes to Egypt, approves of Yosef supporting them, thereby refuting the contention that Yosef first wanted to create “a fact on the ground” before informing Pharoah and thereby influencing him to allow what had already been begun to continue.

2. It is possible that Yosef did not want the general population to become familiar with the story of how he had been “sold” by his brothers and come to Egypt originally as a slave. See “Yosef’s Egyptian Makeover”

http://text.rcarabbis.org/parashat-miketz-yosefs-egyptian-makeover-by-yaakov-bieler/

for the lengths to which Pharoah went to try to give Yosef a new identity which would be more palatable to the Egyptian people.

Beit.

1. RaShI: “LeChol HaNitzavim”—due to all of those who were standing in his presence. Yosef did not wish to reveal himself while non-family members were present.

Ibn Ezra: “LeChol HaNitzavim”—until all those standing in his presence (had left on their own). Yosef could not wait to reveal himself to his brothers. But it was taking so long for all those present to leave that he had to order them to exit.

2. The problem with RaShI’s interpretation would seem to be the implication of “Hotzee’u” in 45:1. If everyone was to leave except for his brothers, then instead of saying “Hotzee’u” implying that some officials were the ones who removed everyone else, but they in the end would remain and could hear Yosef’s revelations as well as witness the brothers’ embarrassment, it should have said “Yeitzu”—imperative of leaving implying that everyone should leave.

Gimel.

In 43:27, before the incident with finding Yosef’s cup in Binyamin’s sack, when Yosef first sees the brothers on their second visit to Egypt, he already inquires about their father. Consequently, it does not make sense that he should now ask again at the time when he reveals himself. Therefore, the commentators have to find some additional meaning in Yosef’s question to justify his repeating it.

Daled.

The phrase “Asher Machartem Oti Mitzrayma” would appear to be superfluous. Once it is established that he is Yosef their brother, they know all too well what transpired more than two decades before. Consequently Sephorno has to supply a rationale to account for the additional identifying phrase.

Heh.

1. 45:8 and 9 don’t seem to be saying the same thing—how did Yosef come to his position? Was it Pharoah’s appointment or God’s Doing? The commentator finds a way to integrate both verses into the explanation being sent to Yaakov.

2. Since this is Yosef’s first communication with his father for over twenty years, he does not wish to give the impression that he has forgotten his traditions and faith. Therefore after stating generally what his position involves, he quickly amends the statement with essentially what he told his brothers, i.e., that in fact God has Orchestrated everything that has occurred and it is God’s Plan that is being played out within the events that have taken place in and to the family.

3. In 45:10, before even knowing Yaakov’s reaction to the proposal to come to Egypt, Yosef already states that he plans to settle his family in Goshen. In 46:28, Yaakov sends Yehuda ahead to make the land of Goshen ready for the family’s arrival, suggesting that he approved of Yosef’s original suggestion.

Vav.

1. RaShI, RaMBaN, Bei’ur: become poor.

Ibn Ezra, ShaDaL: become cut off, i.e., you will die.

RaShBaM: become exiled from the land.

2. The interpretation of “lest you become exiled” makes no sense since Yosef is proposing that very thing, that Yaakov and everything that he has leave the land in order to wait out the famine in Egypt.

3. ShaDaL feels that poverty is a condition that affects humans but not their possessions. Consequently since Yosef includes herds of sheep and cattle in v. 10, he has in mind something that will physically happen to them rather than a description of their economic condition.

4. The condition of poverty is not what threatens Yaakov’s welfare in Canaan, but rather starvation due to a lack of food. When there is no food to be had, it does not matter how much money one has!

Zayin.

1. The Midrash inferred from the fact that it does not say that all of Pharoah’s servants were thrilled about the rest of Yaakov’s family coming to Egypt, that there were some who were complaining that each one who comes replaces a high ranking Egyptian in a status position.

2. R. Hirsch was very patriotic with respect to Jews living in Germany. He felt that they could be accepted as “good citizens”. So too Yaakov’s family in Egypt; despite their being immigrants, the Egyptians welcome them with open arms since Yosef, and potentially the rest of Yosef’s family, will prove so beneficial to the society-at-large.

Vayigash

2011-12-27T14:32:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/13.html

Parshat Miketz answers

2011-12-20T14:52:00.002+02:00

Miketz 5726

Alef.

. Moshe Aryeh Mirkin (Midrash Rabba, Vol. 4, Yavneh, Tel Aviv, 1980, p. 93) writes that the association between the verse in Tehillim and the verse in Beraishit 42 is that if one reads

שֶׁבֶר

as if it were written

שׂבר

, then the meaning is that Yaakov saw through Divine Inspiration, that there is “hope” (as opposed food available for sale) in Egypt, i.e., Yosef, who can change the course of Jewish history.

בראשית פרק מב

(א) וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב כִּי יֶשׁ שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ:

תהלים פרק קמו

(ה) אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁקל יַעֲקֹב בְּעֶזְרוֹ שִׂבְרוֹ עַל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיו:

Happy is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God.

. The Midrash is refocusing the meaning of the verse. As opposed to stating that Yaakov realized that there was food in Egypt, which was a short-term solution to the immediate problem of famine, the Midrash is emphasizing that Yaakov was seeing something long-term that would allow for the Divine Predictions made on the occasion of the Brit Bein HaBetarim (Beraishit 15) to begin to be fulfilled, i.e., that Yosef was in a position to provide for the family when it would go into exile in Egypt.

איוב פרק יב

(יד) הֵן יַהֲרוֹס וְלֹא יִבָּנֶה יִסְגֹּר עַל אִישׁ וְלֹא יִפָּתֵחַ:

Behold, He Breaketh down, and it cannot be built again; He Shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening

The plan of the “Shevatim”, i.e., the brothers, was to destroy Yosef in order to obviate the fulfillment of his dreams (Berashit 37:18-20). God thwarted their plans by setting up Yosef in a situation whereby the dreams would be able to be fulfilled when first Yosef’s brothers and then even his father, step-mother and handmaidens would come to Egypt and act deferentially towards him.

. One could insist that the brothers were not “building” a plan that God “destroyed” before it could be completed, as in the case of the Tower of Bavel (Beraishit 11:7) , but rather He Saw to it that their intentions to eliminate Yosef, which they thought they had accomplished quite fully, would not be realized.

. One might ask why it was specifically Yaakov and not his sons who came up with the idea to go down to Egypt to buy food. HaShem Closed off from the brothers thoughts of Egypt in order to create a greater shock when in the end Yosef reveals to them his real identity (Beraishit 45:1-13).

. The following verses imply that Yaakov had resigned himself to the fact that Yosef was dead:

בראשית פרק לז

(לג) וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵף:

(לד) וַיִּקְרַע יַעֲקֹב שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם שַׂק בְּמָתְנָיו וַיִּתְאַבֵּל עַל בְּנוֹ יָמִים רַבִּים:

(לה) וַיָּקֻמוּ כָל בָּנָיו וְכָל בְּנֹתָיו לְנַחֲמוֹ וַיְמָאֵן לְהִתְנַחֵם וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֵרֵד אֶל בְּנִי אָבֵל שְׁאֹלָה וַיֵּבְךְּ אֹתוֹ אָבִיו:

בראשית פרק מב

(לו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם אֹתִי שִׁכַּלְתֶּם יוֹסֵף אֵינֶנּוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִן תִּקָּחוּ עָלַי הָיוּ כֻלָּנָה:

(לח) וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם כִּי אָחִיו מֵת וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ נִשְׁאָר וּקְרָאָהוּ אָסוֹן בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ בָהּ וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת שֵׂיבָתִי בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאוֹלָה:

בראשית פרק מד

(כח) וַיֵּצֵא הָאֶחָד מֵאִתִּי וָאֹמַר אַךְ טָרֹף טֹרָף וְלֹא רְאִיתִיו עַד הֵנָּה:

בראשית פרק מה

(כו) וַיַּגִּדוּ לוֹ לֵאמֹר עוֹד יוֹסֵף חַי וְכִי הוּא מֹשֵׁל בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וַיָּפָג לִבּוֹ כִּי לֹא הֶאֱמִין לָהֶם:

(כז) וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֲלֵהֶם וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֲגָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יוֹסֵף לָשֵׂאת אֹתוֹ וַתְּחִי רוּחַ יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם:

A way to reconcile these verses with the Midrash’s assumption that Yaakov had hope that there was something in Egypt that will help the Jewish people, is by saying that Yaakov felt that there was reason to hope in Egypt for a solution to the problem of the famine, but not necessarily that he hoped against hope that Yosef was still alive. Only in retrospect will Yaakov realize that the cause for his optimism was Yosef’s presence in Egypt, but at this point, it would have been impossible for Yaakov to have known this—unless of course HaShem would have wished to disclose this to him via prophecy, and there is no indication that this was the case.

איוב פרק ט

)ז) הָאֹמֵר לַחֶרֶס וְלֹא יִזְרָח וּבְעַד כּוֹכָבִים יַחְתֹּם:

Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars

All three Midrashim claim that Yaakov had an insight into the presence of the savior of the Jews during the years of famine in Egypt, i.e., Yosef, but that the brothers despite their physically entering and leaving Egypt on two separate occasions, continued to fail to realize Yosef’s presence.

. The problem in Beraishit 42:1 is how can it be explained that Yaakov “saw” something about the food situation in Egypt—he could have “heard” there was food there, but short of actually travelling to Egypt, how could he see what was going on there? Consequently the Midrash defines “seeing” in the biblical text as referring to some sort of prophetic seeing.

. Referencing the sun and the stars reminds one of the second of Yosef’s dreams:

בראשית פרק לז

(ט) וַיַּחֲלֹם עוֹד חֲלוֹם אַחֵר וַיְסַפֵּר אֹתוֹ לְאֶחָיו וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה חָלַמְתִּי חֲלוֹם עוֹד וְהִנֵּה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהַיָּרֵחַ וְאַחַד עָשָׂר כּוֹכָבִים מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לִי:

ד. See answer 2ד above.

Beit.

1. RaShI brings the Midrash because since it had already stated earlier, in v. 7 that he had recognized the brothers, why is the text repeating this fact; it would have been sufficient in v. 8 to simply say that they did not recognize him. Consequently, the Midrash explains that we no longer are talking about just knowing who the people are, but rather the manner in which they related to one another, Yosef doing so positively while the brothers in the past relating to him negatively.

2. The first time in v. 7, we are being told a fact of immediate recognition—Yosef was surprised to see his brothers bowing in front of him. The end of v. 7 however, suggests that Yosef estranged himself from them by speaking to them harshly. Despite the fact that externally it appeared as if Yosef had ignored his awareness that they were his siblings, v. 8 states again that he in fact was fully aware of the situation, despite the fact that they were not. One could even say that he deliberately spoke harshly in order to not even allow them to begin thinking that perhaps they know him from somewhere else.

3. It would seem that this section of RaMBaN supports RaShI—if the brothers did not recognize Yosef because when they parted he did not have a beard, then why did he recognize the younger brothers who were barely older than he, if they too did not have beards and now presumably they do. RaMBaN answers that in fact if only the younger brothers had come, Yosef probably would not have recognized them; but since they came at the same time as the older siblings who already had beards at the time of Yosef’s being sold, he associated them together and recognized all of them.

4. RaShI: a) They parted at a stage of personal development where they only knew a younger Yosef, not a more mature one.

b) The expression of “recognizing” connotes brotherly treatment, something that Yosef was continuing to do, but not something by which they had related to him.

RaMBaM: a) Although they were not all at the point where they had beards at the time of Yosef’s sale, Yosef deduced from their coming at the same time along with the older ones whose bearded appearance he did remember, that they were all his brothers.

b) Yosef always knew that eventually they would come to Egypt for food, so he was expecting them. They on the other hand, never expected to see Yosef in Egypt, after knowing that he had been sold as a slave by the Yishmaelim.

5. Yosef’s plan to give them an opportunity to atone for what they had done to him all those years ago was in fact an act of Chesed, as opposed to remaining in a state of resentment and hatred towards them for what they had done to him. When he saw especially Yehuda prepared to enslave himself in order that Binyamin could be returned to Yaakov in order not to cause Yaakov additional undue grief, Yosef felt that the circle had been closed and that he no longer would harbor enmity towards his brothers.

Gimel.

. RaShBaM understands the verse in II Melachim as an attempt by Amatzya to impress Yehoash with his military prowess, although the simple meaning seems to be going to war with one another, a war that Amatzya roundly loses.

מלכים ב פרק יד

(ח) אָז שָׁלַח אֲמַצְיָה מַלְאָכִים אֶל יְהוֹאָשׁ בֶּן יְהוֹאָחָז בֶּן יֵהוּא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר לְכָה נִתְרָאֶה פָנִים:

(ט) וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל אֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר הַחוֹחַ אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן שָׁלַח אֶל הָאֶרֶז אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן לֵאמֹר תְּנָה אֶת בִּתְּךָ לִבְנִי לְאִשָּׁה וַתַּעֲבֹר חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן וַתִּרְמֹס אֶת הַחוֹחַ:

(י) הַכֵּה הִכִּיתָ אֶת אֱדוֹם וּנְשָׂאֲךָ לִבֶּךָ הִכָּבֵד וְשֵׁב בְּבֵיתֶךָ וְלָמָּה תִתְגָּרֶה בְּרָעָה וְנָפַלְתָּה אַתָּה וִיהוּדָה עִמָּךְ:

(יא) וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲמַצְיָהוּ וַיַּעַל יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתְרָאוּ פָנִים הוּא וַאֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בְּבֵית שֶׁמֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה:

(יב) וַיִּנָּגֶף יְהוּדָה לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיָּנֻסוּ אִישׁ לאהלו לְאֹהָלָיו:

(יג) וְאֵת אֲמַצְיָהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בֶּן יְהוֹאָשׁ בֶּן אֲחַזְיָהוּ תָּפַשׂ יְהוֹאָשׁ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבֵית שָׁמֶשׁ ויבאו וַיָּבֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיִּפְרֹץ בְּחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלִַם בְּשַׁעַר אֶפְרַיִם עַד שַׁעַר הַפִּנָּה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת אַמָּה:

(יד) וְלָקַח אֶת כָּל הַזָּהָב וְהַכֶּסֶף וְאֵת כָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בֵּית יְקֹוָק וּבְאֹצְרוֹת בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵת בְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרֻבוֹת וַיָּשָׁב שֹׁמְרוֹנָה:

Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying: 'Come, let us look one another in the face.' And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying: 'The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife; and there passed by the wild beasts that were in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and will thy heart lift thee up? glory therein, and remain at home; for why shouldest thou meddle with evil, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? But Amaziah would not hear. So Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to his tent. And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria

ב.

יחזקאל פרק כט

(טו) מִן הַמַּמְלָכוֹת תִּהְיֶה שְׁפָלָה וְלֹא תִתְנַשֵּׂא עוֹד עַל הַגּוֹיִם וְהִמְעַטְתִּים לְבִלְתִּי רְדוֹת בַּגּוֹיִם:

It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations; and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations

2. RaShI’s approach to understanding “

ערוה

” does not appear to fit the context of Yosef’s accusation. The sexual innuendo of “

ערוה

” suggests something private that is not meant to be publicly exposed. However, just because something is secret does not mean that it has strategic value. There may be certain scandalous or personal issues that are not openly discussed, but nevertheless are devoid of strategic value. RaShBaM’s definition of “

ערוה

” as breaches in the country’s defenses would make more sense as a target for spies who wish to invade the land.

3. RaShBaM in his first comment on v. 9 had made part of Yosef’s accusation the fact that the ten men stuck together wherever they went, which was apparently unusual with respect to those coming to purchase food. This drew suspicion to them. They respond that the reason why they stay together is because they come as members of single tightly-knit family and therefore while it may seem out of the ordinary, there is nothing nefarious about what they are doing.

. Ostensibly it does not seem that anything new is added in v. 12. Yosef has already stated his suspicions in v. 9. Why is he so insistent on accusing them of being spies? RaShBaM answers that he wishes them to explain more about family details with respect to Binyamin and even about how they speak about the twelfth brother’s absence.

. Why did the brothers offer so much information even referring to Yosef? It was only because of Yosef’s obstinacy in continuing to accuse them of being spies did they begin to disclose more information than they originally intended in order to convince him of their telling the truth.

. The brothers have to justify to Yaakov why they disclosed the existence of Binyamin as well as the fact that a twelfth brother is missing. It was only because Yosef pressed them so hard did they decide or perhaps simply blurted out the additional facts about their family.

. The brothers did not tell the truth to Yaakov when they said in 43:7 that Yosef by means of his questioning had forced them to disclose the existence of two other brothers. In fact it was as a result of Yosef’s refusing to believe them that they shared the information. RaShBaM is explaining that Yosef’s brutality was a ploy to get them to admit publicly that there were additional sons.

. There is a principle cited in the Midrash, e.g.,

אוצר המדרשים (אייזנשטיין) ל"ב מדות באגדה עמוד 268

. ר' נחמיה אומר דברי תורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקומות אחרים, וכה"א היתה כאניות סוחר ממרחק תביא לחמה (משלי ל"א).

i.e., that sometimes the Tora goes to great lengths to provide every detail, while at other times, only some of the information is actually set down and one has to assume or extrapolate the rest. Consequently, just because the Tora does not explicitly state that Yosef asked such a question does not mean that it did not happen, just as in the case of the plagues, sometimes the Tora records a conversation between Moshe and Pharoah, and sometimes it does not. That does not necessarily mean that such conversations nevertheless took place, even if a record does not appear in the relevant verses.

5. Perhaps the repetition of the word “

צרה

”, first with respect to Yosef and then with respect to the brothers, ties together the two situations.

Parshat Miketz

2011-12-19T12:30:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/520.html

Parshat Vayeshev Answers

2011-12-14T14:32:00.001+02:00

VaYeishev 5722

בראשית פרק לז

(יח) וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ:

(יט) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא:

(כ) וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בְּאַחַד הַבֹּרוֹת וְאָמַרְנוּ חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ וְנִרְאֶה מַה יִּהְיוּ חֲלֹמֹתָיו:

(כא) וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ:

(כב) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם רְאוּבֵן אַל תִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם הַשְׁלִיכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְיָד אַל תִּשְׁלְחוּ בוֹ לְמַעַן הַצִּיל אֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם לַהֲשִׁיבוֹ אֶל אָבִיו:

(כג) וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף אֶת כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו:

(כד) וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם:

(כה) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה:

And they saw him afar off, and before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. And they said one to another: 'Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: An evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will become of his dreams.' And Reuben heard it, and delivered him out of their hand; and said: 'Let us not take his life.' And Reuben said unto them: 'Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him'--that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father. And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colours that was on him; and they took him, and cast him into the pit--and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and ladanum, going to carry it down to Egypt.

Alef.

. The simple meaning of the phrase is “they conspired against him to slay him”. However, the plotting went beyond how to kill Yosef, i.e., whether to murder him actively or to throw him into a pit and thereby murder him passively. They also plotted regarding what they would say to Yaakov in order to cover up Yosef’s murder, i.e., that a wild animal had killed Yosef, and for this reason they took his coat from him (v. 20, 23). Finally, the murder was not only in order to eliminate a person who was proving disturbing and threatening to them, but also to test whether the dreams that Yosef had shared with his family would in fact be fulfilled (v. 20). Consequently they not only plotted murder, but also created a theological test and a cover-up, leading RaShI to expand the implications of “

ויתנכלו

”.

. See above.

. Whereas in the two instances in I Shmuel 19, the intent of the infinitive is to end the life of the individual by murdering him, in the case of I Shmuel 2, the verse is referring to allowing the sons of Eli to make a decision that would lead to their deaths indirectly, rather than directly taking their lives. Reuven’s convincing his brothers to throw Yosef into a pit rather than actually directly spilling his blood was also intended, at least in the brothers’ minds, to constitute a means of passive murder, with Reuven’s true intention being to save Yosef at a later moment when the others were not watching.

שמואל א פרק ב

(כה) אִם יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ לְאִישׁ וּפִלְלוֹ אֱלֹקים וְאִם לַיקֹוָק יֶחֱטָא אִישׁ מִי יִתְפַּלֶּל לוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ לְקוֹל אֲבִיהֶם כִּי חָפֵץ יְקֹוָק לַהֲמִיתָם:

If one man sin against another, God shall judge him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him?' But they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them

שמואל א פרק יט

(ב) וַיַּגֵּד יְהוֹנָתָן לְדָוִד לֵאמֹר מְבַקֵּשׁ שָׁאוּל אָבִי לַהֲמִיתֶךָ וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמֶר נָא בַבֹּקֶר וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בַסֵּתֶר וְנַחְבֵּאתָ:

And Jonathan told David, saying: 'Saul my father seeketh to slay thee; now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself in the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself

שמואל א פרק יט

(טו) וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל אֶת הַמַּלְאָכִים לִרְאוֹת אֶת דָּוִד לֵאמֹר הַעֲלוּ אֹתוֹ בַמִּטָּה אֵלַי לַהֲמִתוֹ:

And Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying: 'Bring him up to me in the bed, that I may slay him

. Whereas RashI understands “

ויתנכלו

” as describing the brothers’ interior thoughts about eliminating Yosef, Sephorno interprets the verb as referring to how the brothers’ internally understood Yosef’s purpose in coming out to see them, i.e., to discover things about them that would lead either to Yaakov cursing them or HaShem Punishing them, a case of Yosef plotting the brothers’ destruction rather than the other way around. A support to such an interpretation would be Beraishit 37:2--

אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב יוֹסֵף בֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה נְשֵׁי אָבִיו וַיָּבֵא יוֹסֵף אֶת דִּבָּתָם רָעָה אֶל אֲבִיהֶם:

. Just like in Devarim 4:14 the infinitive means that you should do the Mitzvot, and in Devarim 29:11, that you should pass into the covenant, so too in Beraishit 37:18, that it is Yosef who is plotting to kill the brothers.

דברים פרק ד

(יד) וְאֹתִי צִוָּה יְקֹוָק בָּעֵת הַהִוא לְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים לַעֲשֹׂתְכֶם אֹתָם בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it

דברים פרק כט

(יא) לְעָבְרְךָ בִּבְרִית יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ וּבְאָלָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כֹּרֵת עִמְּךָ הַיּוֹם:

that thou shouldest enter into the covenant of the LORD thy God--and into His oath--which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day.

. Shemot 12:42 would seem to fit RaShI’s understanding that the infinitive directly relates to the subject of the sentence, HaShem Who is Taking the Jews out of Egypt, Beraishit 19:17 parallels Sephorno’s interpretation where the verb refers to Lot and his family, the object of the sentence.

בראשית פרק יט

(יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said: 'Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be swept away

שמות פרק יב

(מב) לֵיל שִׁמֻּרִים הוּא לַיקֹוָק לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הוּא הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה לַיקֹוָק שִׁמֻּרִים לְכָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְדֹרֹתָם: פ

It was a night of watching unto the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching unto the LORD for all the children of Israel throughout their generations

. In Beraishit 42:21, when the brothers are reflecting on how they had sinned against Yosef in the past, they do not express regret over wanting to kill or sell him, only for not responding to his pleas for mercy when he was cast into the pit. Sephorno argues that if in the brothers’ minds Yosef was indeed trying to kill them either physically or spiritually by bringing evil reports about them to Yaakov, then they were only protecting themselves by trying to eliminate him, something that they had a legal right to do based upon the Rabbinic principle, “if one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” based upon Shemot 22:1.

בראשית פרק מב פסוק כא

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל אָחִינוּ אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ עַל כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת:

And they said one to another: 'We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us

. Shemot 22:1

שמות פרק כב

(א) אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים:

If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him

. Never once is there an explicit discussion in the text at this point or prior that the brothers thought that Yosef was out to destroy them. They hated Yosef for telling them the dreams that seemed to imply superiority on his part. However, to use those instances as the basis for their wanting to kill him seems to be a stretch. On the other hand, because their reaction appears to be so over the top, perhaps there was a perception that his tattling and spying had nefarious intentions. Otherwise why would the brothers, from whom the entire Jewish people descend, go to such extremes?

Beit.

The problem in the verse is the “

” at the beginning of the word “

טרם

”—

בראשית פרק לז פסוק יח

וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק וּבְטֶרֶם יִקְרַב אֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּתְנַכְּלוּ אֹתוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ:

Either the phrase beginning “

ובטרם

” should have been at the beginning of the verse, or if it is to remain in its present position, the “

” should have been omitted. Consequently, since it seems that this phrase is set off in an inappropriate position, Ohr HaChayim interprets the first phrase beginning with “

ויראו

” as not describing what they saw, but rather how they felt.

Gimel.

1. The three commentators are attempting to account for the Tora’s mentioning that once Yosef had been dispatched into the pit, they sat to eat. It offers an impression that the brothers were extremely cold-hearted and dispassionate, not a very exemplary manner by which to deport themselves.

2. R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM: The brothers had no reservations regarding the appropriateness of what they had done.

Sephorno: Because they had judged Yosef as a Rodef (an individual who was bent upon destroying them—see Alef 2

above.)

HaEmek Davar: The fact that the brothers raised their eyes in the middle of their meal (see v. 25) indicates how while they may have felt justified in eliminating Yosef, they were not sanguine due to his cries for mercy and help from the bottom of the pit.

3. HaEmek Davar probably bases himself on the brother’s remark after Yosef initially places all the brothers in prison after accusing them of being spies, and then informs them that he will keep one of them hostage and will not give them any more food until they bring their brother Binyamin with them to Egypt:

בראשית פרק מב

(כא) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו אֲבָל אֲשֵׁמִים אֲנַחְנוּ עַל אָחִינוּ אֲשֶׁר רָאִינוּ צָרַת נַפְשׁוֹ בְּהִתְחַנְנוֹ אֵלֵינוּ וְלֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ עַל כֵּן בָּאָה אֵלֵינוּ הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת:

4. Eliezer in Beraishit 24 appears very anxious to get on with his mission and does not stay in one place longer than necessary, even when Rikva’s family attempts to stall.

Daled.

1. The premise of the Midrash is that the heartlessness that the brothers displayed with respect to how they disposed of Yosef, only to eat and drink immediately afterwards, would have to eventually be atoned for by the brothers’ descendants (parallel to the liturgical poem recited during Musaf Yom HaKippurim that projects the torture and execution of the Ten Martyrs as payback for the ten brothers’ kidnapping Yosef.)

תהלים פרק י

(ב) בְּגַאֲוַת רָשָׁע יִדְלַק עָנִי יִתָּפְשׂוּ בִּמְזִמּוֹת זוּ חָשָׁבוּ:

Through the pride of the wicked the poor is hotly pursued, they are taken in the devices that they have imagined

2. See Daled 1 above.

3. It would appear that the Midrash is in line with the approach of R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM in Gimel 2 above.

Heh.

1. The Midrash as well as the commentaries in Gimel pitted all of the brothers against Yosef, suggesting that even Reuven was proximate to the act of throwing Yosef into the pit even if he was unaware of Yosef being sold to the Yishmaelim. R. Yosef Bechor Shor in his first explanation supposes that not only Reuven was away, but some of the other brothers as well. In the second and third explanations, Reuven was either engaged in the religious act of repentance for what he had done with Bilha or was far from the brothers because he was taking care of Yaakov. Whichever way you look at it, at least Reuven and his descendants, if not those of some of the others should be given a bye for what ultimately happened to Yosef and therefore cannot be included in the condemnation that is issued against the people in general.

2. Perhaps in light of Reuven’s having talked the brothers out of killing Yosef, was excluded from the plan to sell Yosef due to a fear on the part of the other brothers that he would attempt to once again derail their plan to get rid of Yosef once and for all.

Parshat Vayeshev

2011-12-12T07:59:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/293.html

Vayishlach Answers

2011-12-06T16:15:00.001+02:00

VaYishlach 5727

Alef.

Preparations for meeting with Eisav.

Beraishit 32

a. Reconnaissance; offer of tribute (bribe?) 4-6

b. Informed that Eisav is advancing with an armed force. 7

c. Divides his entourage and possessions into two groups in preparation for a murderous attack. 8-9

d. Prayer. 10-13

e. Sends a series of tributes to Eisav in the hope that Eisav will stand down from any violent intentions. 14-22

f. Transfers encampment to other side of the Ford of the Yabbok (probably for strategic purposes). 23-4

g. Requests blessing from mysterious assailant. 25-33

Beraishit 33

h. Divides up his family members even further. 1-2

i. Bows in an obsequious manner. 3

j. Insistence that Eisav take the tribute. 10-12

k. Declines to be accompanied/protected by Eisav. 13

l. Promises to come to Eisav’s base in Se’ir, (but never does.) 14

m. Declines offer of Eisav leaving men for protection. 15

Preparations for meeting with Tzofnat Pa’aneach:

Beraishit 43

a. Take tribute to Egypt. 11

b. Take double the money, to cover not only new food but also to repay that which was found in their sacks upon their return from Egypt. 12

c. Take Binyamin as Tzofnat Pa’aneach requested. 13

d. Prayer. 14

Both lists include sending gifts and prayer. While in Tzofnat Pa’aneach’s case there is only an implied threat of physical harm—the initial incarceration of all of the brothers followed by the retention of Shimon as hostage, concerning Eisav, in light of his threat many years before to kill Yaakov, there is real concern of a vengeance-driven massacre, resulting in trying to minimize the effects of such an attack.

Beit.

. The difficulty with the verse is why Lavan should be interested in how Yaakov has spent the years during which the brothers have been separated.

. The Peshat deals with Yaakov’s social status during this time. The Derash is a comment on his religious and moral status.

. One could answer Maskil LeDavid’s question by positing that Yaakov interprets Yitzchak’s blessing to him as referring to personal social status. Eisav is clearly has been a general, leader of men, whereas Yaakov has been a sojourner in a foreign land, a status that is inferior to that of his brother. Consequently, no advantage had been conferred upon him despite his obtaining the blessing meant for Eisav.

. The answer to Imrei Shefer is found in the RaShI on 27:40:

רש"י בראשית פרק כז פסוק מ

והיה כאשר תריד - לשון צער, כמו (תהלים נה ג) אריד בשיחי, כלומר כשיעברו ישראל את התורה, ויהיה לך פתחון פה להצטער על הברכות שנטל, ופרקת עלו וגו':

The Midrash suggests that Yaakov had maintained the moral and spiritual standards that entitled him to a superior status over Eisav.

2. In the two examples offered by R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, once the relationship has been established by the first word, i.e., “my master”, “your servant”, there is nothing additional being added by the mention of the name. Yaakov is assuming a subservient role to Eisav, and that is all that matters in this situation. This is in contrast to the first examples that appear in the question, e.g., “your brother, Eisav”, where the name has a particular connotation that is the opposite, i.e., an evil-doer, of what “brotherhood” usually connotes.

. RaShI may be wondering why Yaakov is so insecure in light of the promises that HaShem Makes at the beginning of Parashat Vayetze (28:15): And, behold, I am with thee, and will Keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will Bring thee back into this land; for I will not Leave thee, until I have Done that which I have Spoken to thee of.

. RaShI understands the “

” as a contraction of “

משום

”, i.e., because of, due to.

. The alternate RashI that Nechana cites:

רש"י בראשית פרק טו פסוק א

(א) אחר הדברים האלה - כל מקום שנאמר אחר סמוך, אחרי מופלג. אחר שנעשה לו נס זה שהרג את המלכים והיה דואג ואומר שמא קבלתי שכר על כל צדקותי, לכך אמר לו המקום אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך מן העונש שלא תענש על כל אותן נפשות שהרגת, ומה שאתה דואג על קבול שכרך, שכרך הרבה מאד:

The similarity in both sources presumes that when things go particularly well, merits that possibly might be needed at some future point have now been exhausted, rendering the individual particularly vulnerable to new dangers lying ahead.

. The reference in Yirmiyahu 18 is the following:

(verses 9-10) And at one instant I may Speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to Build and to Plant it; but if it do evil in My Sight, that it hearken not to My Voice, then I Repent of the good, wherewith I Said I would Benefit it.

It would appear that this is the biblical paradigm of “

שמא יגרום החטא

”.

Gimel.

1. RaShI: Peshat—Yaakov associated the Name of HaShem with the altar (as opposed to directly naming the altar) in order to remember the miracle that was performed on his behalf.

Derash: HaShem Referred to Yaakov as “Keil”. (Becomes a type of “mutual admiration society”, i.e., the same term with which Yaakov refers to God, God Uses in terms of referring to Yaakov. This is parallel to the concept in Berachot 6a whereby not only do the Jewish people wear Tefillin within which are Parashiot that praise HaShem, HaShem Wears Tefillin within which are inscribed praises of the Jewish people.)

RaShBaM: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, just as people are given names in which God’s Name is contained, e.g., Eliezer, Imanel.

Ibn Ezra: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, in recognition of the Divine Help that Yaakov received.

2. The Aggadeta in Megilla 18a, that RaShI quotes as a second interpretation, understands the verse as connoting that HaShem Called Yaakov by the term “Keil”.

3. Tosafot at first presents the alternative “Peshat” interpretation, i.e., Yaakov called the altar by HaShem’s Name as did Moshe and Gidon. He explains that the Talmud did not follow such a course since in the case in Beraishit 33, there is no clear-cut miracle or conceptual pursuit of peace that would readily explain why Yaakov should refer to the altar in this manner.

תורה תמימה הערות בראשית פרק לג הערה יז

יז) מפרש קל מלשון תוקף וחיזוק, וכמו אילי הארץ (יחזקאל י"ז), וע' יבמות כ"א א', וכן מפרש הלשון ויקרא לו קל אלקי ישראל, כמו ויקרא לו אלקי ישראל - קל, והיינו שקרא אלקותו עליו והשרה עליו שכינתו, ועיין בנמוקי רמב"ן. אך אינו מבואר בכלל מה קשה לו ויקרא לו יעקב מבעי ליה, הא כמו כן כתובים כל הפעלים שבפסוק זה בלא שם הכנוי יעקב, ויחן, ויקן, ויצב, וכולם מוסבים על השם יעקב שבתחלת הפסוק, וא"כ גם בפעל ויקרא כן הוא, ובאמת כן דרוש להיות ע"פ חקי הלשון, והרבה מאד לשונות כאלה במקרא, וכמו בפ' תולדות, ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז עשו, מוסבים כל הפעלים אל שם עשו. ולכן נראה דקצור לשון בגמרא כאן, והכונה כמו שהיה אומר, דאי ס"ד למזבח קרא יעקב קל, א"כ ויקרא לו קל אלקי יעקב מבעי ליה. והבאור הוא, דלא הו"ל ליעקב לקרוא עצמו בשם ישראל [אלקי ישראל], שהרי עדיין לא נצטוה מהקב"ה על שנוי השם יעקב לישראל, ונצטוה על זה לאחר מעשה זו, כמבואר לקמן בפרשה (ל"ה י'), ומה שאמר לו המלאך למעלה לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב וכו', לא הייה זה צווי רק הודעה לצווי הבא, שכן יהיה, ומדקרא קל אלקי ישראל מוכח דהפירוש הוא שהקב"ה קראו ליעקב קל, ושיעור הפסוק ויקרא לו [ליעקב], קל, ומי קראו - אלקי ישראל. ולא קשה איך קראו הפסוק כאן להקב"ה בשם אלקי ישראל אחרי דעדיין לא נקרא יעקב כן, יען דהכתוב כתב ע"ש העתיד, וכמו על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. ועיין במ"ר דרשה אחרת בפסוק זה, ונבארה אי"ה בר"פ תבא בפסוק הגדתי היום לה' אלקיך, יעו"ש:

4. RaMBaN and Heidenheim understand Onkelos’ interpretation of the prepositional pronoun “

לו

” as connoting either “

בו

” or “

עליו

”, whereby rather than calling the altar a name, the altar was a prop by/through which to address HaShem.

5. The Ta’amim do not indicate that the phrase “

קל אלקי ישראל

” is a continuation of

"ויקרא לו"

, but rather a phrase that describes the content of the “call” of

"ויקרא"

כ וַיַּצֶּב־שָׁ֖ם מִזְבֵּ֑חַ וַיִּ֨קְרָא־ל֔וֹ אֵ֖-ל אֱלֹהֵ֥-י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

From the Ta’amim in the following verses wherein Leah names her children, one sees that the Trop clearly indicates that the names are continuations of the verb “to call”:

לב וַתַּ֤הַר לֵאָה֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ רְאוּבֵ֑ן כִּ֣י אָֽמְרָ֗ה כִּֽי־רָאָ֤ה ה' בְּעָנְיִ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֖ה יֶֽאֱהָבַ֥נִי אִישִֽׁי׃ לג וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֤ע ה' כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה אָנֹ֔כִי וַיִּתֶּן־לִ֖י גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֑ה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ שִׁמְעֽוֹן׃ לד וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר עַתָּ֤ה הַפַּ֨עַם֙ יִלָּוֶ֤ה אִישִׁי֙ אֵלַ֔י כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי ל֖וֹ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה בָנִ֑ים עַל־כֵּ֥ן קָרָֽא־שְׁמ֖וֹ לֵוִֽי׃ לה וַתַּ֨הַר ע֜וֹד וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֗ן וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַפַּ֨עַם֙ אוֹדֶ֣ה אֶת־ה' עַל־כֵּ֛ן קָֽרְאָ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ יְהוּדָ֑ה וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֖ד מִלֶּֽדֶת׃

6. R. Saadia Gaon is quoted by Ibn Ezra as interpreting the verse in question that “Elokei Yisrael” was called “Keil” by Yaakov.

ירמיהו פרק כג פסוק ו

בְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח, וְזֶה שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרְאוֹ יְקֹוָק צִדְקֵנוּ: ס

The Gaon would similarly interpret this verse in Yirmiyahu that the Navi called HaShem by the Name “Tzidkeinu.”

Ibn Ezra would invoke the Ta’amim as negating such an interpretation since the term “Keil” is separated by the Trop from “VaYikra Lo”.

7. If “Elokei Yisrael” is a more specific term than “Keil”, then why isn’t the name of the altar simply “Elokei Yisrael”? Ibn Ezra answers that the addition of “Keil” serves as a descriptive term, in this case that “Elokei Yisrael” is strong and mighty since that is the connotation of “Keil”.

Vayishlach

2011-12-05T12:38:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/71.html

Vayetze Answers

2011-12-05T12:36:00.001+02:00

VaYetze 5727

Alef.

1. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction between these commentators. Sephorno claims that these names had been used previously. Eliyahu ben Amozeg states that the fact that the names were Hebrew rather than Aramaic shows how much Yaakov valued the Hebrew language despite his having been away from Canaan for twenty years. The names could have been in Hebrew, and used by ancestors in Canaan in the past.

2. A proof to Sephorno’s contention that these names had been previously used by earlier generations is his citing of Beraishit 26:34 where one of Eisav’s wives was named Yehudit, a female equivalent of Yehuda.

Beit.

1. R. Yaakov b’r Shlomo ben Chaviv asks about the apparent anachronism in the Talmud where Reuven’s name is explained as Leah’s calling attention to the fact that whereas Eisav hated Yaakov for supplanting him as the Bechor, Reuven did not harbor similar feelings towards Yosef, although the same thing takes place. Since Yosef had not as yet been born, why should Leah have been naming her son in light of something that was not as yet even possible? Consequently, the commentator feels that the reason for Leah’s naming her first son Reuven that appears in the Bible, i.e., HaShem has Seen my affliction, should suffice.

It could be said as R. Yaakov states in passing that via picking this name, she was prophesying without realizing it. Even if there is a conscious reason for why a name is given by a parent to a child, the origin for the idea could come from without, even implanted by HaShem. An example of such a phenomenon is the naming of Yishmael:

בראשית פרק טז

(יא) וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְקֹוָק הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּי שָׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֶל עָנְיֵךְ:

(טו) וַתֵּלֶד הָגָר לְאַבְרָם בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָם שֶׁם בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה הָגָר יִשְׁמָעֵאל:

When the angel originally stated that Hagar’s child would be called Yishmael, Avraham was not present. Yet when the child is born, the text states that it is Avraham that gives Yishmael his name, a name that had been previously established by the Divine.

2. Iyun Yaakov asks with regard to the Derasha in Berachot 7b, why when demonstrating how Eisav hated Yaakov regarding the latter’s supplanting him for the Bechora, the verse reflecting how Eisav felt about Yaakov is mentioned before the verse in which he notes that Yaakov’s name is appropriate because it suggests how he has taken advantage of Eisav a number of times—“hitching a ride” upon being born, “buying” the Bechora for a bowl of lentils, masquerading at Eisav in order to obtain Eisav’s blessing—although in the Tora the order of these verses is reversed.

Perhaps the order of verses that were mentioned in the Talmud was reversed because the point of emphasis was how Eisav felt about his sibling, the reason why this was so was of less significance. Furthermore, when comparing Reuven to Eisav, the comparison focuses upon the attitude of the two men to their competitor-sibling, the reasons for why they might have felt resentment were not the same, e.g., Yosef had not done anything to Reuven twice; Yosef’s name did not suggest anything about replacing Reuven.

3. Anaf Yosef challenges the Gemora’s Derasha with respect to the contention that Eisav hated Yaakov because of both the taking of the Bechora as well as dishonestly obtaining the blessing. Yet the verse which describes how Eisav feels towards Yaakov is only about the blessing.

One could say that since both Rivka and Yaakov were under the impression that Yitzchak’s intention to give Eisav a blessing before he died was due to his viewing Eisav as the first-born, the two were intrinsically connected. (However the fact that Yitzchak gives Yaakov yet another blessing before he leaves for Padan Aram (Beraishit 28:1-4) demonstrates that even if Yitzchak thought that Eisav was the Bechor and had a particular blessing in mind for him, the special blessing that originated with Avraham was never meant for Eisav, whether he was technically the Bechor or not.

Gimel.

1. The question that the commentators are addressing is why now that Leah has given birth to a third child does she expect Yaakov to be any more attentive to her than he was previously?

2. RaShI: Assuming that Yaakov was aware of the total number of women with whom he would have children as well as the number of tribes he would found, Leah’s having a third son entitles her to be finally considered a full-fledged contributor to the formation of the Jewish people.

Mincha Belula: Practically speaking, Yaakov will not have to literally “give me a hand” to take care of the three children that I have bore to him, since I cannot manage alone.

Sephorno: Having a third child establishes my status as a fertile woman who can conceive children.

Daled.

Beraishit 30:20

And Leah said: 'God hath endowed me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.' And she called his name Zebulun.

1. HaRechasim LaBika is bothered by the superfluity of the root

זבד

, i.e., if the verb form

זבדני

is used at the beginning of the verse, why does

זבד

have to be used yet again?

One could respond that the verb

זבדני

simply suggests that one has been given something, but no value judgment is being offered regarding the nature of that which one has been endowed.

זבד טוב

makes clear the desirability and appreciation of the recipient for what has been given.

2. The three questions that RaShI might be answering via his comment are:

a. With which one of his wives had Yaakov been living most of the time until this point? (By Leah stating that from this point going forward, she expects Yaakov to be with her, this suggests that until this time he has not been. And therefore we understand how irksome it was for Leah and her children that upon Rachel’s death, Yaakov moves in with Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden, rather than Leah.)

b. Why at this particular point in time does Leah expect Yaakov to move in permanently with her rather than with Rachel or one of the handmaidens? (By serving as the mother of the majority of Yaakov’s sons, Leah thinks that she has earned the right to be considered the primary wife.)

c. By Leah being part of the general encampment, it could be said that Yaakov does dwell with her. Obviously, however, this was not satisfactory to Leah, who felt that it was publicly humiliating for her when Yaakov chooses to make his main residence in Rachel’s tent. Leah was not satisfied with having the majority of Yaakov’s children; she also wanted the majority of Yaakov’s attention and physical presence.

Heh.

. The problem is the apparent inconsistency in Targum Onkelos concerning how he translates the verb

ראה

with respect to HaShem. If it were a problem of avoiding anthropomorphism as much as possible, then it should always be translated in a non-literal manner.

RaMBaM: Since “seeing” in TaNaCh connotes not only sensory perception, but also intellectual contemplation, the word should never be considered a form of anthropomorphism vis-à-vis HaShem. Consequently, RaMBaM wonders why Onkelos did not simply translate the term simply in every case that it is associated with HaShem. (An answer is given in the Alon HaDeracha, to the effect that whenever the “seeing” is associated with something untoward or sinful, then a more indirect language is used with respect to HaShem.)

יא"ר

: If a human being can actually “see” something, then “seeing” will also be attributed to HaShem. It is only when human beings are incapable of “seeing” what is being discussed, e.g., some internal thought or feeling, that a language of “revealed before HaShem” will appear in Onkelos.

ShaDaL: In addition to mentioning the position articulated by

יא"ר

, ShaDaL also mentions the possibility that if the anthropomorphism would bring discredit to HaShem, then Onkelos will diverge from a literal translation, which would not be the case if the anthropomorphism brings credit to HaShem.

. The usage of “seeing” in 29:31 is an internal thing. Hatred is an emotion that resides within a person, albeit there could be manifestations in outward actions. But such actions are sometimes ambiguous and cannot be always relied upon to conclude that a certain emotion is extent. The usage of “seeing” in 29:32 appears to relate to actual acts of affliction, something that is not only readily apparent to the human eye, but also something regrettable and negative. Consequently with respect to HaShem, a more indirect language is utilized.

2. In 29:35 and 30:20, the connotation of the term

הפעם

is “this time” as opposed to previous times. Leading to the Targum

הדא זמנא

In Shemot 9:27, when Pharoah says, “I have sinned this time”, it is not the first time that he has sinned, since he has refused to let the Jews leave Egypt previously. Consequently there could not be the stark contrast between this time and previous times that are implied by 29:35 and 30:20.

In 9:17, Pharoah is requesting that his sin be forgiven this time, once again, the sins for which he should be forgiven have begun a good time before, with his refusal of Moshe’s first and subsequent requests that the Jews be freed.

In Shemot 18:32, Avraham has been bargaining with HaShem regarding the fate of the inhabitants of Sodom and Amora for a while, and therefore this is not the first time that he is making a request.

Vayetze

2011-11-27T16:23:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/70.html

Toldot answers

2011-11-24T11:18:00.001+02:00

Toldot 5729

Alef.

1. Yitchak asked Eisav to hunt and catch game implying a wild animal (27:3) . Rikva asks Yaakov to prepare a kid, a domesticated animal (Ibid. 9). If the taste of the two animals was significantly different, Yitzchak would have immediately wondered about the identity of the person standing before him.

2. Sefer HaZikaron, cited in the Alon HaDeracha attached to this Gilayon, suggests that the problem for RaShI is that adjectives are not formed from nouns that are natural, e.g.,

בשר, שער, מטר, גשם

, or from manufactured objects, e.g.,

מטה, שלחן,

,כסא, מנרה

. Therefore the although the phrase in the Tora seems to use

שער

as an adjective, it has to be understood as if it states

איש בעל שער

, thereby allowing for the understanding that Eisav was a hairy individual.

3. The problem would appear to be why should Eisav tell Yitzchak to stand and then immediately to sit? The Targum suggests that the sitting is not in a vacuum, but at the table in order that Yitzchak be able to eat.

. RaShI, based upon the Midrash, interprets Yaakov’s words as “white lies” in the sense that he ambiguously states things in such a way that Yitchak would be misled by them.

R. Aharon states that what is of the essence is what Yitzchak heard, not what or how Yaakov said these things. Consequently it must be concluded that Yaakov lied to Yitzchak since Yitzchak had drawn a false impression.

The principle that words depend upon what people hear rather than what a person says is exemplified in the following passage from Nedarim 25a

But it was taught: When an oath is administered, he [the man swearing] is admonished: 'Know that we do not adjure you according to your own mind, but according to our mind

and the mind of the Court.' Now, what does this exclude? Surely the case of one who gave [his creditor] checkers [tokens in game] and [mentally] dubbed them coins; and since he is admonished, 'according to our intention,' it follows that [otherwise] one may swear in his own sense? — No. It excludes such an incident as Raba's cane. A man with a monetary claim upon his neighbor once came before Raba, demanding of the debtor, 'Come and pay me.' 'I have repaid you,' pleaded he. 'If so,' said Raba to him, 'go and swear to him that you have repaid.' Thereupon he went and brought a [hollow] cane, placed the money therein, and came before the Court, walking and leaning on it. [Before swearing] he said to the plaintiff: 'Hold the cane in your hand'. He then took a scroll of the Law and swore that he had repaid him all that he [the creditor] held in his hand. The creditor thereupon broke the cane in his rage and the money poured out on the ground; it was thus seen that he had [literally] sworn to the truth:

. The second half of the verse in Hoshea has nothing to do with trickery or deception, but rather a physical struggle. That would not be relevant in terms of Yaakov’s tricking Eisav. On the other hand, the first portion of the verse is a form of trickery, in the sense that Yaakov was holding onto to Eisav’s heel as they emerged from the womb, taking advantage of his brother’s struggles, rather than making his own way out of the womb.

הושע פרק יב

ד) בַּבֶּטֶן עָקַב אֶת אָחִיו וּבְאוֹנוֹ שָׂרָה אֶת אֱלֹקים :ל' רש"י: "ובאונו רמה את אביו".

In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being (a reference to Yaakov’s struggle with the angel prior to his encounter with Eisav in Beraishit 32:25-33.)

5. If Yitzchak was interested in Yaakov’s voice, then why did he not reflect upon it immediately after Yaakov’s first speaking in v. 18? The fact that Yitzchak waits, and also touches Yaakov suggests that he was not drawn to the timber in Yaakov’s voice, but rather in his style and idiom. Because in v. 19 he uses the word

נא

, which could mean “please” and in v. 20 Yaakov attributes his rapid “return” to God Smoothing the way so that he was successful quickly, Yitzchak realizes that this is neither Eisav’s idiom or style, and consequently asks for Yaakov to come closer for a tactile inspection.

בראשית פרק כז

(יח) וַיָּבֹא אֶל אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּנִּי מִי אַתָּה בְּנִי:

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

(כ) וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל בְּנוֹ מַה זֶּה מִהַרְתָּ לִמְצֹא בְּנִי וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי הִקְרָה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֶיךָ לְפָנָי:

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב גְּשָׁה נָּא וַאֲמֻשְׁךָ בְּנִי הַאַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו אִם לֹא:

(כב) וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב אֶל יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיְמֻשֵּׁהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו:...

(לא) וַיַּעַשׂ גַּם הוּא מַטְעַמִּים וַיָּבֵא לְאָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר לְאָבִיו יָקֻם אָבִי וְיֹאכַל מִצֵּיד בְּנוֹ בַּעֲבֻר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

6. (The RaShI that is being referenced is on v. 39, not v. 28).

. In addition to Eisav serving as the progenitor of the land of Edom in the short term, he is viewed by the Rabbis as the spiritual father of Rome in the long term. (See for e.g., RaDaK on Daniel 8:23.) Consequently to associate him with the geographical area of Rome in terms of Yitzchak’s blessing solidifies that association.

. In verse 28, when Yitzchak was speaking to Yaakov, who was taking Eisav’s place, there was not the sense of the competition of cultures between Yaakov and Eisav and therefore “fertile places of the land” could carry a generic connotation. When, however, Yitzchak realizes that Yaakov was prepared to use extreme measures to obtain the blessing, he realized that this was a matter of a clash of civilizations, and therefore referencing the tension between Hellenism and Judaism in general, and Rome and Jerusalem in particular is apt.

. In verse 36,

לו) וַיֹּאמֶר הֲכִי קָרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אָצַלְתָּ לִּי בְּרָכָה:

Eisav is musing, wondering whether Yaakov’s name not only described his hanging onto Eisav’s foot during the birth process, but also predicted the usurpment of the blessing that he has now experienced.

In verse 38,

לח) וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אֶל אָבִיו הַבְרָכָה אַחַת הִוא לְךָ אָבִי בָּרֲכֵנִי גַם אָנִי אָבִי וַיִּשָּׂא עֵשָׂו קֹלוֹ וַיֵּבְךְּ:

Eisav is not asking a question of his father, but rather is expressing a feeling of shock and hurt that ostensibly the blessing that he was counting on receiving, has been obtained by his brother. He is not simply asking a question that has a yes or no answer, but rather demanding his own blessing, expressing his incredulity that no blessings remain for him, despite Yaakov’s act of dishonesty.

. In the two cases in Beraishit there is a rhetorical positive quality to the usage of

הכי

—“Isn’t he rightly named Jacob?”—yes. “Aren’t you my brother (relative)?”—yes.

However in the case of Iyov, it is a rhetorical negative statement—“Did I ask you to give?”—no.

בראשית כז

לו) וַיֹּאמֶר הֲכִי קָרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אָצַלְתָּ לִּי בְּרָכָה:

And he said: 'Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing.' And he said: 'Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?'

בראשית פרק כט

(טו) וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן לְיַעֲקֹב הֲכִי אָחִי אַתָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּנִי חִנָּם הַגִּידָה לִּי מַה מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּךָ:

And Laban said unto Jacob: 'Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?'

איוב פרק ו

כב) הֲכִי אָמַרְתִּי הָבוּ לִי וּמִכֹּחֲכֶם שִׁחֲדוּ בַעֲדִי:

Did I say: 'Give unto me'? or: 'Offer a present for me of your substance'?

. While there may be many instances of the

indicating a question, there are not that many instances of either multiple possibilities presented from which one needs to choose, or rhetorical questions being asked. These examples are not pure questions but rather unique types and that is why RaShI had to scrounge them up from distant locations.

במדבר פרק יג

יט) וּמָה הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הוּא יֹשֵׁב בָּהּ הֲטוֹבָה הִוא אִם רָעָה וּמָה הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בָּהֵנָּה הַבְּמַחֲנִים אִם בְּמִבְצָרִים:

כ( וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים:

and what the land is that they dwell in, whether it is good or bad; and what cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in strongholds; and what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good

courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.'--Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes

.--

שמואל ב פרק ג

(לג) וַיְקֹנֵן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל אַבְנֵר וַיֹּאמַר הַכְּמוֹת נָבָל יָמוּת אַבְנֵר:

And the king lamented for Abner, and said: Should Abner die as a churl dieth

--no

Beit.

. Sephorno’s problem is that despite the fact that the end of the verse states

ויברכהו

, Yitzchak continues to attempt to establish the identity of the individual before him.

בראשית פרק כז

(כג) וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ כִּי הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו שְׂעִרֹת וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ:

(כד) וַיֹּאמֶר אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי:

(כה) וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי וַיַּגֶּשׁ לוֹ וַיֹּאכַל וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן וַיֵּשְׁתְּ:

(כו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יִצְחָק אָבִיו גְּשָׁה נָּא וּשְׁקָה לִּי בְּנִי:

(כז) וַיִּגַּשׁ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיָּרַח אֶת רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ יְקֹוָק:

(כח) וְיִתֶּן לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְרֹב דָּגָן וְתִירֹשׁ:

The implication is that Yitzchak was struggling with his suspicions, leading him to regret that he doubted the person and therefore should bless him, but then being plunged into doubt yet again.

. See

א.

above.

. Since in v. 23 the text already showed Yitzchak’s readiness to bless the individual standing before him, why does it state

ויברכהו

yet again in v. 27. It seems that Yitzchak was looking for some sort of sensual stimulus to overcome his reservations. In that sense, his entire desire to eat venison before blessing Eisav (27:4) could be viewed in a similar light, i.e., that without the sensual stimulus, that time taste, as opposed to this time smell, he would be unable to summon up the passion to be able to impart the desired blessing.

. 1. Although the word

ויברכהו

now appears for a second time in v. 27 after being mentioned in v. 23, nevertheless the actual blessing begins in v. 28, only after another statement is made concerning the sensual smell that Yitzchak is experiencing.

2. The juxtaposition between the experience of smell and the imparting of the blessing

reflects the connection between sensual experience and spiritual sensibility. Similarly, in II Melachim 3:15 the prophet Elisha triggers his Divine Inspiration by listening to music.

. 1. To whom is Yitzchak addressing this comment? Is he rhetorically reflecting on his experience essentially to himself, or is there someone else to whom his comments are directed?

2. Most commentators would link

ריח בני

together, i.e., the smell of my son. Sephorno is interpreting

ראה ריח

as separate from

בני

, suggesting that he is teaching a lesson to his son about the combination of nutritive value and smell. Sephorno reverses the order of the words, placing

בני

before

ראה ריח

. 1. Sephorno is attempting to account for the “

” at the beginning of v. 28 which is the beginning of the blessing that Yitzchak is imparting. If this is the beginning of the actual blessing, why does the “

” suggest that it is the continuation of what has come before?

2. The Tetragrammaton is usually associated with the Attribute of Compassion. Out of Compassion, HaShem associated smell with food. However, when it comes to doling out land to someone, since nature is associated with the Name

אלקים

, it is this Name that will be associated with such an action.

Gimel.

Rivka instructed Yaakov to wear Eisav’s clothing.

(טו) וַתִּקַּח רִבְקָה אֶת בִּגְדֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל הַחֲמֻדֹת אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבָּיִת וַתַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן:

Since Eisav was a hunter and outdoorsman,

בראשית פרק כה

(כז) וַיִּגְדְּלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים:

it is logical to assume that his clothing did not smell all that good. Furthermore, Yaakov’s obtaining the goats from which Rikva was going to prepare the food,

בראשית פרק כז

(ט) לֶךְ נָא אֶל הַצֹּאן וְקַח לִי מִשָּׁם שְׁנֵי גְּדָיֵי עִזִּים טֹבִים וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים לְאָבִיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב:

would also have contributed to a less-than-pleasant smell. Consequently the problem is what was Yitzchak smelling that made such a positive impression upon him?

RaShI: A metaphysical component was added, i.e., the smell of a special field—the Garden of Eden.

RaShBaM: These weren’t outdoor clothes, but rather perfumed indoor clothes which overwhelmed any negative smells.

Ibn Kaspi: The actual smell was irrelevant because Yitzchak in his mind’s eye was assuming a positive attitude towards the individual standing before him.

Daled.

The rule that Onkelos follows for the root

ישב

is that a distinction is to be made between sitting at a table to eat, as opposed to dwelling in a location.

בראשית פרק כז

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

בראשית פרק כט

(יד) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לָבָן אַךְ עַצְמִי וּבְשָׂרִי אָתָּה וַיֵּשֶׁב עִמּוֹ חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים:

בראשית פרק כט

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן טוֹב תִּתִּי אֹתָהּ לָךְ מִתִּתִּי אֹתָהּ לְאִישׁ אַחֵר שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי:

בראשית פרק לז

(א) וַיֵּשֶׁב יַעֲקֹב בְּאֶרֶץ מְגוּרֵי אָבִיו בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן:

בראשית פרק לז

(כה) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה:

בראשית פרק מג

(לב) וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלָהֶם לְבַדָּם וְלַמִּצְרִים הָאֹכְלִים אִתּוֹ לְבַדָּם כִּי לֹא יוּכְלוּן הַמִּצְרִים לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָעִבְרִים לֶחֶם כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לְמִצְרָיִם:

(לג) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו הַבְּכֹר כִּבְכֹרָתוֹ וְהַצָּעִיר כִּצְעִרָתוֹ וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ:

Toldot

2011-11-21T05:44:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/83.html

Chayei Sara Answers

2011-11-16T12:51:00.001+02:00

Chaye Sara 5724

Alef.

1. RaMBaN: a) Avraham was insistent that Yitzchak’s wife belong to his family.

b) The fact that Eliezer later says that Avraham requested that the girl belong to his family was not a change that the servant made, but had been the intent all along.

Ibn Kaspi: a) This was LeChatchila, but not a “deal breaker”.

b) Eliezer’s not stating this at the outset is to be taken literally, because it would not have made a difference if it had turned out that she was not from Avraham’s family.

Or even if it had made a difference, Eliezer had plenty of additional gifts and therefore would not have cared if he had given her presents and in the end she would not have qualified since she did not come from Avraham’s family.

2. In addition to the possibility that Eliezer’s account to the family informs us of the order of his actions earlier on, v. 27, in which he thanks HaShem for Guiding him to Avraham’s family, suggests that he was always looking for Avraham’s family, as opposed to thinking that this was an ideal but not necessary.

3. Ibn Ezra’s proof is from Eliezer’s account to the family. Eliezer may have wanted to embellish the story in order to give the impression that this was fated to happen and therefore the family should not stand in the way of the inevitable. However, the true account is to be found in the original, objective account before Eliezer reprised the events.

4. The giving of the gifts to Rivka don’t seem to be a ploy in order to spread the word of Eliezer’s arrival as a bearer of gifts, the wealth of Avraham, or payment to Rivka for if nothing else, her kindness of watering his animals, because v. 22-3 mention that upon finishing watering the animals, Eliezer not only gives her the jewelry, but also asks her who her family is and whether there was place for him to stay. If he would have ended up looking for someone else, why would he have been interested in accepting lodging with Rivka’s family?

Beit.

Mincha Belula’s assumption is that the Amida is constructed as a series of Berachot HaSemuchot LeChavertot (blessings where one coming on the heels of the previous one, depends upon it, i.e., the final portion of the previous one, for its own introduction. However the very first blessing, which is standing alone, should contain the full standard blessing. Consequently, it is appropriate to ask about why “Malchut”, i.e., the portion that reads “Elokeinu Melech HaOlam”, was omitted. Consequently, because the first three Berachot of the Amida are each associated with a different one of the Avot, with the first being Birchat Avraham, therefore it is appropriate for this first verse to omit mention of Malchut in the world, in light of the context in which Avraham began described by RaShI.

Gimel.

1. The problem is how can Avraham say that Eliezer should not cause Yitzchak to “return” to Aram Naharaim when Yitzchak was born in Canaan and had never been to Aram Naharaim?

2. Ibn Ezra: Since the focus of the story is upon Avraham and his point of view, and he had lived in Aram Naharaim, Avraham’s employs the language of returning.

Ibn Kaspi: The word does not have to be taken so literally, but rather is an indication of movement from one place to another. (This discussion has interesting implications regarding the concept of Teshuva. If you are dealing with someone who never was observant and never learned about observance, then when he comes to religion, he is not returning to something which he previously left, but rather coming to a new lifestyle for the first time.)

3. Evil doers were never in “She’ol” (the grave—unless you invoke the principle of Gilgul Neshamot [reincarnation]) that would engender taking the term “return” literally when speaking of their deaths.

Daled.

. In verse 3, when he is applying an oath to Eliezer, Avraham identifies HaShem as the God of Heaven and Earth, whereas when he reflects upon his early history, he says that HaShem is God of Heaven alone.

. Just as there seems to be a reversal in terms of how Avraham refers to HaShem, so too there is a reversal with respect to the sequence of Eliezer’s giving Rivka gifts and asking her (24:22-3 vs. 47).

. In chapter 12, Avraham has not settled in to begin his campaign to spread monotheism as yet. Consequently when he constructs an alter, it is in order to acknowledge and thank HaShem for Promising to Give the land of Israel to Avraham’s offspring. Once that Promise has been made, and the Tora repeats the phrase that Avraham called on the Name of HaShem (13:4; 21:33) , we can interpret those verses as part of Avraham’s attempt to influence others to accept monotheism.

בראשית פרק יב

(ז) וַיֵּרָא יְקֹוָק אֶל אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לַיקֹוָק הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו:

(ח) וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם הָהָרָה מִקֶּדֶם לְבֵית אֵל וַיֵּט אָהֳלֹה בֵּית אֵל מִיָּם וְהָעַי מִקֶּדֶם וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לַיקֹוָק וַיִּקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְקֹוָק:

. Beraishit 13:18 After being told by HaShem to travel the length and breadth of the land, he builds an alter to HaShem, suggesting that Avraham is publicizing HaShem’s Existence in association with his travels.

Ibid. 14:14 There are students of Avraham that he takes into war with him in order to rescue Lot.

Ibid. 17:1 The Divine Order to walk before HaShem could connote Avraham’s attempt to win hearts and minds for believe in God.

. The fact that the Chitim refer to Avraham (Beraishit 23:6) as a “Prince of God” suggests that they have heard Avraham spreading the message of monotheism.

. “Diber Li=Alai” = for my needs, benefit. Speech that describes my condition, situation.

“Amar Li” = directed his speech towards me. Speech that is a communication between the speaker and me.

. Since Avraham wants to demonstrate HaShem’s Power and Beneficence to Eliezer in order to encourage him on his mission to find a wife for Yitzchak, the fact that HaShem Spoke to Avraham is less important than the content of that communication, in this case that Avraham’s offspring have been Promised that they will inherit the land of Israel. Just as HaShem is Interested in this inheritance, so too He is likely to take an interest in the identity of the wife of Yitzchak.

בראשית פרק כד

(ז) יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לִי לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִשָּׁם:

. 1. Since the verse in Chapt. 24 is talking about a benefit that would be forthcoming to Avraham’s offspring, as opposed to Avraham himself, to say that HaShem Spoke with Avraham re something that would be to his benefit is inaccurate. In the verse in Chapt. 28, we are already speaking about two generations in the future (Yaakov) and therefore the idea of Avraham’s offspring benefiting from the blessing is coming closer to fruition.

בראשית פרק כח

(טו) וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵךְ וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ אֶל הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ:

2. The problem in 24:7 is one of delayed gratification with respect to when, in terms of future generations, the benefit that was Promised would come true. The problem in 28:15 is that HaShem is Referring to a benefit and suggesting that He had Revealed Himself to Yaakov with regard to this Promise, which when we check the biblical text, do not find this to be true.

. If the reason why Avraham was objecting to Canaanite women was their immoral practices, it is quite probable that Avraham’s allies, i.e., Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, were exemplary in the manner in which they conducted themselves and their affairs, and therefore Avraham did not have to be concerned about the quality of their children in general, and in this case—the wife for Yitzchak—the propriety of their daughters.

Avraham distinguishes between the Canaanim in general and these three allies when he tells the King of Sodom that his men are entitled to a share of the spoils, even if other Canaanites would not be—Beraishit 14:24.

. If we assume that Avraham’s intention was for Yitzchak to marry not only someone from his country of origin, but also from his family, it is logical to assume that if this does not work out, then there are potential mates from others who are part of Avraham’s extended family, i.e., Yishmael and Lot, to the exclusion of daughters of the three allies, who albeit “having Avraham’s back”, nevertheless are closer to the Jewish people than the children of Avraham’s allies.

4. Perhaps Rivka’s family would take offense if they are told that Yitzchak did not have permission to leave Israel in order to visit them. Therefore Avraham via Eliezer, is trying to reassure the family that a future offspring i.e., Yaakov, will return to Aram Naharayim. And even continue to live there for s significant amount of time.

Heh.

ז וַיָּ֧קָם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת׃

1. There is a disconnect between the verb at the beginning of the verse, “VaYakam” and the subsequent verse, “VaYishtachu”. If “VaYakam Avraham” is a phrase unto itself, as the Baalei HaTa’amim, implied when they imposed notes that would group the two words at the beginning of the verse together. A Zakef associated with “Avraham” would then assume one continuum between the two verbs, probably suggesting that Avraham rose, walked over to the leadership of Benia Chet and bowed at that point.

2. Since in v. 3 the essential meaning is for Avraham getting up, there will be emphasis upon the “VaYakam”. In v. 7, the emphasis is upon the “VeYishtachu”, a downwards movement and therefore the note is applied in accordance with the sense of the verse.

Chayei Sara

2011-11-15T08:11:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/306.html

Parshat Vayera Answers

2011-11-08T13:57:00.002+02:00

VaYera 5728

Alef.

בראשית פרק יט

(יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי:

(יט) הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי:

(כ) הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:

Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one?--and my soul shall live.'

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ:

(כב) מַהֵר הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר עַד בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הָעִיר צוֹעַר:

(כג) הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צֹעֲרָה:

(כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(כה) וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה:

(כו) וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח:

1. Mizrachi’s question on RaShI is: in light of ChaZaL thinking that the phrase “

והוא מצער

” is so obvious that a Derash is required to account for it, why does RaShI then proceed to treat it in accordance with the simple meaning? If the simple meaning was deemed by the Rabbis so problematic that the Rabbis had to reinterpret the phrase, why doesn’t RaShI simply cite the Midrash and then move on to the next verse?

Whereas Levush HaOra claims that the Peshat is nevertheless an implied Derash: if there are few people, then even if there is corruption among them, the relatively small quantity of corruption that could be carried out by such few people should justify the place being spared.

An alternate interpretation of the Peshat to make it appear to be adding something to the discussion that is not readily apparent, would be to understand Lot as claiming that since there are so few people in this town, the likelihood of them negatively influencing him is far less than it was in Sodom and Amora. Consequently it should be viewed as a proper sanctuary for Lot and his two daughters.

2. The last verse in Yona:

יונה פרק ד

(יא) וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה:

The implication of this verse is that HaShem specifically has compassion over a large city and would Wish to spare it at all costs. Implied is that a small city would not come up for special consideration and perhaps would be included in the destructive Gezeira.

Beit.

According to R. S.R. Hirsch, when Lot says, “

והוא מצער

”, he is anticipating the objection that since the intention is that he should come away with only his life and no property, allowing him to take up residence in a near-by city might enable him to once again build his life up commercially and materially. Consequently, he says that this place is such an insignificant place, that personal advancement for him will prove impossible.

Whereas RaShI according to the Midrash has Lot focusing upon the minimal criminality of the place, and according to the Peshat, to the lack of damage that the few corrupt residents of the place might perpetrate, i.e., a reflection of the population of the place, R. Hirsch understands Lot’s concern to center upon his personal prospects in the city.

The problem with R. Hirsch’s interpretation might be the last two words of the verse, “

ותחי נפשי

” implying that his argument concerned only surviving in the place and therefore justifying that the place be spared from the destruction intended for the surrounding area, rather than whether he would possibly re-accumulate the riches that he had to abandon in Sodom and Amora.

Gimel.

1. The verse in question:

כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

RaLBaG appears to believe, that despite the fact that there is no explicit mention in the biblical verses of “Nevi’im” (this is apparently how the commentator understands the identity of the “Malachim”) bringing about the fire and brimstone inundating and destroying the cities and the surrounding area, much in the manner that Moshe and Aharon bring about the plagues in Egypt, but rather HaShem Caused it to rain down these substances on Sodom and Amora, nevertheless God did not independently initiate these phenomenon.

2. Both RaLBaG and Chizkuni suggest that Mrs. Lot became a pillar of salt, matching the salt that covered the area as a result of its being subjected to fire and sulfur. Therefore the salt connected to her was not unique compared to the state of the rest of the area, but rather a way of saying that she was absorbed into the locale’s ruined condition. The typical interpretation of v. 26 is that while the rest of the area was destroyed in one way, Mrs. Lot’s transformation was into a different substance.

3. In verse 17 where the angel gives Lot instructions, he specifically states that anyone who looks upon what is taking place in Sodom and Amora will be absorbed into the destruction:

יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

Daled.

Abrabanel understands Mrs. Lot’s “looking back” as figurative, i.e., that she never left the cities because she couldn’t bear to leave her possessions and two daughters.

Wiesel, on the other hand, interprets “looking back” literally, i.e., she really did turn around to see what was taking place in the cities that she had left. He conjectures that Mrs. Lot’s hesitations about the having to leave originated from her lack of belief that the prediction that the cities were about to be destroyed was actually going to come true. She would have been left in the cities to meet the same fate as their inhabitants had HaShem not had Compassion on Lot, knowing that this would have deeply disturbed him. However, on the way out, Mrs. Lot by “looking back”, again demonstrates that she really didn’t believe what was happening and for this reason was caught up in the cities’ general punishment.

Heh.

A Rabbinic expression incorporated in RaShI’s commentary:

רש"י בראשית פרק יט

(לא) אבינו זקן - ואם לא עכשיו אימתי (אבות א:יד), שמא ימות או יפסוק מלהולי

Parshat Vayera

2011-11-07T08:21:00.000+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/6.html

Lech Lecha answers

2011-10-31T12:16:00.001+02:00

Lech Lecha 5728

Alef.

1. The issue that both commentators are addressing is the interruption of the story focusing upon the King of Sodom with the incident involving Malki Tzedek.

בראשית פרק יד

(יז) וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם לִקְרָאתוֹ אַחֲרֵי שׁוּבוֹ מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְאֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ אֶל עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה הוּא עֵמֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ:

(יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְקל עֶלְיוֹן:

(יט) וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְקל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כ) וּבָרוּךְ קל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח לָךְ:

(כב) וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל יְקֹוָק קל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כג) אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל וְאִם אֶקַּח מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת אַבְרָם:

(כד) בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם:

2. An alternative explanation for the apparent “interruption” in the narrative, other than those of Chizkuni and Ohr HaChayim, might suggest that the incident with Malki Tzedek had happened previously, and was called to mind by Avraham when he saw the King of Sodom approaching. “Let’s see how this King measures up to the standard set by that other King when he came to greet me.”

Beit.

1. The disagreement among the commentators arises by the ambiguity posed by the third person pronouns in verse 20:

יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְקל עֶלְיוֹן:

(יט) וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְקל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כ) וּבָרוּךְ קל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:

From the perspective of the subject of the three verses, mentioned explicitly in v. 18, it makes sense to assume that the same individual who brought out the food and offered the blessing also gave the Ma’aser, i.e., Malki Tzedek. However, the standard procedure for giving tithes is for the layperson to give the tithe to the priest, in this case, Avraham giving something to Malki Tzedek.

2. The examples from which Nechama wishes us to generalize with regard to clarifying ambiguous third person pronouns:

בראשית פרק מו פסוק כט

וַיֶּאְסֹר יוֹסֵף מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וַיַּעַל לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו גֹּשְׁנָה וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד:

And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen; and he presented himself unto him, and (he) fell on his neck, and (he) wept on his neck a good while

Who fell on whose neck and cried?

שמואל א פרק טו

(כז) וַיִּסֹּב שְׁמוּאֵל לָלֶכֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע:

And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it rent

רש"י שמואל א פרק טו פסוק כז

(כז) ויחזק בכנף מעילו - לפי פשוטו משמעו שכשפנה שמואל ללכת מאחרי שאול אחז שאול בכנף של שמואל לפי שהיה שאול מבקש ממנו שישוב עד שישתחוה בגלגל שהיה שם אהל מועד, ומדרש אגדה חולקים אמוראים יש אומרים מעילו של שמואל קרע שאול ויש אומרים מעילו של שאול קרע שמואל ומסר לו סימן זה מי שיכרות כנף מעילו הוא ימלוך תחתיו, והוא שאמר לו שאול לדוד ביום שכרת את המעיל ידעתי כי מלוך תמלוך (לקמן /שמואל א'/ כ"ד כ'):

רד"ק שמואל א פרק טו פסוק כז

(כז) ...ויחזק בכנף מעילו - שאול החזיק בכנף מעיל שמואל כדי שישוב עמו, ובמדרש חולקין בו יש אומרים כי שמואל קרע במעיל שאול ורמז לו בזה כי מי שיכרות כנף מעילו הוא ימלוך אחריו וי"א כי שמואל קרע מעילו של עצמו שכן דרכן של צדיקים להיות קורעין בשעה שאין נטיעתן משובחת:

מלכים ב פרק ח

(יד) וַיֵּלֶךְ מֵאֵת אֱלִישָׁע וַיָּבֹא אֶל אֲדֹנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מָה אָמַר לְךָ אֱלִישָׁע וַיֹּאמֶר אָמַר לִי חָיֹה תִחְיֶה:

(טו) וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיִּקַּח הַמַּכְבֵּר וַיִּטְבֹּל בַּמַּיִם וַיִּפְרֹשׂ עַל פָּנָיו וַיָּמֹת וַיִּמְלֹךְ חֲזָהאֵל תַּחְתָּיו:

(And Elisha came to Damascus; and Ben-hadad the king of Aram was sick; and it was told him, saying. 'The man of God is come hither.' And the king said unto Hazael: 'Take a present in thy hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?' So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels' burden, and came and stood before him, and said: 'Thy son Ben-hadad king of Aram hath sent me to thee, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?' And Elisha said unto him: 'Go, say unto him: Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit the LORD hath shown me that he shall surely die.' And he settled his countenance stedfastly upon him, until he was ashamed; and the man of God wept. And Hazael said: 'Why weepeth my lord?' And he answered: 'Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child.' And Hazael said: 'But what is thy servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?' And Elisha answered: 'The LORD hath shown me that thou shalt be king over Aram.')

Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him: 'What said Elisha to thee?' And he answered: 'He told me that thou wouldest surely recover.' And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took the coverlet, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died; and Hazael reigned in his stead

שמות פרק לד

(ה) וַיֵּרֶד יְקֹוָק בֶּעָנָן וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם יְקֹוָק:

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and (He/he) P(p)roclaimed the Name of the LORD.

3. Another instance of this type of ambiguity in Parashat Lech Lecha is the following:

בראשית פרק טו

(ו) וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיקֹוָק וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה:

And he believed in the LORD; and He(/he) counted it to him (Him) for righteousness

4. RaShI’s defense from the attack of RaDaK can be found in:

רש"י בראשית פרק יד פסוק כג

(כג) אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל - אעכב לעצמי מן השבי:

ואם אקח מכל אשר לך - ואם תאמר לתת לי שכר מבית גנזיך, לא אקח:

(כד) הנערים - עבדי אשר הלכו אתי, ועוד ענר אשכול וממרא וגו'. ואף על פי שעבדי נכנסו למלחמה, שנאמר לעיל (פסוק טו) הוא ועבדיו ויכם, וענר וחבריו ישבו על הכלים לשמור, אפילו הכי הם יקחו חלקם. וממנו למד דוד שאמר (ש"א ל כד) כחלק היורד למלחמה וכחלק היושב על הכלים יחדיו יחלוקו. ולכך נאמר (שם פסוק כה) ויהי מהיום ההוא ומעלה וישימה לחוק ולמשפט, ולא נאמר והלאה לפי שכבר ניתן החוק בימי אברהם:

Avraham understood the concept of “to the victor go the spoils”. Consequently, as long as the King of Sodom does not take anything that is presently in his treasure stores to give to Avraham, whatever Avraham keeps or distributes to his servants and allies is by right his to do with however he please. And while he is concerned about Marit Ayin and does not want to personally benefit from anything that he has recovered that previously belonged to the King of Sodom, it is his decision to do with these things as he pleases.

5. Here is RaDVaZ’ commentary:

רדב"ז הלכות מלכים פרק ט הלכה א

וכן היה הדבר בכל העולם וכו'. כוונת הראב"ד ז"ל בהשגתו שבאברהם הוא דכתיב שקיים מעשר דכתיב ויתן לו מעשר מכל. וצ"ל כי אברהם זכה בכל הדברים הרכוש ומשם נתן למלכי צדק המעשר, ורבינו לא רצה לפרש כן שהרי אין המעשרות נוהגות אלא בגידולי קרקע שלו לפיכך תפס בדברי האגדה שאמרו שיצחק הוא שהפריש המעשר שנאמר וימצא בשנה ההיא מאה שערים וכן דעת המתרגם ורש"י ז"ל והרמב"ן ז"ל בפירוש התורה שלו, ואף על פי שלא מצינו שנצטוה על המעשר בהדיא כיון שהיו נוהגין בו משמע דמצוה היא שכן מצינו ביעקב כתיב על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה ומקרא בסיני נאמר אלא שנכתב במקומו:

A support to his approach could be cited from Devarim 14 (the Gilayon mistakenly lists Devarim 16):

דברים פרק יד

(כב) עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

The verse associates Ma’aser with produce grown from the ground, as opposed to monetary possession per se.

Gimel.

1. Nedarim 32b sees Malki Tzedek as having made a fundamental theological error to the extent that the priesthood will be removed from his line and given to Avraham. Ibn Ezra sees Malki Tzedek’s words as entirely appropriate and not at all flawed to the point of meriting punishment.

2. The verse in Tehillim cited by Nedarim 32b:

תהלים פרק קי

(ד) נִשְׁבַּע יְקֹוָק וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּה כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: 'Thou art a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek.'

RaShI cites an analogous biblical textual construction:

רש"י תהלים פרק קי פסוק ד

דברתי מלכי צדק - יו"ד יתירה כמו “רבתי עם” (איכה א:א), על דברת מלכי צדק, על פקודת מלכי צדק.

Metzudat David cites an example that parallels the root word, rather than the additional “

”:

מצודת ציון תהלים פרק קי פסוק ד

/(ד)/ על דברתי - על ענין כמו על “דברת בני אדם” (קהלת ג:יח) והיו"ד יתירה:

3. Ibn Ezra sees the verse in Tehillim as holding up Malki Tzedek as the standard by which priests will be measured, rather than the basis for why Malik Tzedek was disinherited from the priesthood. With respect to the verse from I Kings:

מלכים א פרק ה

(כג) עֲבָדַי יֹרִדוּ מִן הַלְּבָנוֹן יָמָה וַאֲנִי אֲשִׂימֵם דֹּבְרוֹת בַּיָּם עַד הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁלַח אֵלַי וְנִפַּצְתִּים שָׁם וְאַתָּה תִשָּׂא וְאַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂהאֶת חֶפְצִי לָתֵת לֶחֶם בֵּיתִי:

My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon unto the sea; and I will make them into rafts to go by sea unto the place that thou shalt appoint me, and will cause them to be broken up there, and thou shalt receive them; and thou shalt accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household.'

perhaps Ibn Ezra has the same understanding as Metzudat Tzion:

מצודת ציון מלכים א פרק ה פסוק כג

(כג) דברות - ענינו קורות קשורות יחד להנהיג אותם דרך המים כי וינהג את הצאן (שמות ג) תרגומו ודבר וכןורעו כבשים כדברים (ישעיה ה):

i.e., just as the rafts are used to traverse the sea, so also Malki Tzedek’s example will be used to construct the paradigm for how a priest should act.

4. If “

כהן

” means “

משרת

” (servant), then how is being a Kohen a badge of honor? Shemot 28:41 defines the Kohen as not just any servant, but a servant of God. The rule “

עבד מלך כמלך דמי

” (the servant of the king obtains status similar to that of the King) would then make a Kohen LeKeil Elyon superior to those who are not servants at all.

Daled.

1. Siftei Chachamim cites two problems with Malki Tzedek being described as bringing bread and wine:

a. If he wished to offer hospitality to Avraham, shouldn’t he have produced more things, as does Avraham when visited by the three angels? (Someone who has just fought, you give him refreshments, as opposed to a full-course meal.)

b.Usually, it only mentions that the host produces bread, with the things that go along with the bread being understood. Why is wine being particularly emphasized in this case? (The reference to sacrifices would include a hint of wine-libations.)

2. The referent of giving food to those who have just returned from warfare, albeit much more than just bread and wine:

שמואל ב פרק יז

(כז) וַיְהִי כְּבוֹא דָוִד מַחֲנָיְמָה וְשֹׁבִי בֶן נָחָשׁ מֵרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וּמָכִיר בֶּן עַמִּיאֵל מִלֹּא דְבָר וּבַרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי מֵרֹגְלִים:

(כח) מִשְׁכָּב וְסַפּוֹת וּכְלִי יוֹצֵר וְחִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְקֶמַח וְקָלִי וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְקָלִי:

(כט) וּדְבַשׁ וְחֶמְאָה וְצֹאן וּשְׁפוֹת בָּקָר הִגִּישׁוּ לְדָוִד וְלָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כִּי אָמְרוּ הָעָם רָעֵב וְעָיֵף וְצָמֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר:

And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched corn, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and curd, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat; for they said: 'The people is hungry, and faint, and thirsty, in the wilderness

3. Siftei Chachamim states that a) since Kedrelaomer was the king of Eilam,

בראשית פרק יד

(ט) אֵת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם וְאַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר וְאַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אֶת הַחֲמִשָּׁה:

b) Eilam was one of the sons of Shem,

בראשית פרק י

(כב) בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם:

מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרק יד

ולמה הלך מלכי צדק אצל אברהם כשחזר מן המלחמה, כדי שידע אברהם שאין בלב מלכי צדק על אברהם שום איבה על שהרג את עילם, שעילם היה בן שם, שנאמר (ובני) [בני] שם עילם וגו' (בראשית י כב):

and c) Malki Tzedek is identified with Shem,

תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדרים דף לב עמוד ב

אמר רבי זכריה משום רבי ישמעאל: ביקש הקדוש ברוך הוא להוציא כהונה משם,¹ שנאמר: )בראשית יד( “והוא כהן לקל עליון"

Therefore it stands to reason that some of Shem’s offspring died in the battle with Avraham.

4. See Daled 1 b).

Parshat LEch Lecha

2011-10-30T21:59:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/4.html

Parshat Noach Answers

2011-10-24T20:51:00.001+02:00

Noach 5722

בראשית פרק ז

(ד) כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כָּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(יא) בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִבְקְעוּ כָּל מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם רַבָּה וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם נִפְתָּחוּ:

(יב) וַיְהִי הַגֶּשֶׁם עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה:

(יז) וַיְהִי הַמַּבּוּל אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיִּרְבּוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֶת הַתֵּבָה וַתָּרָם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ:

(יח) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַתֵּלֶךְ הַתֵּבָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם:

(יט) וְהַמַּיִם גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְכֻסּוּ כָּל הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת כָּל הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(כ) חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִלְמַעְלָה גָּבְרוּ הַמָּיִם וַיְכֻסּוּ הֶהָרִים:

(כד) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם:

בראשית פרק ח

(א) וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹקים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֵת כָּל הַחַיָּה וְאֶת כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה וַיַּעֲבֵר אֱלֹקים רוּחַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם:

(ב) וַיִּסָּכְרוּ מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(ג) וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם:

Alef.

1. On the one hand, the Tora states (7:12) that the Flood was constituted of forty days and nights of release of water from above and below. On the other hand, the Tora states (7:24) that the Flood was on the earth 150 days. The question is was any additional water released during the balance (110 days) of the Flood, or was all of the destruction due to only forty days of water being introduced from the depths and the heavens?

2. It seems to me that there are only two solutions: Ibn Ezra posits that additional water was added past the original forty days, while Wiesel and Cassuto do not think so, with the assuaging of the waters already beginning immediately after those first forty days.

3. Ibn Ezra: The waters increased…

Wiesel, Cassuto: The waters had risen…

4. Ibn Ezra believes that this is the first time that no additional water was added to the world following the beginning of the Flood.

5. Although Beraishit 1 and the beginning of Beraishit 2 lists events that take place following man’s Creation:

בראשית פרק א

(כו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כז) וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹקים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם:

(כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

בראשית פרק ב

(א) וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל צְבָאָם:

(ב) וַיְכַל אֱלֹקים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה:

(ג) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹקים אֶת יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹקים לַעֲשׂוֹת: פ

(ל) וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:

(לא) וַיַּרְא אֱלֹקים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי: פ

the subsequent material in Chapter 2 expands upon the account of the Creation of man and what happens to him already mentioned in Chapter 1.

בראשית פרק ב

(ד) אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם:

(ה) וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן before 1:26

לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה:

(ו) וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת כָּל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(ז) וַיִּיצֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה: detail of v. 27

(ח) וַיִּטַּע יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים גַּן בְּעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר:

(ט) וַיַּצְמַח יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע:

(י) וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַגָּן וּמִשָּׁם יִפָּרֵד וְהָיָה לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים:

(יא) שֵׁם הָאֶחָד פִּישׁוֹן הוּא הַסֹּבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הַזָּהָב:

(יב) וּזֲהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא טוֹב שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם:

(יג) וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ:detail of v. 29

(יד) וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוּא פְרָת:

(טו) וַיִּקַּח יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ:

(טז) וַיְצַו יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל:

(יז) וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת:

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ:

(יט) וַיִּצֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה יִּקְרָא לוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמוֹ:

(כ) וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ:

(כא) וַיַּפֵּל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה:detail of v. 27-8

(כב) וַיִּבֶן יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם:

(כג) וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת:

(כד) עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד:

(כה) וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ:

6. It would have been expected that the birth of Adam and Chava’s third child

בראשית פרק ד

(כה) וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹקים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן:

(כו) וּלְשֵׁת גַּם הוּא יֻלַּד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְקֹוָק: פ

should have been mentioned in close proximity to the births of Kayin and Hevel (immediately following 4:2), or at the very least, right after Hevel’s murder at the hands of Kayin (4:15) before discussing Kayin’s own descendants (4:17-24).

7. RaShI and Ibn Ezra are advocates of the rule “Ein Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTora” (the events in the Tora do not follow a chronological sequence.) This would allow for an interpretation of the “plus perfect”, i.e., the past perfect, “this had already happened in the past”. The “Vav HaHipuch” form of verbs frequently used in the Bible which take future tenses and turn them into past tenses would seem to reflect the Hebrew language’s aversion to such an interpretation in the sense that past and future are blended together in single word forms, then it would be greatly confusing if we could not assume that at least the contents of the stories are being presented in chronological order.

Beit.

Ibn Ezra:

How can there be “forgetfulness” with respect to HaShem that He has to “Remember” Noach?

The remembrance of Noach’s good deeds comes before HaShem at that particular moment.

RaMBaN:

a. (Essentially the same question that Ibn Ezra poses.)

The “Remembrance” of Noach was due to the covenant that HaShem Entered into with this Tzaddik.

b. Since Noach’s family is also save, why doesn’t the text state that HaShem Remembered them?

They are included in the Memory of Noach.

c. Why should HaShem “Remember” the animals in the Ark if they don’t have the ability to make moral choices and therefore can’t be judged as to whether or not they are worthy of being remembered?

HaShem “Remembered” the purpose for Creating the world, which depended upon animals being part of that Creation.

d. Why does He Decide at this particular point to remove the water and allow the inhabitants of the Ark to emerge?

Because had they stayed any longer in the Ark, they would have died.

e. Why aren’t birds and fish included in the “Remembrance”?

They are included in the “Remembrance” of the animals.

Rabbeinu Bechaye:

Why does the verse mention that HaShem “Remembered” both Noach and the animals?

To demonstrate that HaShem’s Divine Supervision Applies to all equally.

Ibn Kaspi:

How is it possible that the same Divine Supervision Applies equally to Noach and the animals?

Logically, it does not and therefore the verse should not be interpreted in that manner.

Cassuto:

(The same question asked by Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN.)

God’s “Remembrance” is to be understood as His Acting upon a Promise that He originally Made. In this case, He Promised to Save Noach from the Flood that He was Bringing to Destroy the inhabitants of the world, and He is now Acting upon that Promise to Make it come true.

Gimel.

Ibn Kaspi is bothered by the ostensible implication that the word “Ad” somehow reflects the existence of some type of physical barrier that does not allow the subject of the sentence to proceed any further. But that is not the case in this particular verse, where the word “Ad” is an adverb defining the length of time or the phenomenon that would occur marking the end of the raven’s sojourn outside of the Ark.

Daled.

) Perhaps the Rabbis thought that once the text stated that Noach was aware of the fact that the floodwaters had disappeared, then why didn’t he take the initiative and leave the Ark without God’s Commanding him to do so. Consequently they assume that there was some sort of assurance demanded by Noach before he and those with him would set foot on dry land.

בראשית פרק ח

(יג) וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּסַר נֹחַ אֶת מִכְסֵה הַתֵּבָה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה חָרְבוּ פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(יד) וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ יָבְשָׁה הָאָרֶץ: ס

(טו) וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹקם אֶל נֹחַ לֵאמֹר:

(טז) צֵא מִן הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּבָנֶיךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ:

(יז) כָּל הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּךָ מִכָּל בָּשָׂר בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ הוצא הַיְצֵא אִתָּךְ וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

) The Midrash inferred from the verse in Yeshayahu:

ישעיהו פרק נד

(ט) כִּי מֵי נֹחַ זֹאת לִי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מֵעֲבֹר מֵי נֹחַ עוֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ כֵּן נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מִקְּצֹף עָלַיִךְ וּמִגְּעָר בָּךְ:

For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee

that as long as there was the possibility that another Flood would be sent by God, Noach had no interest in disembarking from the Ark. The prospect of having children and flourishing, only to be wiped out by another devastating catastrophe, according to the Midrash, had no appeal for Noach.

Similarly, the people have to be assured by HaShem that there will not be another far-reaching destruction before they agree to return from Bavel:

Yeshayahu 48:

ישעיהו פרק מח

(יז) כֹּה אָמַר יְקֹוָק גֹּאַלְךָ קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ מְלַמֶּדְךָ לְהוֹעִיל מַדְרִיכֲךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ תֵּלֵךְ:

(יח) לוּא הִקְשַׁבְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָי וַיְהִי כַנָּהָר שְׁלוֹמֶךָ וְצִדְקָתְךָ כְּגַלֵּי הַיָּם:

(יט) וַיְהִי כַחוֹל זַרְעֶךָ וְצֶאֱצָאֵי מֵעֶיךָ כִּמְעֹתָיו לֹא יִכָּרֵת וְלֹא יִשָּׁמֵד שְׁמוֹ מִלְּפָנָי:

(כ) צְאוּ מִבָּבֶל בִּרְחוּ מִכַּשְׂדִּים בְּקוֹל רִנָּה הַגִּידוּ הַשְׁמִיעוּ זֹאת הוֹצִיאוּהָ עַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ אִמְרוּ גָּאַל יְקֹוָק עַבְדּוֹ יַעֲקֹב:

(כא) וְלֹא צָמְאוּ בָּחֳרָבוֹת הוֹלִיכָם מַיִם מִצּוּר הִזִּיל לָמוֹ וַיִּבְקַע צוּר וַיָּזֻבוּ מָיִם:

(כב) אֵין שָׁלוֹם אָמַר יְקֹוָק לָרְשָׁעִים: ס

Oh that thou wouldest hearken to My Commandments! then would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea; Thy seed also would be as the sand, and the offspring of thy body like the grains thereof; his name would not be cut off nor destroyed from before Me. Go ye forth from Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye: 'The LORD hath Redeemed His servant Jacob. And they thirsted not when He Led them through the deserts; He Caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them; He Cleaved the rock also, and the waters gushed out.' There is no peace, Saith the LORD concerning the wicked

(Yitz Greenberg: Having children in a post-Holocaust age is an act of courage, optimism.

Bava Batra

60b

And from the day that a Government has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts

and does not allow us to enter into the 'week of the son'

(according to another version, 'the salvation of the son'),

we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously.)

) Although Noach was in effect the “caretaker” of the world, in the sense of the human and animal species, he was only a surrogate for HaShem, Who, once the Flood was over and the water had receded, Wished to Resume His previous Position as the true Caretaker of the World.

2. The difference between the two Midrashim re Noach’s offering sacrifices has to do with what gave him the idea.

Beraishit Rabba posits that the catalyst was the extra Kosher animals that Noach had been Commanded to take onto the Ark. He deduced that there was some immediate special purpose for having specifically these animals available to him.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer asserts that the idea came to Noach because of feelings of gratitude towards God for having saved him from the Flood. Only after he was overcome with such feelings did he hit upon the idea of offering the extra Kosher animals as sacrifices.

) According to this Midrash, the sacrifice represents the attribute of Mesirat Nefesh, i.e., readiness for self-sacrifice on the part of the individual who brings the sacrifice.

) Avraham, on the one hand, and Chanania, Mishael and Azarya on the other, apparently shared similar attitudes with regard to the readiness for self-sacrifice, since they were ready to be cast into a fiery furnace—Avraham in the Midrashic descriptions of his encounter with Nimrod, and C., M. and A. who according to the book of Daniel are cast into the furnace upon Nevuchadnezzar’s orders. Since so many generations separate these men, the Midrash refers to them as grandfather and grandsons. But by attaching this idea to Noach’s sacrifices, the Midrash suggests that the potential for people like these descending from Noach justifies the preservation of mankind despite their serious transgressions.

) To say that Hashem “Smells” a goodly smell from the Korbanot is extremely anthropomorphic. Consequently the verse is interpreted by the Midrash that this is a reference to a Divine Recognition that within the human species there are exceptional spiritual individuals who justify the preservation of the entire species.

Parshat Noach

2011-10-24T20:49:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/275.html

Berashit answers

2011-10-18T13:32:00.001+02:00

Beraishit 5722
Alef.

1. The problem is that according to v. 28, man is entitled to “rule” over animal life, yet according to v. 29, this does not seem to include killing and eating animals.

בראשית פרק א

(כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

(ל) וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:

2. a. Sanhedrin 59a: Everything but animal flesh.

b. RaShI: Green grasses.

c. RaMBaN: Man is to eat specifically those things that contain seeds from which new plants and trees can be grown.

d. ShaDaL: not only grasses and fruits, but animal meat as well.

3. RaShI: Since Noach is told that animal meat is not like “Yerek Eisev”, that means that until that point, all “Yerek Eisev” was designated as food for man.

RaMBaN: The Tora text explicitly mentions grasses that have seeds from which to grow new plants and fruits that have seeds from which to grow new trees, to the exclusion of plain grasses that do not have seeds.

4. 1) Noach was given permission to use animal meat because otherwise the human species would have died out since all plant life had been destroyed in the flood.

2) Even once animal meat is permitted, it is only the flesh and not the “soul”=blood of the animal. Consequently, Shechita allows most of the blood that sustains the animal’s life to drain out.

5. According to ShaDaL, the terminology “U’Redu” (rule) means that the animals can be eaten. He claims that the fact that this is only explicitly stated with respect to Noach, but not Adam HaRishon, can be explained by noting that “U’Redu” is an explicit granting of permission to eat animals. The weakness of this interpretation is that it seems that “Ikar Chaser Min HaSefer”, i.e., something as fundamental as permission to eat animal meat should be explicitly stated rather than subtly hinted at. ShaDaL states that the fact that it was not explained explicitly to man was an Attempt on God’s Part to discourage/limit man’s blood-thirsty tendencies. However, once the world was filled with violence to the extent that God Decides to bring a Flood to destroy it, there is no fear that discussing killing animals will engender an increase in overall violence.

6. It would seem that the text would be counter to the interpretation of ShaDaL, since if God has to explicitly tell man what he can eat, and eating meat is left out, then it is difficult to claim that it was permitted at this point. It would seem that RaMBaN reads the verses most closely when he draws a distinction between the fruits and vegetables that man is allowed to eat (those that bear seeds) in contradistinction to what animals are allowed to eat (only those that do not bear seeds).

Beit.

1. Perhaps being a vegetarian corresponds to a higher spiritual plane that mankind demonstrated it was not on not only due to the sin in the Garden of Eden, but also throughout all of the generations leading up to the Flood. In the same manner that RaMBaM says in the Guide that man had to be gradually weaned from animal sacrifice, and Jonathan Sacks, based upon the 2008 book by Thaler and Sunstein entitled “Nudge” (

http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1726

) claims that man had to be gradually weaned from the concept of slavery, so too perhaps man could not immediately live as a vegetarian, but had to gradually come around to the idea.

2. The proof from Yechezkel is in order to demonstrate that no “good” goes unrewarded, even if the perpetrator of the good is generally a reprehensible individual. Therefore in exchange for Noach’s exceptional efforts regarding saving the species of animals so that the different lines could survive the Flood and begin again to inhabit the world, he as a representative of all human beings was given the right to consume animal flesh. But does it follow that an entire species should be given an eternal benefit over a collection of other speci for an action that a particular ancestor performed? Furthermore, for a particular area of the world to be included as part of an emperor’s empire does not appear comparable to a significant change in how species overall interact with one another.

3. It would seem that RaDaK is following RaMBaN’s lead, when the latter wrote, “because Noach saved some of them (the animal world) for the sake of preserving their species, permission was granted to people to Shecht and eat because their preservation was due to him.”

Gimel.

1. RaShI is trying to reconcile verses 28 and 29:

כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

If man is to rule over the animal world, why can he not eat animals? RaShI therefore emphasizes that as far as eating is concerned, at this point in time, prior to the Flood, man and animals are equal in that they must both be vegetarians.

In the Alon HaDeracha, Nechama quotes a Machloket between the MaHaRaL and the Levush regarding whether the second “Lachem” in 1:29 causes RaShI to make his comment. The above would then follow the Levush’s train of thought.

2. From RaShI’s formulation it is implied that man is restricted from killing animals in order to eat them—the Noachide prohibition of Ever Min HaChai (taking the limb from a living animal) is considered in Sanhedrin 56b to have originated already in the Garden of Eden, predating Noach himself by ten generations—but if an animal would die either from natural causes or due to the aggression of another animal, then meat would be permitted to man already prior to the Flood.

3. In light of 2 above, perhaps the converse, i.e., if a person would die of natural causes (this assumes that prior to the sin in the Garden of Eden man was still mortal, the view of RaMBaM, as opposed to RaMBaN who posited that prior to the sin, man was immortal, precluding the possibility at this point in time that a human being would die) animals were still not permitted to consume a human carcass.

4. The end of Beraishit 9:3, “KeYerek Eisev”, confirms RaShI’s interpretation that prior to the Flood, man essentially was restricted to being a herbivore, and it was only post-Flood that animal meat became as permitted as grasses.

Breshit Questions

2011-10-18T08:57:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/274.html

Sukkot answers

2011-10-11T07:29:00.001+02:00

Emor 5720 (Sukkot)
Alef.

ויקרא פרק כג

(לג) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(לד) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי הַזֶּה חַג הַסֻּכּוֹת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים לַיקֹוָק:

(לה) בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(לו) שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּקְרִיבוּ אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק עֲצֶרֶת הִוא כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(לז) אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְקֹוָק אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ לְהַקְרִיב אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק עֹלָה וּמִנְחָה זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ:

(לח) מִלְּבַד שַׁבְּתֹת יְקֹוָק וּמִלְּבַד מַתְּנוֹתֵיכֶם וּמִלְּבַד כָּל נִדְרֵיכֶם וּמִלְּבַד כָּל נִדְבֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לַיקֹוָק:

(לט) אַךְ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאָסְפְּכֶם אֶת תְּבוּאַת הָאָרֶץ תָּחֹגּוּ אֶת חַג יְקֹוָק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן שַׁבָּתוֹן וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שַׁבָּתוֹן:

(מ) וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים:

(מא) וְחַגֹּתֶם אֹתוֹ חַג לַיקֹוָק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי תָּחֹגּוּ אֹתוֹ:

(מב) בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כָּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת:

(מג) לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם:

(מד) וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי יְקֹוָק אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ

במדבר פרק כח

(א) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(ב) צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ:

(ג) וְאָמַרְתָּ לָהֶם זֶה הָאִשֶּׁה אֲשֶׁר תַּקְרִיבוּ לַיקֹוָק כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְמִימִם שְׁנַיִם לַיּוֹם עֹלָה תָמִיד:

(ד) אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם:

(ה) וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה סֹלֶת לְמִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בְּשֶׁמֶן כָּתִית רְבִיעִת הַהִין:

(ו) עֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשֻׂיָה בְּהַר סִינַי לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק:

(ז) וְנִסְכּוֹ רְבִיעִת הַהִין לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד בַּקֹּדֶשׁ הַסֵּךְ נֶסֶךְ שֵׁכָר לַיקֹוָק:

(ח) וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם כְּמִנְחַת הַבֹּקֶר וּכְנִסְכּוֹ תַּעֲשֶׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיקֹוָק: פ

(ט) וּבְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְּמִימִם וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וְנִסְכּוֹ:

(י) עֹלַת שַׁבַּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ עַל עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד וְנִסְכָּהּ: ס

(יא) וּבְרָאשֵׁי חָדְשֵׁיכֶם תַּקְרִיבוּ עֹלָה לַיקֹוָק פָּרִים בְּנֵי בָקָר שְׁנַיִם וְאַיִל אֶחָד כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה שִׁבְעָה תְּמִימִם:

(יב) וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן לַפָּר הָאֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן לָאַיִל הָאֶחָד:

(יג) וְעִשָּׂרֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד עֹלָה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק:

(יד) וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם חֲצִי הַהִין יִהְיֶה לַפָּר וּשְׁלִישִׁת הַהִין לָאַיִל וּרְבִיעִת הַהִין לַכֶּבֶשׂ יָיִן זֹאת עֹלַת חֹדֶשׁ בְּחָדְשׁוֹ לְחָדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה:

(טו) וּשְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת לַיקֹוָק עַל עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ: ס

(טז) וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ פֶּסַח לַיקֹוָק:

(יז) וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה חָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל:

(יח) בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(יט) וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה עֹלָה לַיקֹוָק פָּרִים בְּנֵי בָקָר שְׁנַיִם וְאַיִל אֶחָד וְשִׁבְעָה כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה תְּמִימִם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם:

(כ) וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל תַּעֲשׂוּ:

(כא) עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד לְשִׁבְעַת הַכְּבָשִׂים:

(כב) וּשְׂעִיר חַטָּאת אֶחָד לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם:

(כג) מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעֹלַת הַתָּמִיד תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת אֵלֶּה:

(כד) כָּאֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים לֶחֶם אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיקֹוָק עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד יֵעָשֶׂה וְנִסְכּוֹ:

(כה) וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ: ס

(כו) וּבְיוֹם הַבִּכּוּרִים בְּהַקְרִיבְכֶם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַיקֹוָק בְּשָׁבֻעֹתֵיכֶם מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(כז) וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עוֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיקֹוָק פָּרִים בְּנֵי בָקָר שְׁנַיִם אַיִל אֶחָד שִׁבְעָה כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה:

(כח) וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר הָאֶחָד שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל הָאֶחָד:

(כט) עִשָּׂרוֹן עִשָּׂרוֹן לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד לְשִׁבְעַת הַכְּבָשִׂים:

(ל) שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם:

(לא) מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד וּמִנְחָתוֹ תַּעֲשׂוּ תְּמִימִם יִהְיוּ לָכֶם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם: פ

דברים פרק טז

(א) שָׁמוֹר אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב וְעָשִׂיתָ פֶּסַח לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב הוֹצִיאֲךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ מִמִּצְרַיִם לָיְלָה:

(ב) וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם:

(ג) לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי כִּי בְחִפָּזוֹן יָצָאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְמַעַן תִּזְכֹּר אֶת יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ:

(ד) וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל גְּבֻלְךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְלֹא יָלִין מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר תִּזְבַּח בָּעֶרֶב בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר:

(ה) לֹא תוּכַל לִזְבֹּחַ אֶת הַפָּסַח בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ:

(ו) כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם תִּזְבַּח אֶת הַפֶּסַח בָּעָרֶב כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ מוֹעֵד צֵאתְךָ מִמִּצְרָיִם:

(ז) וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ וְאָכַלְתָּ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בּוֹ וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶיךָ:

(ח) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עֲצֶרֶת לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה: ס

(ט) שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעֹת תִּסְפָּר לָךְ מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה תָּחֵל לִסְפֹּר שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעוֹת:

(י) וְעָשִׂיתָ חַג שָׁבֻעוֹת לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ מִסַּת נִדְבַת יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּתֵּן כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ:

(יא) וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבֶּךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם:

(יב) וְזָכַרְתָּ כִּי עֶבֶד הָיִיתָ בְּמִצְרָיִם וְשָׁמַרְתָּ וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה: פ

(יג) חַג הַסֻּכֹּת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְךָ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בְּאָסְפְּךָ מִגָּרְנְךָ וּמִיִּקְבֶךָ:

(יד) וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְהַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

(טו) שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תָּחֹג לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק כִּי יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכֹל תְּבוּאָתְךָ וּבְכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ שָׂמֵחַ:

(טז) שָׁלוֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵרָאֶה כָל זְכוּרְךָ אֶת פְּנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחָר בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה אֶת פְּנֵי יְקֹוָק רֵיקָם:

(יז) אִישׁ כְּמַתְּנַת יָדוֹ כְּבִרְכַּת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָךְ: ס

Akeidat Yitchak, Parashat Emor, Shaar 67, daf 133b, notes that whereas Pesach involves a single day, the first, which requires the person to be in the place where Korbanot are sacrificed (Devarim 16:7) Sukkot requires the person to be in the place of sacrifices seven days (VaYikra 23:40-41). Even if sacrifices would be offered for seven days both during Pesach (BaMidbar 28:18-23), this would be done by the Kohanim on behalf of the Tzibbur, without requiring the people to remain in the place where the Pesach sacrifice was offered. However on Sukkot, in addition to the sacrifices being offered by the Kohanim for seven days ( VaYikra 23:36), there was a separate requirement for the people to remain and rejoice before HaShem for seven days.

Beit.

1. להיות נפשם מתפעלת בהם לטובה תמיד. The myriad actions that the Tora Commands man to carry out are intended to positively influence his soul constantly. (The Chinuch contends that external actions become internalized and thereby form and influence one’s spirit and values. The more actions one is Commanded to do, the greater the chance that the person will be positively influenced in this manner.)
ומתוך פעלו זה תמיד, ייחד כל מחשבותיו לטוב. Chinuch uses as an example Tefillin that lie atop one’s brain and point towards one’s heart, indicating that wearing Tefilling constantly (in the times of the Talmud, men would wear Tefillin all day, taking them off only when they had to spend time in an inappropriate environment, like a bathroom or bathhouse) would constantly serve as a positive influence to one’s thoughts and emotions.
2. The first reason that Chinuch gives for the Mitzva of Daled Minim is that when anyone sees these branches and fruit, they immediately feel happy. This is to combat the potential for Simcha at this time of year generated by the harvest to not be LeShem Shamayim, but rather as the result of material comfort and accomplishment. Consequently, constantly holding the Daled Minim (as in the case of Tefillin, during the Talmudic period the Talmud states that holy individuals would take their Four Species wherever they would go), would serve to positively guide one’s thoughts as to the proper source of happiness at this time of year.
The second reason offered by Chinuch is the individually, each of the Minim represents a part of the human body that should be directed to positive service of the Creator and prevented from causing inappropriate thoughts and actions, i.e., the heart, the spine, the eyes and the lips.
The basic difference between the two reasons would appear to be whether the Four Species should be viewed as a single “bouquet” with a single purpose (first reason) or as individual elements each directed at another area of behavior and activity in need of guidance and control.

Gimel.

a) According to the rule that an interpretation should not be given that flies in the face of the simple meaning of the text, how can the Rabbis ignore the fact that “הדר” means beautiful rather than what they attribute to the word, e.g., that the fruit remains upon the tree from season to season without rotting?

b) The Rabbis themselves, based upon the simple meaning of “הדר”, insist that the Etrog as well as each of the other species, be in a state of beauty/freshness . Consequently it does not make sense to interpret the word in an entirely different context if the simple meaning is necessary for the Halacha that they themselves are promulgating. If the word were superfluous, then it would be subject to reinterpretation via Derasha. But obviously if Halachot are derived from the word’s simple meaning, it is necessary for itself and not for alternative interpretations.
c) The very assumption that it can be proven from these interpretations that we are referring specifically to an Etrog is difficult in light of how far afield such interpretations are from the simple meaning of the word.
2.   The phrase in the verse “פרי עץ הדר” utilizes the word “הדר” as an adjective, rather than a verb. Yet the Rabbis’ interpretation assumes that it is a verb, i.e., a fruit that dwells on its tree (from season to season.)
3.   RaMBaM understands that the assumption that the fruit that the Tora is requiring for the Four Species is an Etrog, belongs to the category of Halacha known as “Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai”, i.e., laws that have no true basis in the biblical text, but were assumed to be revealed to Moshe as part of Tora SheB’Al Peh when he received the written text (or at least portions of it—see Gittin 60b) on Sinai. Consequently, the verse clearly uses the word “הדר” as “beautiful”; however, when pressed to provide “proofs” (perhaps it would be better to call these “indicators”) that the fruit in question is indeed an Etrog, the Rabbis use Rabbinic license to interpret the words, even if these interpretations are contrary to the simple meaning of the text. As long as they are not actual proofs, but the tradition is free-standing in its own right, there is no contradiction.
4.   The topic “an eye for an eye” according to the simple meaning of the text, means that someone who causes personal injury to someone else should be punished in the same manner.

ויקרא כד

יט וְאִישׁ, כִּי-יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ--כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ.

כ שֶׁבֶר, תַּחַת שֶׁבֶר, עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן--כַּאֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מוּם בָּאָדָם, כֵּן יִנָּתֶן בּוֹ.

כא וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה, יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה; וּמַכֵּה אָדָם, יוּמָת.

However the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai insists that monetary damages be assessed and that the principle of lex talionis is never applied. While the two issues are comparable with respect to the Bible not clearly stating what the Halacha is, in the case of the Etrog, the identity of the fruit is unknown because the Tora’s phrase is so general, whereas in the case of personal injury, the traditional interpretation is contrary to the simple meaning of the text.
5. As compared to the Sifra that RaShI quotes, in which an alternative reading to the term “הדר” is given without any reference to logic, RaMBaM attempts to logically demonstrate that the verses dealing with the topic of personal injury can logically be interpreted to support the idea that corporeal punishment is not applied but rather only monetary compensation. This is in contrast to the homiletical interpretations of the Sifra.
R. Yehuda HaLevi, in the Kuzari in two out of three of his arguments, does not even resort to verses, but presents a purely logical argument for monetary compensation in these cases. He does cite a verse at the end of his presentation.
Ibn Ezra records a debate between a Karaite, Ben Zuta, and Sa’adia Gaon regarding this matter in which the Gaon demonstrates that what the Karaite thinks is the simple meaning of the text is not so in light of parallel verses in other parts of the Tora. The commentator also refers to the Oral Tradition’s definition of the issue as monetary compensation.
The section of the Talmud that is quoted uses verses to logically and philologically demonstrate that monetary compensation is required in these cases. The readings of the verses are all literal, not forced in the manner of the Sifra regarding the Etrog.
(However it seems to me that the two cases are not comparable. Legal matters with respect to monetary concerns and compensation per force has to be logical, which is not the case in terms of Commandments between man and God which are inherently ritualistic, i.e., the basic difference between Mishpatim and Chukim, with the former making sense and the latter constituting in essence Gezeirat Melech. How does one logically debate the merits of the Etrog over another fruit when it comes to fulfilling the Commandment of the Four Species?)

רמב"ם, הלכות חובל ומזיק א' הלכה ג', ה', ו':

וזה שנאמר בתורה: "כאשר יתן מום באדם כן יינתן בו", אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחברו, אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כאשר עשה, לפיכך משלם נזקו. והרי הוא אומר (במדבר ל"ה) "ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח", לרוצח בלבד הוא שאין בו כופר, אבל לחסרון אברים או לחבלות יש בו כופר... ומניין שזה שנאמר באיברים "עין תחת עין" תשלומין הוא? שנאמר בו "חבורה תחת חבורה", ובפירוש נאמר "וכי יכה איש את רעהו באבן או באגרוף... רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא", הא למדת ש"תחת" הנאמר בחבורה תשלומין, והוא הדין ל"תחת" הנאמר בעין ובשאר איברים. ואף על פי שדברים אלה נראין מעניין תורה שבכתב וכולן מפורשין הן מפי משה רבנו מהר סיני, כולן הלכה למעשה הן בידינו וכזה ראו אבותינו דנין בבית דינו של יהושע ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובכל בית דין ובית דין שעמדו מימות משה רבנו ועד עכשיו.

כוזרי, מאמר ג' סעיף מ"ו-מ"ז:

אמר הכוזרי: הלוא עונש הנזק מפרש בתורה במה שאמר "עין תחת עין" ו"כאשר יתן מום באדם כן יינתן בו"?
אמר החבר: והלוא נאמר בסמוך לזה "ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש", הלוא זה הכופר. והלוא לא היה אומר: מי שהכה סוסך, הכה סוסו! כי אין לך תועלת בהכות סוסו. וכן מי שכרת ידך, אין אומרים לו: קח ידו, שאין בזה תועלת בכריתת ידו. כל שכן שהיה נכנס בדינין האלה מה שסותר אותו השכל מ"פצע תחת פצע" ו"חבורה תחת חבורה", איך נוכל לשער זה, שמא ימות אחד מהם מפצע, ולא ימות האחד מכמותו, ואיך נוכל לשער כמותו? ואיך נקח עין שאין לו אלא עין אחת כופר עין מי שיש לו שתי עינים, ויישאר האחד סומא, והשני בעין אחת, והתורה אמרה "כאשר יתן מום באדם כן יינתן בו"?...

והשווה לדבריו ראב"ע, שמות פרק כ"א פסוק כ"ד:

ד"ה עין: אמר רב סעדיה: לא נוכל לפרש זה הפסוק כמשמעו. כי אם אדם הכה עין חברו, וסרה שלישית אור עיניו, איך יתכן שיוכה מכה כזאת בלי תוספת ומגרעת. אולי יחשיך אור עינו כולו. ויותר קשה הכוויה והפצע והחבורה. כי אם היו במקום מסוכן אולי ימות, ואין הדעת סובלת. אמר לו בן זוטא: והלוא כתוב במקום אחר "כאשר יתן מום באדם כן יינתן בו". והגאון השיב לו: יש לנו בי"ת תחת על. והנה טעמו כן יינתן עליו עונש. ובן זוטא השיב לו: "כאשר עשה ייעשה לו". והגאון השיב: הנה שמשון אמר "כאשר עשו לי כן אעשה להם" (שופטים ט"ו י"א). ושמשון לא לקח נשותיהם ונתנם לאחרים, רק גמולם השיב להם. ובן זוטא השיב: אם היה המכה עני, מה יהיה עונשו. והגאון השיב: אם עיוור יעוור עין, פיקח - מה ייעשה לו. כי העני ייתכן שיעשיר וישלם. רק העיוור לא יוכל לשלם לעולם. והכלל לא נוכל לפרש על דרך מצוות התורה פירוש שלם, אם לא נסמוך על דברי חז"ל. כי כאשר קיבלנו התורה מן האבות, כן קיבלנו תורה שבעל פה. אין הפרש ביניהם. והנה יהיה פירוש עין תחת עין, ראוי להיותו עינו תחת עינו, אם לא יתן כופרו. ואמר הגאון כי יש שן שהעונש שלו מעט אם יהיה המוכה נער. כי אם ייכרת עוד יחליף. והזכיר היד כי היא בעלת מלאכה. והזכיר הרגל שהיא יותר קשה מהיד. כי לא יוכל האדם ללכת ברגל אחת. ולפי דעתי כי הזכיר אלה האיברים על ההווה ברוב. כי כאשר יכה אדם חברו או יכנו בעין, שהוא עומד כנגדו, או בפה, שעומד כנגדו וישבור שיניו. או ביד, שבה ילחם או יגן בעד פניו, או ברגל בברחו מפניו.

ובמקומנו פסוק י"ט:

ד"ה כן יעשה: ואמר שמשון "כן עשיתי להם". והגאון הביא ראיות משיקול הדעת כי לא ייתכן להיות שבר תחת שבר כמשמעו, כי הראשון בא בלא כוונה, ואיך ייתכן לעשות שבר כמוהו? ואם הוא במקום מסוכן, הנה ימות. וכן בעין. ומי שסר שלישית אור עינו איך יוכל לעשות כן בעין החובל? על כן דברי הקבלה אמת ,כי פירוש כל אלה שיש עליו כופר, וראוי להוציא עינו, אם לא יפדנו. ואם טענו עלינו אם היה החובל עני ותשובתנו כי על הרוב דיבר הכתוב, ושמא יעשיר העני, גם זאת התשובה על הטוענים אם היה חובל העין עיוור.

בבא קמא פ"ג ע"ב:

... יכול סימא את עינו – מסמא את עינו, קטע את ידו – מקטע את ידו, שיבר את רגלו – משבר את רגלו? תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כ"ד) "מכה אדם ומכה בהמה" – מה מכה בהמה בתשלומין – אף מכה אדם לתשלומין.
ואם נפשך לומר (רש"י: ואם יש לך להשיב ולהקשות כלום על טעם זה, צא ולמד ממדרש אחר)הרי הוא אומר (במדבר ל"ה) "ולא תקחו כפר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות" – לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר, אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברין שאין חוזרין...
...ר' שמעון בן יוחי אומר: "עין תחת עין" – ממון. אתה אומר ממון, או אינו אלא עין ממש? הרי שהיה סומא (המכה הוא סומא) וסימא (=את עין חברו), קיטע וקיטע, חיגר וחיגר (= שחיגר הכה חברו ועשאו לחיגר), האיך אני מקיים בזה: "עין תחת עין"? והתורה אמרה (ויקרא כ"ד, כ"ב) "משפט אחד יהיה לכם" – משפט השווה לכולכם...
... רב אשי אמר: אתיא "תחת" – "תחת" משור. כתיב הכא (= כאן) "עין תחת עין", וכתיב התם (שם, שמות כ"א, ל"ו): "שלם ישלם שור תחת שור", מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון.
... תנא דבי חזקיה: "עין תחת עין", "נפש תחת נפש", ולא נפש ועין תחת עין , דבהדי דעוור ליה נפקא ליה נשמתיה (כשיעוורהו – תצא נשמתו וימות)...

6. RaMBaM clearly is consistent: “וכולן מפורשין הן מפי משה רבנו מהר סיני “; Ibn Ezra also supports such a view:

והכלל לא נוכל לפרש על דרך מצוות התורה פירוש שלם, אם לא נסמוך על דברי חז"ל. כי כאשר קיבלנו התורה

מן האבות, כן קיבלנו תורה שבעל פה. אין הפרש ביניהם.

הכתב והקבלה:

פרשה זו קשה מאוד, כי לפי פשטות הדברים נראה ברור שהחובל בחברו חייבתו התורה עונש בגופו, ודבר זה יתנגד אל טבע האדם ודעתו להעניש עונשי גוף כאלה באדם. וכבר באה אלינו הקבלה האמיתית מפי רבותינו, שלא ייענש החובל לעולם עונש הגוף כי אם עונש הממון. לכן יאמרו המפרשים שהתורה לא הזכירה פה רק מה שהיה ראוי לענוש את החובל, ועל זה אמרה "כאשר עשה כן ייעשה לו" כלומר היה מן הראוי לענוש כמו אלה, וזה לא ירוה צמאון דורשי אמת, איך תזכיר התורה העונש שהיה ראוי לחול עליו, ותעלים ממנו במה ייענש באמת.

כן שואל הגור אריה:

למה לא כתבה תורה "ישלם לו ידו או מומו"?

Daled.
1.   The “מעתיקים” would appear to be the commentators who are faithful to the Rabbinic tradition and therefore present the views of the traditional Masoret, embodied in Tora SheB’Al Peh. (Ibn Ezra often quotes Karaites since he is very interested in the literal interpretation of the text to which that school of thought was extremely committed. Rabbinic tradition often is at odds with a strictly literal interpretation of the biblical text.
2.   The verse in Shemot 12:3 is speaking of the people each legally and physically acquiring an animal into their homes for the purpose of inspecting it for blemishes in preparation for eventually using it for the Pascal Sacrifice. With respect to the four species the verse is understood to connote not only that you have to have legal title to s set of branches and fruit, but you physically hold the four species and wave them on the first day of Sukkot,i.e., this is how you perform the Mitzva rather than merely prepare for it.
3.   Perhaps he is providing an alternative to the view that the Mitza of the Four Species is merely to acquire them on the first day of Sukkot, rather than do anything else with them.
4.   Just because the Etrog happens to be a beautiful fruit, according to Ibn Ezra, the most beautiful of fruits, nevertheless beauty is extremely subjective and it would not necessarily be agreed upon that the Bible is referring only to the Etrog if all we relied on was the phrase in the text. Therefore, much like in the case of the Ba’al Shem Olam in section Gimel, ultimately the identity of the fruit is a function of the tradition rather than a precise reading of the Bible.

Heh.

ויקרא פרק כג

(א) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי יְקֹוָק אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי:

(ג) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ שַׁבָּת הִוא לַיקֹוָק בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם: פ

(ד) אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְקֹוָק מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם בְּמוֹעֲדָם:

(ה) בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם פֶּסַח לַיקֹוָק:

(ו) וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה חַג הַמַּצּוֹת לַיקֹוָק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ:

(ז) בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(ח) וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ: פ

(ט) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(י) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם וּקְצַרְתֶּם אֶת קְצִירָהּ וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן:

(יא) וְהֵנִיף אֶת הָעֹמֶר לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק לִרְצֹנְכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת יְנִיפֶנּוּ הַכֹּהֵן:

(יב) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם בְּיוֹם הֲנִיפְכֶם אֶת הָעֹמֶר כֶּבֶשׂ תָּמִים בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה לַיקֹוָק:

(יג) וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ וְנִסְכֹּה יַיִן רְבִיעִת הַהִין:

(יד) וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה עַד הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת קָרְבַּן אֱלֹקיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם: ס

(טו) וּסְפַרְתֶּם לָכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת עֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת תִּהְיֶינָה:

(טז) עַד מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת הַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּסְפְּרוּ חֲמִשִּׁים יוֹם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַיקֹוָק:

(יז) מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה שְׁתַּיִם שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת תִּהְיֶינָה חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה בִּכּוּרִים לַיקֹוָק:

(יח) וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם בְּנֵי שָׁנָה וּפַר בֶּן בָּקָר אֶחָד וְאֵילִם שְׁנָיִם יִהְיוּ עֹלָה לַיקֹוָק וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיקֹוָק:

(יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים:

(כ) וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן אֹתָם עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּכֻּרִים תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק עַל שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַיקֹוָק לַכֹּהֵן:

(כא) וּקְרָאתֶם בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם בְּכָל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:

(כב) וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם: ס

(כג) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(כד) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם שַׁבָּתוֹן זִכְרוֹן תְּרוּעָה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ:

(כה) כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק: ס

(כו) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(כז) אַךְ בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי הַזֶּה יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים הוּא מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק:

(כח) וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי יוֹם כִּפֻּרִים הוּא לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם:

(כט) כִּי כָל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא תְעֻנֶּה בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְנִכְרְתָה מֵעַמֶּיהָ:

(ל) וְכָל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל מְלָאכָה בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּהּ:

(לא) כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם:

(לב) שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן הוּא לָכֶם וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּתִשְׁעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב מֵעֶרֶב עַד עֶרֶב תִּשְׁבְּתוּ שַׁבַּתְּכֶם: פ

The verses with regard to Sukkot:

לה) בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

(לו) שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּקְרִיבוּ אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַיקֹוָק עֲצֶרֶת הִוא כָּל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ:

. The justification for Berliner’s gloss on RaShI is that it would only make sense to leave out food and drink for Yom HaKippurim when one is to afflict himself and fast, as opposed to Sukkot when one certainly is supposed to eat and drink, albeit in the Sukka.

. Since on all of those days (Shabbat, Pesach and Shavuot) there is nothing outstanding about one as opposed to another, it stands to reason that one celebrates Jewish festivals and holidays with food and drink. Only when the Tora discusses Yom HaKippurim as also a

מקרא קדש

does it become necessary to draw a distinction between this day and the other days mentioned.

Sukkot Questions

2011-10-09T10:02:00.001+02:00

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1264.html

Vezot Habracha Answers

2011-10-04T08:34:00.001+02:00

VeZot HaBeracha 5713
Alef.

The appellation “Ish HaElokim” is appropriate with regard to Moshe’s blessing and making predictions for the future of the Jewish people. After all, Moshe is only prophesying what HaShem Authorizes him to say. (Even if Abrabanel posits in his introduction to Devarim that most of the book consists of Moshe’s words based upon Devarim 1:1, 5, that might be with respect to reviewing the historical events as well as the Mitzvot that were given on Sinai. However, future predictions would have to originate with HaShem.)

On the other hand, referring to Moshe as “Eved HaShem” makes sense in the verses describing his death, since this is a description of the man’s entire life, regardless of what he was saying or doing, he was a loyal and humble servant of HaShem, as HaShem Himself Attests in BaMidbar 12:7-8.

Beit.

1. According to the Midrash, Moshe’ s last request was that there should be some sort of vision that would convince the people once and for all that HaShem was Unique and Incomparable to any other being in the universe. Since Moshe warns the people so many times that they are likely to gravitate towards Avoda Zora, the Midrash suggests that he wanted to exhaust all possibilities for preventing this from occurring.

2. The verse in Kohelet is being used by the Midrash as an answer as to why once a person’s life expectancy is established, it cannot be extended, no matter how admirable and constructive what the extra time is designed to achieve.

3. It seems to me that the Midrash is suggesting that uniqueness is established not by some visual experience, but rather by reflecting upon the actions that are perpetrated. Just as Moshe’s uniqueness as a prophet is established, according to HaShem, by the miracles that he “brought about”—it was actually HaShem Who Performed the miracles, but Moshe was the immediate and apparent catalyst—so too the miracles that are associated with HaShem outstrip any comparable claim made for some other deity, and therefore this should be sufficient to establish the Jewish people’s loyalty in believing in HaShem, to the exclusion of their following any other supposed divinity.

Gimel.

1. In Devarim 32:49, HaShem Ordered Moshe to climb Mt. Nevo in order to be shown the “land of Canaan.” This then creates a difficulty with 34:1, where the land is referred to as “Gilaad”, which in BaMidbar 32:1 is part of the area on the near side of the Jordan that eventually is inhabited by the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe.

2. RaShI: Gilaad, Dan and the other areas that are mentioned represent highs and lows in future Jewish history, rather than geographical areas.

RaMBaN: Gilaad is to be taken geographically and since Moshe was standing in the Gilaad area which would eventually belong to the tribe of Reuven, when being shown the land prior to his death, and that is why Gilaad is the first place mentioned. An alternative interpretation is that Gilaad is a reference to the Lebanon area which was the far north of Israel.

3. Siftei Chachamim #6 states that the text, if it intended to just mention geography, could have more laconically said, “Et Kol HaAretz Ad Yom HaAcharon” (the entire land until the far sea). The fact that specific areas were mentioned suggested to RaShI that these were not just places, but rather loci of specific history.

4. RaShI does the same thing at the beginning of the book of Devarim:

דברים פרק א

(א) אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף בֵּין פָּארָן וּבֵין תֹּפֶל וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת וְדִי זָהָב:

רש"י

במדבר - לא במדבר היו אלא בערבות מואב, ומהו במדבר, אלא בשביל מה שהכעיסוהו במדבר שאמרו (שמות טז ג) מי יתן מותנו וגו':

בערבה - בשביל הערבה שחטאו בבעל פעור בשטים בערבות מואב:

מול סוף - על מה שהמרו בים סוף בבואם לים סוף שאמרו (שם יד יא) המבלי אין קברים במצרים, וכן בנסעם מתוך הים, שנאמר (תהלים קו ז) וימרו על ים בים סוף, כדאיתא בערכין (טו א):

בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן - אמר רבי יוחנן [רשב"י] חזרנו על כל המקרא ולא מצינו מקום ששמו תופל ולבן, אלא הוכיחן על הדברים שתפלו על המן שהוא לבן, שאמרו (במדבר כא ה) ונפשנו קצה בלחם הקלוקל ועל מה שעשו במדבר פארן על ידי המרגלים:

וחצרות - במחלוקתו של קרח. דבר אחר אמר להם, היה לכם ללמוד ממה שעשיתי למרים בחצרות בשביל לשון הרע, ואתם נדברתם במקום:

ודי זהב - הוכיחן על העגל שעשו בשביל רוב זהב שהיה להם, שנאמר (הושע ב י) וכסף הרביתי לה וזהב עשו לבעל:

Daled.

In Devarim 32:52 Moshe is told that he will only see the land but will not enter it. This is before the miracle takes place and therefore it is appropriate for HaShem to set out the parameters about what will happen at the end of Moshe’s life. But in 34:4, the Tora has already described how Moshe was shown the land, it is not logical why HaShem should now again Iterate that Moshe will not be entering the land. HaKetav VeHaKabbala suggests that due to the placement of “Shama” (there) before “Lo Ta’avor” (you shall not pass over), something other than the simple meaning is being suggested, i.e., the fact that Moshe is being shown what will transpire in history is actually a benefit, in the sense that had he physically entered the land, human mortality would have prevented him from living long enough to actually see the positive events that he is now being allowed to see miraculously.