Kashas on the Parsha

Home Coffeeroom Bais Medrash Kashas on the Parsha

Viewing 275 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
  • #592075

    coffee addict
    Participant

    I had a kasha on last week’s parsha which i didn’t get an answer to so i wanted to see if anyone in the coffee room knows and maybe add your own kasha on the parsha to the thread

    In last week’s parsha (eikev) the passuk compare’s Eretz Yisrael to Mitzrayim and Rashi says that Cham built Tzoan in Mitzrayim and Chevron in EY for his sons so how is it that chevron is part of EY if it belonged to Cham (i’m including intrinsically the answer the Shaarei Aharon gives, Shem was supposed to get EY so any part that Shem didn’t get shouldn’t be part of EY and if you say that Avraham bought it he just bought Maaras Hamachpela and it’s feild not the whole city

    please ask questions if I’m not being clear

  • #1169134

    rt
    Participant

    what is the problem with Cham having eretz canaan?

  • #1169135

    theprof1
    Participant

    Cham had EY even though Hashem promised it to Shem. Cham built the land and it was named Canaan after one son. Had Canaan observed the 7 Noach mitzvos he would have been able to stay.

  • #1169136

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Cham had EY even though Hashem promised it to Shem

    malchitzedek melech shalem was shem and shalem is yerushalayim

    noach divided the world into 3 parts and shem got EY Hashem didn’t promise it to him he “gave” it to him

  • #1169137

    coffee addict
    Participant

    I’m refreshing this post b/c i have a new question that i don’t know the answer to and maybe the CR can help me.

    In this weeks parsha the passuk says Chadal lihiyos Sarah orach K’nashim to which rashi says that dam niddah stopped

    but in Noach where it says Vatihi Sarai Akara lo yalad

    the gemera in yevomos says either she was an aylonis, she was a tumtum or she didnt have a rechem. If this is so, then how can she have dam niddah in any of those 3 cases

  • #1169138

    WIY
    Member

    mbachur

    Look back a few Pesukim in Perek Yud Alef Pasuk Ches and read the Rashi.

  • #1169139

    WIY
    Member

    Mbachur

    Nu did it help?

  • #1169140

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Perek Yud Alef Pasuk Ches

    i don’t underrstand over there it talks about the dor haflagah and rashi says b’olam hazeh

  • #1169141

    Not really on this weeks Parsha but I heard it this week

    ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????

    We do not see that Avrohom Avinu should express any

    feeling over Hagar’s exile.

    2 really belongs in another thread but I’M lazy

    A good one!! The Ansvei Sdom were “frumies”

    They were wicked with the excuse that were acting L’Shem Hashe????? ???? ???? ??????, ??’ ???

  • #1169142

    WIY
    Member

    mbachur

    Sorry it was Perek 18 Pasuk 8 see Rashi there.

  • #1169143

    coffee addict
    Participant

    wellinformed, i know about that rashi.

    Chadal means she stopped, are you saying that she stopped after she saw dam on that day (which was when the malachim came) it seems like it’s talking about before that day

  • #1169144

    WIY
    Member

    mbachur

    Yes, before the day the Melachim came it seems like it had stopped, (meaning it had stopped years before that) then the Melachim came and it started again.

    I agree your Kasha still stands. Ask a Rabbi, Id like to know the answer as well.

  • #1169145

    coffee addict
    Participant

    BH for artscoll (if they didn’t come out with an english transalation for the midrash i would’ve never seen it or even figured it out if i did

    there are two pshatim in chadal

    one means that it started then stopped

    one mmeans it never started

    (the midrash quotes 2 psukim i cant remeber where they are and i dont have a midrash handy)

  • #1169146

    WIY
    Member

    Mbachur

    The problem is Rashi translates chadal as pasak. I don’t think pasak has both meanings as well.

  • #1169148

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    With regard to Tumtum, Tosafos in Yevamos 64, I think, says that obviously that was resolved by the time they were married. The point is more that anyone that was that way can’t have or is unlikely to have children. As far as Ailoness goes, perhaps it is still possible to have a cycle with out being fully equipped.

  • #1169149

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Wellinformed,

    the midrash btw is mem ches, tes zayin

    and the matnas kehuna explains it like this

    ill have to look at rashi again

    Haleivi,

    and what about not having a rechem

  • #1169150

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    While I consider the first Kasha answered, the second one is definitely a hard one. It was an attempt, not definitive. Anyhow, not necessarily does it have to mean that there was nothing at all. It could be refering to essential parts.

  • #1169152

    coffee addict
    Participant

    i only asked 1 kasha

  • #1169153

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    I’m considering Tumtum as one Kasha (not anymore) and Aylonis as a second.

  • #1169155

    Rak Od Pa'am
    Member

    Why dont we see any concern by Avrohum Avinu A”H over Hager at either of her 2 expulsions from his home?.

    He was concerned about Yishmael.

    See Pirush Hamishnayos L’ambam Avos 5:19 Those who dont have it handy go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42469&st=&pgnum=21&hilite=

    It still is hard to understand. Given that ???”? suppreseed his gahmiyos but why wasnt he concerned over Hager about who ??”? say ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? and was concerned over Yishmael who OTD ed?

    2) Why did Hashem tell him not be concernd over Hager when he wasnt?

  • #1169156

    squeak
    Participant

    chad pami, chada m’turetz b’chaverta. Hashem said not to be worried about Hagar, so Avraham was not worried. Hashem also said not to be worried about Yishmael, but he was anyway, which is a lesson in chinuch bonim.

  • #1169158

    Rak Od Pa'am
    Member

    Huh???

    Go find your Chumash

    ???? ?”? ???? ?? is before ???? ?”? ????? ??

  • #1169159

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Why should he be worried about an adult? It was bad in his eyes to send out his son. Hagar was Sara’s maid

  • #1169160

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    I have a different kashya. There is a Rashi which says Eliezer really wanted to marry off his own daughter to Avraham. Avraham told him I am boruch and you are arur, v’ein arur misdabek bvaruch. I am troubled by this strong and possibly hurtful language. Especially about a choshuveh person like Eliezer about whom it says Yafeh sichoson shel avdei avos yoser mitoroson shel banim.

  • #1169161

    coffee addict
    Participant

    I don’t understand your question, is it that why did Avraham say that, or how can Eliezer be considered arur, please explain

  • #1169162

    WIY
    Member

    Pashuteh Yid

    Hashem calls Cham Arur so all his children are Arur I believe Eliezer was a descendant of Cham so that’s why he is Arur. Avraham wasn’t insulting him just stating the facts.

  • #1169164

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    WIY, so if somebody is ugly and asks to make a shidduch, you tell him he is ugly? If he has a low IQ, you tell him he is stupid? Just stating the facts??? Why not say, I don’t think it will work out.

  • #1169165

    WIY
    Member

    Pashuteh Yid

    Hashem cursed the children of Cham. Hashem blessed the children of Avraham. Oil and water don’t mix. Eliezer was a Tzaddik and him and Avraham were very close even though Eliezer was his slave. The only reason Avraham said no was because Hashem said that Elizer being a descendant of Canaan and Cham is cursed. If there was any other reason Avraham would have said it. Maybe Avraham did say it won’t work out at first and Eliezer pressured him for the reason and so he forced Avraham to explain.

  • #1169166

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    When Chazal say what he answered it is not a quote, it is his reason and therefore the root of any response he said no matter how he said it. He might have told him, I love you very much and you’re a great guy, but there is a certain Yichus problem which is not your fault at all.

  • #1169167

    WIY
    Member

    Haleivi

    Why can’t it be a direct quote?

  • #1169168

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Chazal aren’t telling stories, they are teaching Torah. Often you’ll find different depictions from different places in Chazal. In the Medrash you can see more to the conversation that Reb Yochanan Ben Zakay had with Vespasian, than what the Gemara mentions. It is not a contradiction of the facts, it is merely a difference of depiction. Each one is pointing out the important facts.

    If we would read about our time in Chazal, we would also be surprised at what is left out. As the Maharal often explains, what we see in the Gemara is Chazal’s perspective of what is important and noteworthy.

    It may be that Avaraham Avinu said those words exactly, and it can also be that he didn’t even mention those words at all. Chazal are telling us what his answer was, in essence.

    To further explain this concept, if I were to tell you that a fence tells you not to enter, even if it is very simple to step over it, you wouldn’t ask, ‘but a fence can’t talk!’ Actually, a fence can talk, albeit it can only say one thing. It also does not have a choice to say it or not. Often, something is considered said, when actions are what spoke it.

    Nobody listened in to the conversation of Avraham and Eliezer. Chazal knew what the reason is that he didn’t want to be Meshaddech with him. Chazal also Darshened from the Pesukim that Eliezer hinted that he would want to be Meshaddech. The answer is implicit in Avraham Avinu’s actions. Eliezer might have understood himself or he might have not. If the latter was the case, then Avraham Avinu answered him, surely in a nice way.

    By the way, it says that after this Shlichus, Eliezer’s status was changed to Baruch. So it definitely wasn’t a personal insult. It was a Yichus issue. We find in the Gemara an instance where a Talmud did not want to marry his Rebbe’s daughter because he felt that his Yichus is better.

  • #1169169

    Pashuteh Yid
    Member

    HaLeivi, I hear what you are saying.

  • #1169170

    ??”? ?????? ?”? ?”? ?? ?????” – ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????

    ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??

    ??? ???? ????? ?? ……. ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????

    ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???

    Did any one see a ????? ????????????

  • #1169171

    I have a question on this week Parsha (Vayechi):

    Yacov says with regards to Reuven “reishis oni” whic Rashi says means that Reuven was conceived with Yacov’s first tipah. Now, the Rambam says that a woman cannot conceive from Bia Rishona. How then did she conceive Reuven with Bia Rishona?

  • #1169172

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Machlokes Rashi and the Rambam?

    Or else (warning: possible heresy alert) possibly the Rambam was just wrong on that fact — especially in light of what is now known.

    The Wolf

  • #1169173

    decisive viewpoint & WolfishMusings

    SEE ??”? ?????? ?”? ?”?

  • #1169174

    coffee addict
    Participant

    wants to be I was thinking of that teretz too.

  • #1169175

    deiyezooger
    Member

    Look up the Ohr HaChaim on that pusik.

  • #1169177

    ?????? ???? ???? ????

    ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????”?

    ????? ???? ??????

  • #1169178

    RuffRuff
    Member

    Wolf, as for Rashi arguing with the Rambam, see what Rashi whites by Lot’s daughters. Anyhow, the Rambam didn’t make it up, it’s in the Gemara.

  • #1169179

    coffee addict
    Participant

    how can Yaakov bring up Reuvain’s maaseh with switching the beds, you’re not allowed to have someone recall his past transgressions if he does tshuva?

  • #1169180

    dash™
    Participant

    Yaakov only kept the Mitzvos when he was is Eretz Yisroel and this occured in Mitzrayim.

  • #1169181

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    Rashi in Vayigash explains how we arrive at the 70 people who were in ????? with ????. He says there were 66 counted in the ??????, and ???? was born on arriving there making 67, and ???? and his 2 sons makes 70.

    What about ????’s wife ???? who, ??”? say was the daughter of ????? We mention ???? herself and also ????’s other granddaughter ??? ?? ???. So why not ????. And dont say that ??”? is not bringing ???? because he says that the ?????’s twin sisters had all died, so he is including ????. The only guess is that she may have also died.

    Does anyone have a solution or has anyone seen this anywhere?

  • #1169182

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Dash,

    Seriously!

    (I’m lavan garti taryag mitzvos shemarti)

  • #1169183

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Shtickey, the Ramban there points to the Pasuk that says explicitly that the count is besides for their wives.

    Rashi asks about the Te’umos and answers that the Te’umos must have died. Rashi obviously learned in the words, ???? ??? ??? ????, that we are not counting the wives they got from the local population. Therefore, the Te’umos should be counted. Yosef, however, did not get sold along with a Te’uma, and perhaps Rashi is going with the Medrash that Asnat was Potifars daughter, or as you said, she died, too.

  • #1169184

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Coffee, Yaakov was telling him why he is not fit for Bechora, Kehuna and Malchus.

  • #1169185

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Haleivi,

    Would it suffice just by saying pachaz kamayim (why mention ki alisa miishkavei aveecha)?

    Basically the reason he can’t get bechora is bc he is pachaz not because of what he did

  • #1169186

    littleapple
    Member

    I agree Yaakov was giving mussar (see Onklos- kibal ulphan)

  • #1169187

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Shticky,

    Someone else asked me this and I told him the only people that were counted were sons descendants whereas asnas is from a daughter

  • #1169188

    Ken Zayn
    Member

    Can any learned poster please help me with pashut peshat in a pasuk and a rashi. At the end of vayetzei (31, 33) the pasuk discusses lavan searching for his idols in the tents of yakov, rachel, leah and the two amahos (bilha and zilpa). What is the order in which he searched according to the pasuk and acc to rashi? The pasuk says first yakov’s tent (which rashi says means rachel). From here is confusing: “leah’s tent then the amahos, and he went out of leah’s tent and into rachel’s”. How could he go directly from leah’s tent into rachel’s (for rachel’s second search) if the pasuk just said that after leah’s tent he went to the amahos tents and not to rachel’s tent? (and the ramban says he only went once to leah’s tent)? And rashi is also shver to me as he writes that lavan returned to rachel’s tent BEFORE searching the amahos which again seems to be keneged the pasuk?

  • #1169189

    littleapple
    Member

    seems a good kasha maybe check the mephorshim on rashi like the gur arye and mizrahi?

  • #1169190

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    Haleivi and coffee thanx for answering.

    Haleivi: leave the Ramban out as I am asking for Rashi’s opinion and they often disagree with each other. I was saying that Rashi should include Osnas as Dina’s daughter (not as Yosef’s wife).

    Coffee: Do you mean the pasuk ???? ,??? ???? ,????? ,???? ???? ,??? ????? This does not include ???? ????? as you rightly said, but neither does it include ?? ??? who the pasuk writes as ???? ?? ??????? who was Dina’s son. He must be included in ???? ???? so why is Osnas not included in ???? ???? also?

  • #1169191

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Shaul ben hakananis was shimons son (ben bino)

  • #1169192

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    littleapple: thank you I will look there.

    Coffee: No – remember we are asking on rashi so lets stick with rashi’s pshat, and he says on the pasuk that shaul ben haknanis was “ben dina shenivaloh l’kenani”. So in rashi’s shita are you able to offer an explanation? If we reckon dina’s son in the 70 then why do we not include her daughter osnas?

  • #1169193

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Shticky guy,

    Rashi is saying shimons son shaul came from dina who was nival to a kanani

  • #1169194

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Read the rashi he said why is she called a kenani? Because dinah wouldn’t leave shchem until shimon promised to marry her (and guess what? When you get married you have a kid with the person you get married to)

  • #1169195

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    Shaul’s mother was definitely dina acc to rashi and she was called kenanis because of her union with shechem. Whether like I learned that shaul was born as a result of that union and later adopted by shimon as a step son, or as you suggest that he was from bnei shimon so his father was shimon and he was not born from dina and shechem but later from dina and shimon is unclear. I have no proof either way (in divrei hayomim it writes simply shaul) but that is not my question. I asked why osnat was not included in the 70.

    Interestingly the pasuk I brought above says “bnosov” plural. How many daughters went with him to mitzraim besides dina?

  • #1169196

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Shticky,

    There are times like these I wish I could explain it to you over the phone

    I gave you an answer for why osnas wasn’t included so you asked me about shaul saying he is from dina so I’m explaining that he’s shimons son through dina

    I hear the question about daughters thing

  • #1169197

    oomis
    Member

    I’m explaining that he’s shimons son through dina”

    This is difficult to accept in a literal sense. Gilui Arayos is one of the sheva mitzvos Bnei Noach also, not just a mitzvah for Jews. How can there be any explanation that makes it okay for a brother and sister to conceive a child together, i.e. Shaul? I cannot see how Shimon and Dina had a biological child together. What am I misunderstanding here?

  • #1169198

    coffee addict
    Participant

    This is difficult to accept in a literal sense. Gilui Arayos is one of the sheva mitzvos Bnei Noach also, not just a mitzvah for Jews. How can there be any explanation that makes it okay for a brother and sister to conceive a child together, i.e. Shaul? I cannot see how Shimon and Dina had a biological child together. What am I misunderstanding here?

    my Rosh Hayeshiva has a beautiful vort on this that yosef and dina were each supposed to be in the other person’s mother (yosef was supposed to be in leah and dina was suppossed to be in rachel) and when leah davened they switched mothers so that makes them a brother and sister through father only (a half sibling) which is permitted for bnei noach

    the problem arises too if you say that they married their twin sisters so however you anwer that you can answer this

  • #1169199

    dash™
    Participant

    so that makes them a brother and sister through father only (a half sibling) which is permitted for bnei noach

    First of all regardless of what was supposed to happen, Shimon and Dinah were full siblings. Secondly do you have a source that half siblings are permitted for Bnei Noach?

    Anyways, only Yosef held that they were Bnei Noach, the rest of the brothers (at least the first ten, not sure about Binyamin) held that the Halachos of Bnei Yisroel applied to them.

  • #1169200

    coffee addict
    Participant

    you’re right dash,

    however my last sentence still answers it

  • #1169201

    Sam2
    Member

    Dash: Check Rambam Melachim where he talks about it. Only a sister from one parent (I think the mother, not the father) is Assur to B’nei Noach. It’s the 6th Halachah in one of the Perakim, I forget which one though. Maybe 9:6?

    I’m just curious, by the way, where did you hear that Yosef thought they were B’nei Noach while the brothers thought they were B’nei Yisrael? I thought that was my Chiddush.

  • #1169202

    OneOfMany
    Member

    What about the midrash that says that each of the shvatim was born with a twin whom they married? I always wondered how they were allowed to do that…

  • #1169203

    Sam2
    Member

    Olam Chessed Yibaneh.

  • #1169204

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Sam2 I actually heard it from the satmar and my ry mentioned it, it seems like its a davar yedua.

    Oneofmany,

    Thank you, I mentioned that

  • #1169205

    OneOfMany
    Member

    Oops. I read your post, but for some reason I didn’t see that bit. Sorry.

  • #1169206

    dash™
    Participant

    I’m just curious, by the way, where did you hear that Yosef thought they were B’nei Noach while the brothers thought they were B’nei Yisrael? I thought that was my Chiddush.

    I thought it was common knowledge, based on Eiver Min HaChai. (It also makes an interisting drasha on Genesis chapter 44 where for a brief moment Yosef and Yehuda switch their views.)

    And thanks for the info regarding a half sibling. I’ll have to look it up, I didn’t know that.

  • #1169207

    Sam2
    Member

    Dash: Yeah, I said it based on the Ever Min Hachai. I found a Gemara though which seems to say we hold like the brothers. Is that Yadua too? 🙂

  • #1169208

    tzaddiq
    Member

    question i had

    just because ephrayim was gonna have descendants larger in number than menasheh, why is that a reason to get the right hand of yaakov upon his head?

  • #1169209

    dash™
    Participant

    I found a Gemara though which seems to say we hold like the brothers. Is that Yadua too?

    Which Gemora is that?

  • #1169210

    Sam2
    Member

    Kiddushin (18a I think) calls Esav a “Yisrael Mumar”.

  • #1169211

    dash™
    Participant

    Kiddushin (18a I think) calls Esav a “Yisrael Mumar”.

    Maybe, but when I first looked at it, it seemed like how to catigorize Eisav is not obvious.

  • #1169212

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Tzaddiq,

    Who said that was the reason?

  • #1169213

    sam4321
    Member

    Tzaddiq: See Rashi 19,he says Yehoshua will come from Ephraim(younger will be greater than older).

  • #1169214

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    I found an answer to the bnosov question. Its the sifsei chachomim on that above pasuk ‘ubnos banov’ on the rashi who says they were serach bas asher and yocheved bas levi. Its beautiful but too long to write out so ayin sham.

    Coffee pls bring mekor for your assertion that only the sons descendants were counted despite many pesukim seemingly to the contrary eg kol nefesh lebeis yakov habah mitzraima shivim (ber 46 27) or kol nefesh yotzei yerech yakov shivim nefesh (shemos 1 5) or beshivim nefesh yardu avosecha mitzraima (dev 10 22)?

    Ps Look in the Or Hachaim (46 7) on why the shibud began before yocheved and serach were niftar when it should have waited till that whole dor died!

  • #1169215

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Shticky,

    I don’t have a mekor and that’s the only teretz I can think of that can answer it (personally I think it HAS TO be pshat) its weird how no one adresses the shailah

  • #1169216

    Ken Zayn
    Member

    Regarding my kasha (which is at the end of page 1 of this thread) on the pasuk and rashi in vayetzei 31,33 – the answer seems to be as follows. We say ein mukdam umuchar batorah does not apply within one pasuk but the torah is not giving us the chronological order in which lavan searched the tents but in order of chashivus. So it says “lavan went to the tent of rachel AND the tent of leah AND the amahos”. But not in that order, as proven from the remainder of the pasuk “and he went out of leah’s tent and went to rachel’s tent”, not the amahos.

    Rashi was also bothered by this so he points out to us that he searched rachel for a second time BEFORE going to the amahos ie its not chronological order.

  • #1169217

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Shtiky, I don’t think you need to look too far to find that the children of a daughter are not Misyaches to their mother’s family. A girl marries out. That’s the way it is in all family listings in the Torah.

    Does Rashi bring the Medrash that Asnat was the daughter of Dina? Perhaps he is simply disregarding that.

  • #1169218

    coffee addict
    Participant

    I thought the question was if Osnas was the daughter of Dina (like the midrash, unlike Rashi then) why wasn’t she counted among the 70?

    why does the kasha have to be only according to Rashi?

  • #1169219

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Because it is not a Kasha according to the Ramban. So, if Rashi holds that even married women were counted, then perhaps he wasn’t going with this Medrash.

  • #1169220

    longarekel
    Member

    The Torah says a few times(this repetition itself requires explanation) that Osnas was the daughter of Potifar-Potifera.So even according to the Medrash that she was the daughter of Shechem and Dina,perhaps for the very same reason she is called the daughter of Potifar, she is also not considered one of the special ‘seventy souls’.V’dok-this is a deep concept.(By the way, if the Shvotim regarding many halachos had a din of b’nei noach,then Osnas’ yichus goes after her father as is the din by b’nei noach. If so she is part of the nation of Shechem,not Yakov).

  • #1169221

    longarekel
    Member

    As for how Shimon could marry his full sister even though this is assur even for b’nei noach,here is a possible answer to this difficulty.Chazal say dina did not want to leave the city of shechem until shimon swore to marry her. This has a din of Pikuach nefesh since dina staying among the Goyim equals shmad which has a din of pikuach nefesh. Since a ben noach does not have a din of yehareg v’al ya’avor it was mutar for shimon to marry dina. Even though they had a din of b’nei noach, leaving their special belief system had a din of shmad. This is actually a very broad subject but this forum does not allow for lengthy discussions kemuvan.

  • #1169222

    coffee addict
    Participant

    (By the way, if the Shvotim regarding many halachos had a din of b’nei noach,then Osnas’ yichus goes after her father as is the din by b’nei noach. If so she is part of the nation of Shechem,not Yakov).

    very interesting because the same midrash states that yaakov tied something around her saying that whoever marries her marries a child of yaakov

  • #1169223

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    What color is ???? and what color is ????? I always thought of ???? as blue (to remind us of the sea and the??? ????? and ????) and ???? as green. But Rashi says at the beginning of ????? that ???? is ????. I think I saw someone saying it was blueish-greenish. Can anybody add to this? Thanx.

  • #1169224

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yes, it seems to be a dark green with a blue-ish tinge. The Yerushalmi adds some more connections. Techeiles Doma Leyarok, Asavim, Yam, Rakia.

  • #1169225

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Makes sense

    The water sometimes is bluish green

  • #1169226

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    Whens the last time you saw the sky green or even blue-green? I’ve only ever known it either grey or blue.

  • #1169227

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Each one is similar to the next one. That is why it doesn’t say Techeiles Doma Lakisei Hakavod.

  • #1169228

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Exactly what HaLeivi said,

    Except I would’ve just said “then it would say techeiles domeh l’shamayim” but HaLeivi said it better

  • #1169229

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    *Bump*

    Help me understand this, please, anyone.I had a question today regarding the Ben Sorer u’Moreh. The torah in its profound wisdom perceives this boy as a potential robber and eventual murder in his future. The torah therefore paskins that it is better for him to die clean now, then to die as an adult murderer later, sparing untold future crimes and catastrophic consequences.

    My question is why does he deserve, though, to be killed in the harshest way: skilla i.e. stoning? Alright we should kill him now, but he technically didn’t do anything yet? why shouldn’t sayif or serayfa be sufficient? why sekillah?

  • #1169230

    Sam2
    Member

    BH: V’chol Yisrael Yishm’u V’yirau.

  • #1169231

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The Maharal explains that he is worse than a murderer who is killed for a single, specific murder. He is being killed Al Sheim Sofo. That means we see in him now his actions of the future.

  • #1169232

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    You can still ask that he technically didn’t deserve it. The Gemara in Sanhedrin asks this and answers that it will never happen.

    I think this was once discussed here before, in the days of mod80.

  • #1169233

    Toi
    Member

    R Yehoshua Leib diskin ztl deals with the problem, and gives 2 answers. one is short so ill write it. one isnt, so look it up. he says that although hes getting killed for sofo lihastim es habrios, whick lechoira means killing, and therefore shouldnt be subject to skilah, he will also be oiver chamuros like chillul shabbos, which one gets skila for. Ay, then why are we killing him now for that, wait for him to be michallel shabbos. he says that the torah is chas on the lives of klal yisrael. therefore, we’ll kill him now so he cant kill anone, but we’ll give him the oinsesh for the chamuros he wouldve committed.

  • #1169234

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Thanks BH for the bump,

    you could have just as well started your own thread but didn’t

  • #1169235

    Sam2
    Member

    HaLeiVi: We did have this discussion before, and I still hold that we don’t Pasken by the Shittah that it never did and never will happen. I think the Gemara is pretty Mefurash that we don’t hold that way, actually.

  • #1169236

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    thanks for the replies everyone.

    Toi- I saw on Shabbos that the sifsay chachomim says that pshat too.

    coffee addict- yw, i figured this is a good thread that can be used every week, so i bumped it.

  • #1169237

    coffee addict
    Participant

    bh,

    thanks too bad a lot of other people don’t

  • #1169238

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Sam, the Maharal explains that Gemara about Veyashavti Al Kivro. He says that it is referring to Yerushalayim, where Hashem applied the logic of Ben Sorer Umorer and Ir Hanidachas.

  • #1169239

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    *BUMP*

    wouldn’t it be great to revive this thread!

    PARSHAS BEREISHIS


    Q. Why didn’t Odom or Chava eat from the eitz hachaim?

  • #1169240

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    Who says they wouldn’t have eventually? Thats why Hashem kicked them out of the Gan to stop them from eating from the eitz hachaim. Also, there was no attraction to it because they werent forbidden from eating of it and they would have gotten around to it eventually.

    Lets look at the sequence of events, in the first hour, his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second, it was kneaded into a shapeless mass. In the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into him; in the fifth, he arose and stood on his feet; in the sixth, he gave [the animals] their names; in the seventh, Eve became his mate; in the eighth, they ascended to bed as two and descended as four; in the ninth, he was commanded not to eat of the tree, in the tenth, he sinned. This all happened in a few short hours so really he may have eaten from the eitz hachaim eventually given the time to do so.

  • #1169241

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    Alright, WIY, I’ll accept that ?????.

    ??? ??

  • #1169242

    coffee addict
    Participant

    accoording to rashi the reason breishis is in the beginning instead of hachodesh hazeh is so that the goyi cant claim we “stole” eretz yisrael. If that is the reason what do the goyim care what OUR TORAH says and if you say the answer is for us I have a better answer canaan stole it from sheim so we are taking it back

  • #1169243

    simcha613
    Member

    What’s pshat with the rakia separating the upper waters and the lower waters? Poshut pshat and the way Rashi seems to understand it is that the lower waters are the oceans and rivers and the upper waters is this (presumably floating) storehouse of water in the sky which is where rain comes from. From a scientific perspective this is not true. There is no storehouse of water in the sky. Rain is recycled from the oceans via the clouds. I’m okay with Rashi being incorrect about science, but how else can we understand this passage in the Torah?

  • #1169244

    Showjoe
    Member

    WIY: there are those who say 1 day then isnt 1 day now (much longer) this would also apply by hours

  • #1169245

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    You are welcome. If you hear of another please share.

    Showjoe

    True but it doesnt change the pshat.

  • #1169246

    2qwerty
    Participant

    simcha613,

    I like your question and here is another question on Rashi…

    In Noach it seems Rashi is assuming that Ararat is the tallest mountain in the world?

  • #1169247

    oomis
    Member

    Well it certainly must have been the tallest in that region.

  • #1169248

    Curiosity
    Participant

    Simcha613 – I also often have problems understanding the Torah and chazal literally, especially when it’s clearly contradicted by our reality, like in the case you mention. However, Chazal say that before the Mabul the atmosphere was completely different. Also, Gan Eden was not necessarily similar to the natural world that we live in today. Nonetheless, I’m sure there is a much more profound explanation to the Torah’s narrative of creation – one that we are not yet privey to understand.

  • #1169249

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    simcha613- i believe the gemora (chagiga) tells us that we don’t really understand/know pshat in the “Upper waters”.

  • #1169250

    Why was Hashem worried that Adam would eat from the Eitz HaChaim & live forever? After all, as the Ribbono Shel Olam, He could just kill off Adam whenever He felt it appropriate.

    Thanks.

  • #1169251

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    As it is a new week I will start the next parsha, but we can still discuss any question that was posed on Bereishis

    PARSHAS NOACH


    Q. Was the rainbow Hashem created (bein hashmoshos on the first erev shabbos -pirkei avos) as a sign for Noach, different than any other rainbow? If it was, how so? If not, isn’t a rainbow a natural phenomenon anyway, so surely this wasn’t the first rainbow to appear?? why was it so miraculous/special to create this with the other special list of stuff bein hashmoshos, if it was just a simple ordinary rainbow?

  • #1169252

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Who said anything about being miraculous? Of course it is natural but it depends on some circumstances that don’t have to be there. At that point the nature was tweaked to have the rainbow appear.

    Check out the Ramban and the Gur Arye (among many others).

  • #1169253

    Sam2
    Member

    GAW: I asked my father that. He said that one of the rules of nature that HKBH set up was that someone who eats from the Eitz Hachayim will live forever. Thus, even though He can abrogate that, He usually limits himself to the laws of nature that he set up.

  • #1169254

    WIY
    Member

    simcha613

    Rashi never said that the rains come from the waters above. If he says it somewhere please tell me where. Be very careful in learning and quoting Rishonim.

  • #1169255

    WIY
    Member

    Coffee addict

    The Christians believe in the Old Testament which is our Torah so they believe that God gave EY to the Jews.

    Where did you see that Canaan stole EY from Shem? As fas as I know he was king of Yerushalayim as long as he lived.

  • #1169256

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    I asked my rav my question on Noach yesterday, and he pointed me to a fascinating Ya’aros Devash where R’ Yonosson Eibeschitz says that the Keshes in Parshas Noach is in fact a different type of rainbow. It is a rainbow completely of Techeiless color. And as a reminder, the word Techeiless is of the same root word as Kalei (destroy/destruction), which is what HKB”H would do to the world if not for this Bris HaKeshes.

    My only problem is with this is, which I only thought about later on, is why then do we recite a brocho on our colorful rainbow that we see if it isn’t the authentic ??? of the Bris HaKeshes?

    Out of curiousity, I googled ‘different types of rainbows’ and came up with a few different kinds, but none was a blue/green rainbow 🙁

  • #1169257

    GAW: I asked my father that. He said that one of the rules of nature that HKBH set up was that someone who eats from the Eitz Hachayim will live forever. Thus, even though He can abrogate that, He usually limits himself to the laws of nature that he set up.

    WADR, that really makes no sense. If Hashem is willing to make the murderer walk under the ladder at the same time the Shogeg is going up, he can arrange that the eater trip on a rock and shatter into a gazillion pieces, or have his head chopped off, or fall into a pot of boiling water, etc. Unless you want to say that eating from the Eitz HaChaim changed the physical nature of a person (less biologic, more like a malach), then that doesn’t make any sense to me.

  • #1169258

    Sam2
    Member

    WIY: It’s a Machlokes Tannaim in Ta’anis. I don’t know if Rashi Paskens one way or the other anywhere, but it’s not ridiculous to think he would say that.

  • #1169259

    WIY
    Member

    Sam2

    But in chumash he makes no mention of it and from the pashut reading of Rashi it seems clear that the water above is way up there higher than the clouds.

  • #1169260

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Coffee addict

    The Christians believe in the Old Testament which is our Torah so they believe that God gave EY to the Jews.

    Where did you see that Canaan stole EY from Shem? As fas as I know he was king of Yerushalayim as long as he lived.

    if Bereishis was meant for the Christians (which I don’t think it was, I think it was for the nations before Christianity, being that Christianity doesn’t have that tayna on us) then we still don’t need to start with Bereishis because of what I mentioned before

    as to where do you see Canaan stole from sheim it’s in next weeks Parsha that when Avraham starts to move to Eretz Canaan (12:6) the passuk says “and Canaan was in the land” and Rashi says “Canaan was capturing it from the descendants of sheim…” I’m not going to quote the whole Rashi look at it yourself, however it seems like it was a davaar yodua

  • #1169261

    yekke2
    Participant

    PARSHAS NOACH:

    1) Technically this isn’t a ‘kasha on the parsha’, because i’m gonna include a tirutz, but here goes:

    ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??…

    Noach was from those of Little Faith, he sort-of-believed…

    Q: ?? was a ???? ???? – why didn’t he go in? And what is ??? in the fact that he was ????? ??????

    A: You put the commas wrong in ??”?. Read it like this:

    ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????–> Noach believed even in those of little faith (i.e. that they would do ?????

    ????? ????? ???? ????? –> And therefore did not believe that the flood would come

    And therefore didn’t enter the ???? until the waters pushed him in!!!

    (????? ?????, I think)

  • #1169262

    yekke2
    Participant

    2) There is an apparent ????? in ??”? – First ??”? says that “Any place where idolatry or adultery is found, ?????????? ?? ?????…”

    THE NEXT ??”?: The final verdict was given only after stealing.

    ???

  • #1169263

    musser zoger
    Member

    The final verdict was for stealing but were also guilty of A”Z and G”A. No stira at all.

  • #1169264

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The ???? ???? was because of idolatry and adultery but the decision to act was because of Gezel.

  • #1169265

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Your Terutz on Noach is a cute Pshetl, but if the Kasha bothers you as it bothered me you would want a real answer as to how you can call someone who worked for 120 years in the face of ridicule and scorn, a Ktan Emuna.

    The answer is that he obviously believed in Hashem and His abilities. However, he just couldn’t imagine it would really happen. He figured that in the last minute things would turn out, they’d get another chance, or they’ll all do Teshuva(, or it’ll turn out to be color war). Not unlike the way a child doesn’t take a parent’s threat seriously.

  • #1169266

    yekke2
    Participant

    The final verdict was for stealing but were also guilty of A”Z and G”A. No stira at all.

    So without stealing the Flood would have come or wouldn’t have come?

  • #1169267

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    So without stealing the Flood would have come or wouldn’t have come?

    I hope you wrote that before seeing my response.

  • #1169268

    yekke2
    Participant

    Halevi – saw the answer – thanx. Just the answer from musser zoger didn’t answer the question.

  • #1169269

    oomis
    Member

    In a shiur which my Rov gives early Sunday AMs on Rav Dessler’s writings), he told us that it was not that the people made fun of Noach because they didn’t believe a flood was coming. On the contrary, the DID believe, and therefor built strong homes and fortresses to protect themselves. But they laughed at that foolish Noach spending 120 years building an Ark out of the flimsiest wood and a little tar, thinking it could possibly withstand a torrential downpour. That’s where the derision lay. And boy were they ever shocked when his flimsy vessel held his family and all those thousands of species of animals safe from the Mabul, as their own reinforced “safe houses” broke apart and they all drowned.

    It is very interesting to me, as my rov pointed out in R’ Dessler’s teachings, that Noach who was called “ish tzaddik” was not a baal chessed UNTIL he was forced to do daily chessed in caring for all the animals. A tzaddik will give tzedaka to whomever ask him. A baal chessed will go out looking for people to whom he can give tzedaka. That’s why Noach was not in the same league as Avraham Avinu, the paradigm of chessed. It also explains why Noach actually made a tikkun Olam through the chessed of taking care of the animals. His act was one of giving. The “chamas” (which is quoted as the ultimate straw that broke the camel’s back, resulting in Hashem’s decisiion to cleanse the world through the Mabul), were people’s repeated acts of rationalized “gezel,” of stealing from each other. That taking, was why the world needed to be destroyed. It merited being renewed through Noach’s act of giving on a daily all-day basis.

  • #1169270

    WIY
    Member

    HaLeivi

    “The ???? ???? was because of idolatry and adultery but the decision to act was because of Gezel.”

    So which one is worse?

  • #1169271

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The first two.

  • #1169272

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    oomis1105- +1

    that was very nice. Perhaps you can even add, that Hashem purposely made Noach be busy in such a manner during this time because Hashem was now “starting over” again, and “Olam Chesed Yiboneh” was a vital principal in creating His world.

  • #1169273

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS LECH LECHA


    I was always bothered how we really know so little about the avos, yet we must strive to attain their stature. we know so little of their every day normal life routines, their daily interactions with people, etc. All we are exposed to is their great, big, triumphs over the nisyonos that came their way, but not of the little ones. (Unlike the hundreds of stories we read about the Chofetz Chaim’s life or the Chazon Ish, etc.)

    Just saying.

  • #1169275

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS VA’YEIRA


    ok, so here is a question which bothered me since laining on Rosh HaShanah. Please answer if you think you have an explaination. In this week’s parsha we read the story of the Akeidas Yitzchok, an historic event which is dramatic and gripping till the very end.

    But what up with the ram??

    I mean, it’s seems like a nice gesture on Avrohom’s part to offer up the ram, in place of his son, yada yada yada, but why is it SO CENTRAL to the story?! We blow shofar on Rosh HaShanah, zeicher l’ayil! Why a ram’s horn, why not take a knife as a zeicher for this nisoyon? IDK, it seems so much like just an afterthought, like a side note, a footnote for the epilogue of Akeidas Yizchok. Yet, the Ayil takes such an important role in the story. Why????

  • #1169276

    musser zoger
    Member

    Rashi says the ayil was muchan from sheshes yemei breeishis. Perhaps Avraham knew this and that it would later be a zechus for klal Yisroel. It was HKB”H that planned the exalted status of the ayil. Why the ayil? gemara says the horn is kafuf, so our hearts should be kafuf.

  • #1169277

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    That’s not the whole reason of the Shofar, you know.

    Anyhow, being Makriv the ram was materializing the will and determination that he built up to be Makriv his son. Rashi brings a Medrash that by each part of the Korban, Avraham Avinu said, “This should be as if I am doing it to my son.” He didn’t want to feel as if he is getting away with it. He therefore imagined the whole thing as if he was actually doing it to his son.

    Chazal tell us that the ashes are placed in front of Hashem, and when we are in trouble He takes a look at it and remembers the Zchus of Klal Yisroel. The Korban of the ram was the tangible object of what Avraham Avinu wanted to do.

  • #1169278

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    Thank you so much musser zoger and HaLeiVi for your answers!

  • #1169279

    yekke2
    Participant

    A) Rashi says once that Avrohom first got rid of the Avoda Zoro and then invited the guests in, whereas Lot wasn’t makpid and therefore let them in.

    But later it says that Lot did that in order to save them from Sedom???

    B) Did the story with the ?????? take place on ????? or ???? The ???? in ??? ???? ?”? says that it was on Succos, but Rashi says ???. Is this a ??????

  • #1169280

    yekke2
    Participant

    The Gemoro points out from this weeks parsha that Hacnosas Orchim is more important than ???? ?????? — Since when is there a ???? to be ???? the shecinah? Of course ????? would have to stop and go do the ?????

    I saw an answer that it was ?????/???, and there is a ???? of “??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?” and that was the ???? Avrohom was ?????.

  • #1169281

    WIY
    Member

    Yekke

    I have a better question. The malachim are malachei Elokim they are spiritual and powerful beings with a shlichus from Hashem, why on earth would they need “Lots pritection?!”

  • #1169282

    on the ball
    Member

    Yekke2 – arguably Avraham Avinu didnt do Hachnosas Orchim because it was an official Mitzva (it was after all before Matan Torah).

    Maybe he did it because he understood it to be G-d’s will. And it is regarding this, that Chazal say it is greater to do Hachnosas Orchim than be Mekabel the Shechina – also a way of carrying out G-d’s will.

  • #1169283

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Since when is it a Mitzva!? It’s the point of the whole Torah and the whole creation! If you need a ‘Mekor’ that it’s a Mitzva look at Rashi in tomorrow’s Daf, where he discusses the Navi having music.

    Pesach and Succos is a Machlokes. If you can handle strange Terutzim we can say Eilu V’eilu. Being that Avraham Avinu’s Pesach and Succos were not a Zecher of a past event he could have kept them any other time. Pirkei D’reb Eliezer says the Bris was on Yom Kippur.

  • #1169284

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS TOLDOS


    Thought of 2 questions last night:

    Q.#1 Why is Yaakov, the greatest of the Ovos, and one who lived a life of kedusha every second, called Yaakov (“he who holds the heel”) just because he held onto Esav’s heel when he was coming out of his mother’s womb?

    Q.#2 Why was it necessary for Yitzchok to make a peace treaty with Avimelech, if Avrohom made one with him already for himself and their FOR THEIR CHILDREN?

  • #1169285

    longarekel
    Member

    1)Yaakov will rise in the end (symbolized by grabbing Esav’s heel). This is of paramount importance. Also the name Yaakov (given by Hashem or Yitzchak) indicates that he will ‘trick’ Esav and take the bechora and the brachos, as Esav himself said later in the parsha. Agav, in future generations too, the goyim (esav) think they’re on top and controlling the yidden but in truth the yidden are taking the hashpaos from them. This is a deep subject.

    2)Avimelech realized he may have violated the treaty by throwing Yitzchak out of Gerar. He therefore came to (renew or) reinforce the original treaty by saying how good he was. Palestinian faker. Also it is possible that the original treaty (that in fact included Avimelech’s children) was only with Avraham. Avimelech (the second, according to targum) came to add Yitzchak.

  • #1169286

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS VAYEITZEI


    Q. Lavan switches the kallah Rochel and puts Leah under the chuppah. Very clever Lavan, indeed, very sly and slick. One problem about this whole scheme, Lavan. It’s a mekach ta’us. So Yaakov doesn’t remain married to Leah anyways, if his intention was to marry Rochel?! So from Lavan’s point of view, what was his cheshbon??

    Q. From Leah’s perspective, how in the world did SHE get caught up in her father’s cunning ways and agree to go along with the plan, AT THE EXPENSE OF HER BELOVED SISTER, ROCHEL THE KALLAH?!

  • #1169287

    zaidy78
    Member

    In a similar Q to BaalHabooze:

    Q. How was Rochel allowed to give the “secret password” to Leah? She was a traitor!

    Imagine the story today. Some young BJJ graduate comes home from Israel, and gets engaged to a Lakewood bochur fresh out of the freezer. Ms. BJJ graduate has an older sister, with very sad eyes, at the grand age 27. After three months of palnning every last detail, the day finally arrives. At the chasunah the chosson goes and “badekt”s the kallah. They have a very moving and uplifting chuppah, and immediately after the chosson breaks the glass, the kallah lifts her veil and behold there stands the kallahs sister!!

    Would the kallah be considered great for saving her older sister or would she be a traitor to her new husband??

    And what needs further explantaion, how could it be that this very action gave Rochel her prestigious place in Klal Yisroel?!

  • #1169288

    coffee addict
    Participant

    To answer BaalHaBooze (and possibly zaidy) Yaakov wanted to marry both Rochel and Leah and Leah also didn’t know that Yaakov wanted to marry Rochel which was why she said “first you steal my husband and now my flowers?)

  • #1169289

    zaidy78
    Member

    Coffee addict,

    Did Yaakov know that HE wanted to marry Rochel AND Leah?

    Did Rochel know that Yaakov wanted to marry Leah as well?

    The possuk tells us that Yaakov told Lavan very clearly, in no uncertain terms, that he was willing to work seven years for ROCHEL, and only Rochel, not Leah?? How was Rochel allowed to give the simanim away??

  • #1169290

    coffee addict
    Participant

    zaidy,

    yaakov was saying these seven years i worked for rachel therefore i should be marrying her now

  • #1169291

    zaidy78
    Member

    coffee, so how was Rochel allowed to cheat Yaakov? and why is she still so praised by it?

  • #1169292

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    From the Pasuk that Coffee Addict mentioned it seemed to me that obviously Leah didn’t know. There are Midrashim about Leah answering Yaakov Avinu in the morning that she learned from him how to trick people, but such Midrashim might be conveying an implied conversation rather than a real conversation. The Medrash says that he had in mind to divorce her but when she had children he kept her. In the end, he agreed to it as it says ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????.

    The reason Rachel went along with it was not to embarrass Leah. According to this understanding, that Leah wasn’t aware of this being a trick, the embarrassment would be tenfold.

    With this we come to understand another topic. Chazal tell us that when Rachel gave away a night to Leah in return for a plant, she lost her opportunity to be buried with Yaakov. “She made light of being with the Tzaddik so she wasn’t buried with him.” The question is, why indeed did she give up being with him for a flower?

    However, now we can understand. Leah told her, not only you took my husband you also want to take what my son brought me? This can only be said by someone who really thought she was cheated of what was rightfully hers. Rachel went through her life acting as if it was she who cheated her sister. Now, faced with an accusation of attempting to cheat her again she had to think to herself how someone who is actually guilty of that would respond. Therefore, she answered, tonight can be your turn.

  • #1169293

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    As for the Mekach Ta’us problem, Yaakov was Mekadesh with Bi’a. There is a Chazaka that ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????. This couldn’t be more true about Yaakov Avinu. He was ??? ????? since he rather that it be a good Keddushin.

  • #1169294

    coffee addict
    Participant

    her intentions were to save leah the embarrasment

  • #1169295

    oomis
    Member

    Yekke

    I have a better question. The malachim are malachei Elokim they are spiritual and powerful beings with a shlichus from Hashem, why on earth would they need “Lots pritection?!”

    They didn’t, but LOT didn’t know that!

  • #1169296

    yekke2
    Participant

    The ???? ???’ ????? ???”? ?? ?”? ??”? writes that the first ??????? was ????? but he remarried her. According to this, he asks, when he married her a second time, she was a ?????, and therefore should only have ???? ??? ???? as opposed to the normal 7 of a ?????. T (???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???”? ????? ?????? ???? ???”? ??”?)

    The ???”? ?? ????? brings from ?”? that ???? was ???? for ???s trickery, and therefore had ??? that if it would be ??? he wanted to be ???? her. (Although that is contradictory to the ???? that he gave ?????? to ??? so that he shouldn’t trick – but it could be this was different – if he was anyways having the ????, he wouldn’t want it to be a ???? ???? and therefore wanted the ??????? (see HaLevi before))

  • #1169297

    yekke2
    Participant

    Q: The ???? says that Leah could daven for her embryo to be changed from male into female only because it was within the first 40 days of pregnancy.

    The question is – what happens to ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? — what happens when they get switched around now?

  • #1169298

    yekke2
    Participant

    ??? ??????? ?”? says that we learn from ??? that one should not marry off his younger daughter before his older daughter.

    The question is: Why do we learn from ??? because he gave ??? – We should learn from ????, because he wanted to marry ??? even though she was younger!?

    The ???? says that ??? and ??? were twins – therefore ???? was ?????? because last week he says that the younger twin is older because the creation is first even though the birth is last; therefore even he agreed that one cannot marry before older siblings, ??? was older!!!

  • #1169299

    yekke2
    Participant

    ????? ?????? ????

    The Brisker Rav says that before ??? ???? even the ???? had no ???????, but just had ??????? (As seen in ???”? ??? ?’ ????? ??’ ?) — and ???”? in ?????? ?”? says that it isn’t ???? to have a ?????? ????, so the question doesn’t start.

    (Although ???’ ?????? ? brings that Eliezer was ???? Rifka, and ??”? ?? ????? brings a few times ??????? by the ????).

    ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?”? ??? ?’ ???? ???

  • #1169300

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yekke, your last post is obviously the basic answer, especially since we can say that in Chutz La’aretz he didn’t do Kedushin, as the Ramban writes regarding all other Mitzvos.

    Also, even if we find that the Avos kept the Mitzvos, it’s not like they were Bar Chiyuva. It was more like an Inyan. In more Halachic terms, their Kedushin probably had the status Kedushei Ketana and Maamar.

    The other answers are more like Afilu Im Tirtze Lomar…

  • #1169301

    Toi
    Member

    Why couldnt lavan just buy new trofim. Ayin daas zikeinim mibaalei tosfos. not for the faint of heart.

  • #1169302

    yehudayona
    Participant

    I don’t think anybody has answered Baalhabooze’s question about Lavan’s cheshbon. The best I can come up with is that he solved two problems by switching Leah for Rachel: the “shidduch crisis” and the fact that it’s hard to find good shepherds who are willing to sign a 14-year contract.

    Here’s my question about Vayetze: Why did Rachel steal the teraphim? Rashi says she wanted to encourage Lavan to give up idolatry, but it hardly seems that a diehard idolator wouldn’t just go out to his local idol store and get new ones. Also, since it’s forbidden to possess idols, Rachel should have destroyed or hidden them rather than steal them.

    Ramban says teraphim weren’t really idols, they were used to tell time, but some people (like Lavan) used them for divination. But that doesn’t explain why Rachel stole them. Since Lavan had worshipped them, why didn’t they become assur to Rachel? And why did she need them?

  • #1169303

    yekke2
    Participant

    Yekke, your last post is obviously the basic answer, especially since we can say that in Chutz La’aretz he didn’t do Kedushin, as the Ramban writes regarding all other Mitzvos.

    I am not sure if you understood what i wrote fully; I don’t think i explained myself correctly.

    Kiddushin is a Chiddush Hatorah – i don’t mean they didn’t KEEP that law, i mean that Kiddushin before Har Sinai doesn’t work (The Rambam says that before Matan Torah there was Nissuin only and no Kiddushin; Kiddushin can only happen after Matan Torah) – therefore the Avos were not going against the Torah at all by not doing Kiddushin

  • #1169304

    yekke2
    Participant

    ___________________________________________________

    PARSHAS VAYISHLACH:

    Why did Yackov bow “7” times to Eisav? What is the significance of the number 7?

    I once heard an amazing explanation: ???? has the numerical value of 182, which is 7 X 26 (????). This corresponds to seven levels of ????? he had. ???? has the numerical value of 208, which is 8 X 26. When he gave the ?????, he gave over 7 levels of ????? to Yackov (whatever that means), keeping one for himself. ??? came in and asked for ONE BROCHO – getting the remaining level which ???? originally intended on keeping for himself. Therefore – ??? is 376, which is 50 (???) X 7 [350], + 26 (1 X ????).

    When ??? came to kill ????, ???? bowed 7 times, using his 7 powers of ????? to fight ???s 7 powers of ????, leaving ??? with only 1 level of ?????. [According to the ??? that ???s intentions when he hugged ???? were not pure, you have to say that his plan didn’t work]

    (I might have heard this ??? the ???? ????, but I am not sure)

  • #1169305

    yekke2
    Participant

    Q. Did Yaackov actually split them into two groups? It was supposed to be part of the plan but we don’t see it ever carried out?

  • #1169307

    yekke2
    Participant

    Why was ???? scared to kill ??? (Rashi says that ???? refers to killing others) — there is a ??? of ??? ????? ???? ?????, that if one comes to kill you, can kill him first?

    One cannot answer that one is only allowed to kill a ???? if it is impossible to save him through disabling him somehow [and therefore ???? was scared that he would kill even if he wouldn’t need to], because the ???? and the ???”? hold that this law applies only to a bystander; the victim himself is permitted to kill the ???? even if it is possible through other means to save himself?

    There are those who answer that ??? came to kill ????s family, not ???? himself (because ??? promised not to kill ???? while ???? was still alive), and therefore he didn’t have the ???? of killing; he was considered like a bystander, and therefore was not permitted to kill without trying to disable first.

    (There are those who explain this ??? of the ???? because he is ???? (confused, not thinking straight), which comes under the category of ????. I don’t understand this, because the ???? of ???? does not apply to the 3 Cardinal Sins of ????? ???, ????? ???? ?????? ?????, which are ????? ??? ?????? One could answer that the ???? does not create a ???? to kill, but rather changes the circumstances so that it isn’t ???? ?????? ???? ??????.)

  • #1169308

    yekke2
    Participant

    How does ??”? know that it was ???? who was missing? The ???? says ?”? ??????; how does ??”? know who it was?

    The ????”? says that ???? is the only one who makes sense, whereas the others have no explanation, so ??”? knew it was her.

    There is a ????? that the ??? ????? was in the portion of ??? ??????, because he is the only who didn’t bow to ???. If it was another brother missing, then the ????”? could be in his portion. It follows, therefore, that it was ???? who was missing.

    One can ask – maybe it was ??? who was missing, and he didn’t get the ????”? because ??? ??? didn’t get a ???? in ??”??

    The ???? answers that the ?????? hint to ???? — using the standard laws of grammar, when one refers to plural of both men and women, one talks in masculine, unless the women are more ????. However, if there is only one woman and many men, even if the woman is ????, we use a masculine form.

    When the maidservants came forward, the ???? says ???????? – plural feminine. When ??? came, however, it says ??????? – plural masculine. The reason is because ??? was the only woman — and where was ????? This is ??”?s proof that it was her who was missing more than any of her brothers.

  • #1169309

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    yekke2- “Q. Did Yaackov actually split them into two groups? It was supposed to be part of the plan but we don’t see it ever carried out?”

    That’s a great kasha that bothered me for years. I will quote to you this vort that was in Parsha Potpourri 2010 by R’ Oizer Alport:

  • #1169310

    yekke2
    Participant

    ??? ???!!!

  • #1169311

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS VAYEISHEV


    Yehuda suggests not to kill Yosef.

    ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????

    Rash”i says,” ?? ??? ” to mean,” ?? ????”, what monetary gain is there if we kill him!

    What does MONEY have to do with Yosef’s verdict?? If he deserves to die, kill him. If not, let him live. Was Yehuda trying to make a fast buck??

  • #1169312

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    It means, what do we gain by killing him. Rashi simply explains the meaning of the word.

  • #1169313

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yekke, why do you say it wasn’t carried out? It says Vayachatz. That’s not a plan, that’s action. The problem with the Vort Baal Habooze quotes is that the Pasuk repeats Vayachatz after the incident with the Malach.

    If you look you should notice that when they approached Esav to bow to him first it says Vatigashna Hashfachos, then it says, Vatigash Gam Leah. This is because they were not together. First the first group bowed, then the next group also approached and bowed.

    This might be a Kasha on the Brisker Rav, too. Why did he continue to take caution if he already won? Perhaps, though, he was still afraid of what the Gid Hanashe injury, that the Malach scored, could represent. It turns out, as Chazal say, it was in the future.

  • #1169314

    yitayningwut
    Member

    BaalHabooze –

  • #1169315

    yekke2
    Participant

    The ???? ??? ????? ?”? says that ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????. This is why ??? didn’t announce Yehudahs partnership in the story.

    ????? ???? in ???? ????? that the ????? is because of ????????? ??????, which is ????? ??? ?????. The question is that ????? was now giving her the death sentence (wrongly), and therefore was a ???? – she had the rights at least to embarrass him pub lically!! (???? ???? ?”? ??’ ??”?)?

    The ?????? ?? ?”? ??”? asks this by all ???? ?????? we should say you can kill them ???? ????? (See ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ? who discuses this at length)

    Even though ?????s role here finished after he sentenced her, the ???? ?? ??? is a ???? – according to the ??? in ?”? ?”? that ?? ???? ???? ????? when the ???? is a ????, then ????? is still a ?????

    Even according to ??? ?”? ?”? that ??? ???? ???? ????? even when the ???? is a ????, there is a ??? of ???? even by a ???? ????? (See ???? ?????? ?? ?”? ??? ? and ???? ??? ?? ? ???”? and the ?????? above), and therefore ????? is causing her to be killed?

    However – the ???? ??? says that this ???? of ???? ????? only applies by a Jew, because in a every ???? there are two parts: A) The ???? ???? of the ???? and B) ???? ????? (Saving the victim. This ??? of ???? ????? is only in the saving of the victim, not as a ???? ???? on the ????, and by a ?? ?? the ???? isn’t so worried about ????.

    According to this, one can answer with the ??? of the ???? ????? ???? ? ?’? – where proves that ??? held like those that they were all ??? ?? before ??? ???? (whereas ????? said they had ???? ?????), and therefore she didn’t have this ???? of ???? by ????.

    However, if they were ??? ??, the ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?”? says that every ??? has ?????? to another ???, and will also have the ???? of ?? ???? ???? ????? – and therefore we don’t need to come onto the ??? of ????!!

    (See ???? ?????? ?? ?”? ???”? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ?”? ?”? ??”? ??”? ??”?; See also ????? ?”? ??”? and ????? ???? ??”?)

    The ???? ????? asks ?? ??”? ??”? – according to those who hold that ?? ???? ???”? by ????, why does the ???? ??? ??? need to go to ???? if he kills by mistake [when he is ????? ????? ???] – it should be the ??? ??? because of ??????? *

    The ??? ???? brings from ?’ ????? ?????? that once ??? ??? have paskened, they are no longer involved, and anybody can carry out the ????? or the ????, and therefore the ???? ??? ??? is not ?????? ?????? – it would come out that ????? is only a ???? ???? which is ???? by a ?? ??.


    * I don’t understand why the ???? is a ???? when he is ????? ????? ???, because he is finished his job, so the ????s ???? doesn’t really start.

    (???? ?????? taken from ????? ????? ??”? by ?’ ????? ??????)

  • #1169316

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS BO


    It says by Makkas Bechoros, that Hashem killed all the bechorim “from Man to Animal” (???? ?? ????) and Rash”i explains that Man (the Mitzri) is first (to die) since he initiates sin, (and then the animals died).

    The question is, how is it shayich to say first the people died then the animals died, if we know that makkas bechoros occured in one, exact, split milli-second of midnight (Kachatzos Halayla)?

  • #1169317

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS BESHALACH


    When the Bnei Yisroel approached the Yam Suf, the medrash tells us that the sea originally didn’t want to split, because it was created on the 3rd Day and mankind on the 6th Day of creation. It was only because of Yosef, or because of (fill in the blank), and countless other medrashim and chaza”ls, that tell us what zechus the yidden had that it actually did split.

    Q. Why now of all times do we find the Sea arguing to do something shelo kederech HaTevah, something we have not heard any other segment of creation tayna (claim) until now, despite the occurance of the 10 incredible makkos in Mitzrayim (ex: We never found the Nile argue not to turn to blood, etc.)?

  • #1169318

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    Your last weeks kasha bothers me too.

  • #1169319

    playtime
    Member

    To baalhabooz:

    The split second of chatzos is when Macas Bechoros BEGAN. Paroh was nervous because he though since he was a bechor, he would die any second (just like his son).

  • #1169320

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    I think the answer for Beshalach q is that the makos were punishments on Mitzrayim so they deserved that. Krias yam suf was not a punishment (at that point) but rather to allow klal yisroel to pass through. They were undeserving of a neis of that magnitude because it was for them and they were also oivdei avodah zora.

  • #1169321

    yekke2
    Participant

    1) We find that creations don’t always listen, if it makes sense, to HKB”H – every tree was supposed to taste like the fruit it bore, and only Esrog bark when boiled tastes the same as the esrog fruit,

    2) The Moon ‘taynad’ that the sun should be made smaller, and then the moon itself was diminished.

    What this means, I don’t understand, but we DO find it.

  • #1169322

    yekke2
    Participant

    There was a ???? in ??????? where a ?? who had had ???? but no ????? went to R’ Shmuel Salant, to find out whether he should keep ??? or not (because a ??? who keeps ??? is ???? ????). R’ Shmuel wasn’t there at the time, and another ?? forced him to write on ???.

    The ???? ???? ??’ ?”? brings the ???? that the ???? of ??? was given at ???, and asks that at the time, the entire ??? ????? had had ???? (before eating ???? ???), but the ????? didn’t take place until ?? ????. The ???? ????? ?? says that a ?? who has had ???? but not ????? is not a Jew. So what is ??? in the ???? that ??? ???? ???? ?????

    (I think the ??? ???? is ????? a ???? somewhere that the whole ????? for a ??? to keep ??? is because of ‘???’, and before it was given to ??? ????? there was no such ????, and therefore the ???? kept the ????. You can say the same thing here – if it was given to them, then there is no ???. But i don’t remember where it is)

    The ???? ???? says that once they had ????, they were considered ??? ???? and could keep ???, and he learns from here that that every ?? ??? ??? ??? is ?????? to keep ???. (See the ???? ??? ??”? ??’ ??”? ??”?, who goes along similar lines)

  • #1169323

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    So someone wanted to answer for Parshas Bo an answer that I liked.

    It’s brought down b’sheim R’S.Z. Aurbach, that he asks a stirah. In the morning we say first ?? ??????? ?????….i ?????? ??????and in the evening we say ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? so which came first? So it’s brought down in mesechta (?) that the Mitzriyim were actually struck at midnight but they remained like a goysis (half-dead) till after the yidden left the land. So we can answer the stira, that they takeh were struck with a makka, but they didn’t die immediately, only after the yidden were redeemed and left.

    This answers our original question that the bechor animals could have died anytime between chatzos and when the yidden left Mitzrayim.

    Agav I was thinking maybe that could be one reason why it’s called Makkas bechoros and not necessarily Harigas Bechoros. Because for many hours the Bechorim were struck with a Makka that suspended them into this state, of hanging between life and death.

  • #1169324

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    WIY – that was a nice pshat, I was actually entertaining along those ideas, and I think we’re on to something! yasher koach, u’boruch sh’kivanti!

    yekke2- good ha’arahs (re: esrog/moon)! Now it’s all the more confusing.

  • #1169325

    benignuman
    Participant

    KASHA,

    Why did Hashem tell Moshe to lie to Paroah that they were only going to leave for 3 days? Why not just demand to leave? To put it differently, wasn’t Paroah right to chase after the B’nai Yisroel when they didn’t return? If so, why was he punished?

  • #1169326

    WIY
    Member

    benignuman

    To show the evil of Pharoah that he wouldnt even let them leave for 3 days!

  • #1169327

    benignuman
    Participant

    WIY,

    But doesn’t that justify Pharoah in chasing after them? Also is that really a reason to lie?

  • #1169328

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    benignuman- I heard once that originally that is what the plan was. To go away for just 3 days. Afterall the shibud mitzrayim was supposed to be for 400 years. Once they leave for 3 days and receive the torah, they can go back to mitzrayim, EVEN IN THE NUN SHA’AREI TUMAH, because now with their new-found Gift, the torah, they have the greatest spiritual tool to rise above mitzrayim’s immorality . The power of the torah will protect them from forever getting lost, no matter how deep they sink, and how low they fall, even if they reach the 50th shaar of tumah.

    Once Pharoah didn’t even agree to that, Hashem had no choice but to free the yidden, because they were in the 49th level of tumah, and, because they had no torah, were in danger of being eradicated forever once they reach the 50th.

  • #1169329

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    Parshas Yisro


    Here are fundamental questions in the story of Matan Torah.

    Why didn’t Hashem present us the torah with a Sefer Torah? What do the Luchos accomplish? What is the tachlis of the Luchos? What is it with these specific 10 Mitzvos, that they deserve its prestigious place as part of the Luchos, more than all the other 613?

  • #1169330

    benignuman
    Participant

    BaalHabooze,

    That is a good answer if you understand pshat that the shibud was supposed to be longer. If you understand that the 400 years is counted from leidas Yitchak then your answer doesn’t work.

  • #1169331

    musser zoger
    Member

    BaalHabooze,

    There wasn’t a complete sefer torah until the end of the 40 years.

    The 10 commandments include all 613 mitzvos.the 10 are major headings. like allthe mitzvos of yom tov and Shabbos are included in zachor. all arayos are included in lo tinaf, etc.

  • #1169332

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Throughout the Makos the request was for a distance of three days. Once Makas Bechoros came about Paroah sent them out unconditionaly. He just wanted them to get out.

    That is why it says Vayugad Limelech Mitzraim Ki Borchim Hem. What exactly was he told? He thought that they came back without any evidence thereof? The answer is that he never thought they should come back and it didn’t dawn on him to consider them Borchim. But, as with all negetive attitudes, when someone expresses it a certain way it catches on.

    Hence, Paroah was told that, “The Jews escaped!” After that he looked at it the same way, forgetting that he actually sent them out for good.

  • #1169333

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    BaalHabooze, we were presented at Har Sinai with the Aseres Hadibros, not the Luchos.

  • #1169334

    yekke2
    Participant

    The entire ????, both ????? and ??? ?? was given at ?? ????, with all the details.

  • #1169335

    playtime
    Member

    Haleivi:

    BaalHabooze is asking the same question that perplexed me after I watched ‘the ten commandments’

  • #1169336

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    The entire ????, both ????? and ??? ?? was given at ?? ????, with all the details.

    So, Moshe knew at Har Sinai about the sin that would prevent him from entering Eretz Yisroel?

    Or is it possible that the mitzvos were given at Sinai, but the actual text of the Torah wasn’t finalized until 40 years later?

    The Wolf

  • #1169337

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    HaLeivi – yeah, but still, it’s one and the same. The Aseres Hadibros that we heard by Har Sinai, we eventually got in written form (Luchos) 40 days later.

  • #1169338

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    benignuman – the “unofficial” official cheshbon is from Leidas Yitzchok, as you said. The “official” official cheshbon is when the shibud mitzrayim actually started. That’s why it’s brought down in seforim that the remaining 190 years had to be made up in a later time.

    I’m not sure what this all means, but that’s what is written in many seforim.

  • #1169339

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    yekke2 – That is true, very true.

    So how do you understand what the Aseres Hadibros are all about?

  • #1169340

    benignuman
    Participant

    HaLeivi,

    Rashi explain “Vayugad” to mean that Pharaoh sent spies along with the Jews to see if they would come back and the spies sent word that they weren’t coming back but were instead escaping. I also don’t understand your pshat, are you saying that Pharaoh sent them out but his servants didn’t know? Why were they telling him that the Jews ran away?

    BaalHabooze,

    I don’t know what seforim you mean (kabbalah?). But Rashi doesn’t learn that way so we still need a pshat for Rashi (and other Rishonim).

  • #1169341

    tzaddiq
    Member

    wolfishmusings – i believe there is a gemara that deals with that issue, of whether moshe recived all 613 mitzvos with the entire torah as we know it, or he received it part by part as time went on.

  • #1169342

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    i believe there is a gemara that deals with that issue, of whether moshe recived all 613 mitzvos with the entire torah as we know it, or he received it part by part as time went on.

    Yes, it’s a machlokes in the gemara.

    However, I don’t see how it’s possible to say that Moshe received the entire Torah in it’s final form at Sinai. After all, consider the following:

    It says in B’Shalach that the B’nei Yisroel ate the manna for forty years until they entered Eretz Canaan. If this verse appeared as such at Sinai, wouldn’t someone have asked “Hey, what do you mean we’re going to be in the wilderness for forty years?”

    If the Torah was given to Moshe in its final form at Sinai, why would Moshe hit the rock when he knew in advance that it would cause him to not enter Eretz Yisroel?

    If the Torah was given in its final form to Moshe at Sinai, would Korach have rebelled knowing the fate that he was in for? Would the spies have brought back their report, knowing in advance the grim consequences? Would Zimri have committed his act, knowing that Pinchas was waiting in the crowd with his spear? Would Aharon’s two sons have done what they did, knowing that it would have cost them their lives?

    If the Torah was given at Sinai in its final form, why would Moshe need to bring the question of Tzelaphchad’s daughters to HaShem? He already had the answer. Likewise, why would there be any doubt about the form of death penalty for the wood-gatherer? When the people who were tamei on Pesach wanted an opportunity to bring the Korban Pesach, why did Moshe tell them to wait for HaShem to answer them?

    From these questions, it is very clear that the Torah was not given in its final form at Sinai. The text of the Torah could only have been finalized at the end of the forty years.

    The Wolf

  • #1169343

    tzaddiq
    Member

    talmud- lol, that’s the worst thing u could’ve done, is watch ‘the 10 commandments’! now ur whole perspective on kabbolas hatora is messed up for life, lol! jk

    to answer baalhabooze, i will first note for you that the Ten Commandments actually have eleven or fourteen commandments (mitzvas) depending how you count. the whole name “Ten Commandments” is a mis-nomer. A far better translation of the Hebrew aseres hadibros is Decalogue or Ten Utterances.

    i once heard a series of lectures by Rabbi Moshe Eisemann (from baltimore) on the theme, that the commandments which are part of the Decalogue are special not in the commandment value, per se, but that together they define a kind of “constitution” of the Jewish people. that these are a basic framework, and 10 yesoidos, which defines the relationship that God wants with His people, and which make up His nation as the ‘mamlechess kohanim v’goy kodosh’.

  • #1169344

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The Machlokes is if the Torah was given at once or piece by piece. What Moshe got at Har Sinai was the Mitzvos with all their details, not the Sefer Torah. He didn’t even get the Drashos of how we know one from the other, until he got the Sefer Torah.

  • #1169345

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    What Moshe got at Har Sinai was the Mitzvos with all their details

    Clearly not *all* the details.

    He did not receive which death penalty a mechallel Shabbos receives.

    He did not receive the mitzvah of Pesach Sheini.

    He did not receive the halacha regarding daughters inheriting in the absence of sons.

    The Wolf

  • #1169346

    tzaddiq
    Member

    i think bepashtus that a short concise and powerful shiur is the best formula & method for an audience to remember the shiur. and that’s what hashem did, but condensing the 613 mitzvos down to 10. he kept it short, concise and powerful, and is now forever inbeded into the jewish memorybank.

  • #1169347

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    PARSHAS TETZAVEH


    Why is Moshe’s name absent in this week’s parsha?

    (now let’s see how many answers can we collect…)

  • #1169348

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    Its actually missing in all the Bereishis Parshios too oh no we have a mystery on our hands…

  • #1169349

    WIY
    Member

    BH

    Heres one probably nobody here has ever heard.

    from shlomokluger.com

  • #1169350

    sam4321
    Member

    Rav Ovadia Yosef said a great pshat.Moshe says ???? ?? ?????.He says one could read it ???? ?? ???? ?.which means erase me from sefer kaf which equals 20 and the 20th parsha is tzaveh so Moshes plea was granted.

  • #1169351

    tzaddiq
    Member

    another pshat is when moshe said ???? ?? ????? in parshas ki sisa, hashem said that the tenai of a tzaddik is mekuyam even when there is no tenai lemayseh. so the next week came, parshas vayakhel, and hashem said ‘not right now’, so he postponed it. then each week he kept pushing off the task of erasing moshe’s name. finallyy by the last week before he came full circle, was parshas tetzave, so he had no choice and erased his name in that last parsha.

  • #1169353

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    This is the best Parsha to leave out his name since he won’t really be erased from the Parsha. This entire Parsha is a command to him. So, we are reading Moshe all over while it technically doesn’t have his name.

  • #1169354

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    Nice! Keep ’em coming!

    Of course, there’s the famous GR”A who answers that since 7 Adar always comes out on parshas Tetzaveh, so although he is not mentioned explicitly in this week’s sedra, nevertheless ??? ??? ??

  • #1169355

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    *cough*Nitzavim*cough*

    The Wolf

  • #1169356

    WIY
    Member

    Wolf

    Why you coughing about Parshas Nitzavim?

  • #1169357

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    WIY, probably because Nitzavim doesn’t either have Moshe Rabbeinu’s name, and that doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

  • #1169358

    WIY
    Member

    Haleivi

    Passuk Lamed has Moshes name.

  • #1169359

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    WIY – that’s parshas Vayeilech, not Nitzovim. Interesting, I never heard this issue raised in nitzovim, only tetzaveh…

    Ki Sisa


    Why is the mitzva to make a Kiyor for the Mishkan in this week’s parsha, and not in parshas Teruma together with all the other Keilim?

  • #1169360

    musser zoger
    Member

    I dont think Moshe’s name is in Shoftim or ki seitzri. but dont have a chumash with me.

  • #1169361

    yekke2
    Participant

    Baal Habooze – I am talking through my hat here, but this weeks Parsha discusses parts of the daily avodah in the bais hamikdash – it could be that besides for the kiyor being part of the binyan habayis, part of the tzurah for the avodah was to have a kiyar there. (I have heard this sort of vort b’nogea the hadlokas hamenorah and the lechem haponim, in different variations.)

  • #1169362

    WIY
    Member

    BH

    Actually I saw that sefer Devorim is not included in this whole thing because Devorim is mishneh Torah a repetition. So it only goes until Massei end of Bamidbar and I dont think theres any other parsha that doesnt have Moshes name.

  • #1169363

    yekke2
    Participant

    VAYAKHEL-PEKUDAEI

    Rashi says that the reason why Shabbos is mentioned here is that the Bnei Yisroel shouldn’t think that the Binyan HaMishkan is Docheh Shabbos.

    If there would be no such Posuk, would we have thought that they can be docheh Shabbos? Shabbos is an ??? ??? ????, and there is no ???? of ??? ???? ?? ????? It is also a ?? ???? ??? ?? ????, which also would not have the ??????

  • #1169364

    tzaddiq
    Member

    “Why is the mitzva to make a Kiyor for the Mishkan in this week’s parsha, and not in parshas Teruma together with all the other Keilim?”

    if you look at the first shtikel of meshech chochma on parshas ki sisa, although he doesn’t ask yur kashah, he neverthless answers it beautifully.

    [washing the hands and feet aren’t a din in the kiyor per se, but in the makom (i.e. between the mizbayach and ohel moed.) ???? ??]

  • #1169365

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    Nice, tzaddiq! Thanks!

    VAYIKRA


    Q. What in the world is “Leviticus”?? 😛

  • #1169366

    WIY
    Member

    BaalHabooze

    Better question is what on earth is a Deuteronomy? Sounds like some type of surgery.

  • #1169367

    BaalHabooze
    Participant

    lol, WIY!

    I’m not even gonna try to pronounce the english name for Koheles (Ecclesiastes), but who on earth created that ridiculous name, must have drunk lots more booze than even I can handle!

  • #1169368

    yekke2
    Participant

    And the Tetragrammaton is the worst of all!

  • #1169369

    Wisey
    Member

    Vayikrah is about the avodas hacohanim (toras kohanim) so it is called LEVIticus. Deuteronomy means some thing to do with a summary and regarding Eccle…. I agree with Baal Habooze.

  • #1169370

    WIY
    Member

    Why is Tzaraas white, white is a distinguished color, the color of purity, righteousness, and innocence, it is the color of a special breed? Wouldnt it be more appropriate for Tzaraas to be black?

  • #1169371

    yekke2
    Participant

    Parshas Emor

    Rashi at the end of the parsha says by the ???? that “???? ??? ?????” tells us “???? ???????”. Now, the ???? says that he was ?? ??? ???????, so why was he ??????

    There is a ??? in :??????? ?”? (and I think in ????? ?? but not sure) which says that ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? means that the ???? is a ???. If so, then the son here would need to be ?????. (See ??? in ??????? ?? and ???? and ????? as to whether ??? holds of this ????)

    Anybody have another ????

  • #1169372

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    yekke2 I came here to post another question on emor but just read yours and do you know I thought of the same question over shabbos. I answered it that before matan torah a person was only jewish if their father was, not their mother like nowadays.

    The question I wanted to post is on the same topic – Rashi said the Ben Isha Yisraelis had become a ger and that shevet Dan did not let him set up tent among them. I was wondering, where did all the gerim set up their tents? There were many gerim who joined klal yisrael in the midbar. Did they have their own area? And where did the eruv rav have their tents? And when they conquered eretz yisrael, which portion did the gerim get?

  • #1169373

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    yekke2 I came here to post another question on emor but just read yours and do you know I thought of the same question over shabbos. I answered it that before matan torah a person was only jewish if their father was, not their mother like nowadays.

    The question I wanted to post is on the same topic – Rashi said the Ben Isha Yisraelis had become a ger and that shevet Dan did not let him set up tent among them. I was wondering, where did all the gerim set up their tents? There were many gerim who joined klal yisrael in the midbar. Did they have their own area? And where did the eruv rav have their tents? And when they conquered eretz yisrael, which portion did the gerim get?

  • #1169374

    yekke2
    Participant

    Shticky Guy – I think the Eruv Rav (and probably also the geirim) set up camp out of the ???? ?????.

    I asked one of my Rabeim, and he told me your tirutz (possibly from the Rambam; alternatively it could have been the Raavad on Toras Cohanim). Another answer is (like a wrote above) that even after ??? ???? if the father in not Jewish, then even if the mother is, the child will not be Jewish (contary to common belief). The ??? ???? brings a proof from this ???.

    Another ????? was that we are saying he was ????? at ?? ???? just like everybody else; the ????? is that he came even though he father was an Egyptian, the ???? is informing us that he wasn’t because he came with his mother to convert.

  • #1169375

    LanderTalmid
    Member

    Parshas Bamidbar

    In a few places Rashi says that there were 4 digallim- three shvatim per degel, other than the 12 degallim that each shevet had. Does anyone know pshat in these digallim? Colors?

  • #1169376

    Sam2
    Member

    LT: I believe the Little Midrash Says book said all of them and gave a possible representation. I don’t know what his source was though.

  • #1169377

    WIY
    Member

    Lander Talmid

    The Gemara in Nedarim (58a) tells us that in order for the Shechina to rest on someone, he must have four attributes; he must be wise, rich, strong, and modest. The Kli Yakar says that grouping of the encampment of Bnei Yisroel into four Degalim was to highlight these four attributes of Klal Yisroel. so that the Shechina would rest on us.

    All four Degalim surrounded the Mishkan because these attributes were used only to serve Hashem and bring the Shechina down to Klal Yisroel..

    From Revach.net

  • #1169378

    yekke2
    Participant

    Parshas Shelach Lecha

    The ???? says: ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? – Why does the ???? feel it necessary to tell us that the Bnei Yisroel were in the ?????

    The ???? ????? brings from the ???? ???? that the ???? in ??? ??? says the ???? and ?????? ???? are ???? ???. The ???? ???? asks: Based on the ???? of ????? (Like :????? ??, where it says that because one is allowed to cook for guests on ??? ???, one is allowed to cook extras even if there are no guests, and he will eat it ????), one should be allowed to be ????? ???? since it could be required for ?????

    (??? in ????? asks why anything is ???? on ??? – say that ????? that it is ???? for a ???? ??? ?? ???? say that it is ???? always, and ??? answers that a ???? is not ????. However, the ?? ????? ?? says that ???? is called ????)

    To answer this, the ???? says ????? ??? ????? ????? –> In the ????, the ??? ????? didn’t do ???? (See ????? ?? and ??? ??????? ??) because there was no ??? ??????. {Even though apparently ??? ??? did do ????, it could still be that it was not yet called ????}

    (This could also be why the story of the ????? is brought after the ?????? – the reason there was no ??? ?????? was because of the ??? ???????; see :??? ??????? ??.)

  • #1169379

    nem621
    Member

    to answer some questions that are a little old (2 months) the english names for the parts or the torah are from the gemara names i.e. levitucus is Torahs cohanim so although it isnt a perfect translation one can see where it comes from

  • #1169380

    WIY
    Member

    yekke2

    Nice dvar Torah. Thanks.

  • #1169381

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Yekke, the Terutz is nice but it seems like something needs to be understood better with the concept of Ho’il.

    The Kasha from Choleh is even bigger. Even when you are doing it for a Choleh, you can’t be Mosif.

    I guess this goes back to Hutra or Dechuya. If it is Dechuya then we can’t say Ho’il.

  • #1169382

    yekke2
    Participant

    I think it comes out from the Shaagas Arye a chiddush that now that ???? is ???? one CAN be ???? on ?????? ???? without any ???? using the concept of ?????.

  • #1169383

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    By saying that, you threw out quite a few of the 39 Melachos. That can’t be the case.

  • #1169384

    yekke2
    Participant

    Halevi – I know, that is what I was pointing out. However, the Shaagas Arye’s answer will only make sense if that is the case – he learns that is why the Torah needed to say ????? ??? ????? ?????, and if not we WOULD have said ?????!

  • #1169385

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    I know this is a little late but I forgot to post this a couple of weeks ago.

    At the end of ??? ?? is the ???? of ???. Many ?????? for example the ??? ?????? say that ????? has the ?????? of ???? cuz ????? is 600, plus the 8 threads and 5 knots equals 613.

    The problem is that all 3 times that ????? is mentioned, it is spelled ???? which only comes to 603.

    Can anyone provide a good explanation? I heard a pshetl, but I’m looking for a real answer.

    Thanks

  • #1169386

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    While I wait for an answer to my question above, I’ll share with you a question that I had while learning ??? last week. ??? says on ?? ??? that although the ??? flattened all mountains in front of them, but 3 mountains remained: ?? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ???, ??? ??? ?????? ???? (these are not in chronological order).

    What about other mountains that we know remained?

    For example the mountains surrounding ?? ???? that we know were arguing over which of them should be the one the ???? would be given on? (Perhaps we can suggest that once ??? ????? arrived there the others were flattened?).

    And what about the mountains that ??? himself brings later that the ??????? were hiding in to attack ??? ????? and both mountains squashed together and killed them as ??? ????? passed thru? (Can we maybe say that they were kept to protect ??? ????? and even parted after so that ??? ????? would see what had happened and this is why they remained?)

    But why did ??? not mention that these also remained standing? He says only 3 stayed.

    And what about ?? ?????? + ?? ???? ?

  • #1169387

    yekke2
    Participant

    For example the mountains surrounding ?? ???? that we know were arguing over which of them should be the one the ???? would be given on? (Perhaps we can suggest that once ??? ????? arrived there the others were flattened?).

    Doesn’t the Medrash say that those mountains came from over the world, not locally from Sinai?

  • #1169388

    Shticky Guy
    Member

    yekke2 thank you that’s a wonderful ???? that I did not know and would explain that example well.

    What about the other examples that I gave?

  • #1169389

    simcha613
    Member

    I find it strange that in some places in this weeks ????, the ???? uses the words ?? and ?? interchangeably. For example, ???? ask to curse ??? ????? using the word (?? (??? ??? ?? ???? and ?’ responds using the language (?? (?? ??? ?? ???. Usually we don’t assume that two different words are synonymous in the ???? (especially here as ??”? tells us that these are two different levels of curses), so why the inconsistency?

  • #1169390

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    On the Tzitzis Kasha, which I think the Ramban asks, the Maharal says that we are counting the word itself, not how the Torah spelled it. The Sma”g has another approach, which I don’t remember off hand. Whoever gets there first can post it.

  • #1169391

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Here it is:

    ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???”? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???, ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??”? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???”? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????”? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???”? ?????

  • #1169392

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    Shticky, I don’t quite get your question from the Emoriim. They actually got squashed from the flattening operation, when the B’nei Yisroel were about to come through. Har Sinai and its neighbors were before the Aron, which is what went ahead to flatten out the hills.

    Har Grizim and Har Eival are in Eretz Yisroel, after the Ananim left.

  • #1169393

    LanderTalmid
    Member

    The Emoriim got squashed through the two mountains coming together not a flattening. So one can answer either that the “Anan” only flattened the mountains that Bnei Yisroel passed through so as to lessen the effort of travel but here they traveled around so there was no need for these mountains to be flattened. Another possible answer is that this maaseh was right after Aharon died and the Ananim went away (which were in his zchus) so there was no Anan to flatten.

    Simchah- I heard that Bilaam hated the Jews even more so he wanted to curse them in a more severe manner but Balak only wanted to save himself so he just asked Bilaam to perform a light curse.

    Haleivi-I am not sure why you switch back and forth between the aron doing the flattening and the ananim

  • #1169394

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The Emoriim were lying in ambush in the route that the B’nei Yisroel were to come through. If they were anyhow going around them there was no need for the Ness. When the mountains come together it becomes flat straight ground. Assuming the B’nei Yisroel were already higher than the ground of the foot of those mountains, coming together was leveling out the ground for them.

    Your Pshat about Bilaam hating the Jews more than Balak did, is the Rashi mentioned by Simcha. The question was about the rest of the Parsha. We see that after the initial call, Balak also uses the term Kava Li.

    I mention the Aron since I remember that the Aron went ahead for that purpose. This was only during the Ananim. Perhaps one caused the other to flatten it. The Aron brought the Hashgacha out onto the open areas and the Ananim did the flattening.

    What you say about the story of the Amoriim happening after Aharon sounds very good. The only question is that we learn that the Ananim returned in the Zechus of Moshe Rabbeinu. Obviously, it didn’t return instantly because the Kenaanim found the Jews, and there was probably some time for people to realize that the Ananim was in the merit of Aharon — just like the Be’er returned in the Zechus of Moshe and Aharon, but only after a void was felt.

  • #1169395

    simcha613
    Member

    In ???? ??????, there is an ????? of ????? in ??? ??: ???? ?. On the spot, ??”? explains based on the ???? and the opinion of ?’ ????? that this is an ????? to attribute significance to certain times. For example, to say this season is a good time to start something. Doesn’t the idea that ??? is a time of good fortune and ???? ?? is a time of bad fortune violate this ????? ?????????

  • #1169396

    Sam2
    Member

    The Nosei Keilim on the Shulchan Aruch discuss this exact question. I think the answer they give is that if it’s real it’s not Assur. The Issur is assigning significance to non-significant times. I think R’ Schachter’s son had a Shiur on this on YUTorah about a month ago. The Poskim talk about this in Even HaEzer where it talks about only getting married in the first half of the month.

  • #1169397

    dafyomi2711
    Member

    maybe we don’t paskin like rebbe Akiva there are other opinions as to what a meonain is.

  • #1169398

    Sam2
    Member

    This is Rabbi Shay Schachter’s (R’ Schachter’s son) Shiur on this precise question: (Mods, please let the link through. It’s from yutorah.)

    http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/796173/_Shay_Schachter/Mishenichnas_Av,_Magic_&_Mazalot_

  • #1169399

    HaLeiVi
    Member

    The Rashba brings proof that Rebbi Akiva himself went against this principle, since he composed Tefillos meant to be said at specific times.

    Sam, I listened and I have two Ha’aros. He didn’t mention Achizas Einayim being a type of Kishuf — which is actually Mashma in the Rambam who is Soser himself otherwise. Also, he mentioned Siman together with Lo Se’onenu, but they are separate entities. The Gemara says that although there is no Nichush there is Siman.

    However, the point is well illustrated from Rav that tested his Mazal by the ferry. The Gemara does not equate this with saying, ‘a deer ran by so I must return home’. The difference is that one makes sense and is part of an understanding that a day has its Mazal, while the other is baseless.

    The Gemara says that we are not supposed to turn to astrologers but that if we heard something from them we should be wary. Being wary on their word is not a violation of Tamim Tihye, since it is true and you are not turning away from Hashem when He actually did make the world this way, with this system. Although, even if true, we are not supposed to turn to the astrologers and it would be a violation of Tamim Tihya.

  • #1169401

    coffee addict
    Participant

    since we started the torah again i wanted to pose a kasha to the cr oilam (ive asked this to people and havent got an answer)

    Hashem told Adam “because you listened to your wife the earth will be cursed…” this shows the sin was “listening to his wife” and not “eating from the eitz hadas”, the ohr HaChaim states that adam sinned b’oneis because he didnt know it was from the eitz hadas (im paraphrasing, you can look it up yourself) if thats the case why was he punished

    please dont say he wasnt, the earth was, (like the ohr hachaim does) because “bzayas apecha” goes on even things that didnt have to do with the earth

    if im not being clear please say so, and ill try to explain better

  • #1169402

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    You answered your own question:

    the sin was “listening to his wife”

  • #1169403

    coffee addict
    Participant

    paa,

    the ohr hachayim goes into detail, i suggest you look at it, what was wrong about listening to his wife, she was from Hashem so why should he suspect she would give him treif? (i have my own pshat, not going like the ohr hachaim, if anyone is interested ill say it)

  • #1169404

    coffee addict
    Participant

    bump

  • #1169405

    coffee addict
    Participant

    in last weeks parsha (baaloscha) the people that were tamei couldn’t become tahor before pesach, why not? they got to har sinai in sivan and this was the nissan afterwards where were they carrying the aron of yosef (according to that man damar) that they couldn’t become tahor?

  • #1169406

    bigben2
    Participant


    Parshas Shelach Lecha

    The ???? says: ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? – Why does the ???? feel it necessary to tell us that the Bnei Yisroel were in the ?????

    The ???? ????? brings from the ???? ???? that the ???? in ??? ??? says the ???? and ?????? ???? are ???? ???. The ???? ???? asks: Based on the ???? of ????? (Like :????? ??, where it says that because one is allowed to cook for guests on ??? ???, one is allowed to cook extras even if there are no guests, and he will eat it ????), one should be allowed to be ????? ???? since it could be required for ?????

    (??? in ????? asks why anything is ???? on ??? – say that ????? that it is ???? for a ???? ??? ?? ???? say that it is ???? always, and ??? answers that a ???? is not ????. However, the ?? ????? ?? says that ???? is called ????)

    To answer this, the ???? says ????? ??? ????? ????? –> In the ????, the ??? ????? didn’t do ???? (See ????? ?? and ??? ??????? ??) because there was no ??? ??????. {Even though apparently ??? ??? did do ????, it could still be that it was not yet called ????}

    (This could also be why the story of the ????? is brought after the ?????? – the reason there was no ??? ?????? was because of the ??? ???????; see :??? ??????? ??.)

    –Yekke2

    Something doesn’t add up there. According to the Shaagas Aryeh, now that Milah is commonplace, am I allowed to transgress anything that would be permitted for Milah?

  • #1169407

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    ????? doesn’t make it ????, it’s still ???? ??????.

    Anyhow, we aren’t ???? ??? nowadays to heat water for a ?? ?????.

  • #1169408

    bigben2
    Participant

    We don’t say ?????

    And do we pasken that ?????? ???? is doicheh shabbos?

  • #1169409

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Are you asking new, unrelated questions? I’m not sure I follow you.

  • #1169410

    bigben2
    Participant

    @dy: You said that nowadays we aren’t Mechallel Shabbos to heat water. I asked if we pasken that ?????? ???? are doicheh shabbos or not.

    You also said that it is still assur midrabanan. On that I asked why we don’t say ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????, which will make it muttar midrabanan as well.

    (I think Halevi posed similar questions on Yekkes original post a couple of pages back. I searched a bit on Hebrewbooks, and a couple of sources discuss similar problems with this Shaagas Aryeh, but most of them argue, they don’t answer.)

  • #1169411

    Sam2
    Member

    ca: It could be they messed up the Din and thought that if they became Tahor on Shvi’i they could bring the Korban because they would be Tahor the night after.

  • #1169412

    coffee addict
    Participant

    sam,

    sorry i dont get what you’re saying

    my question is when did they move the aron (or go into the same ohel i guess)? they camped from before sivan of the previous year so they shouldn’t have moved anything (at least this is what i think, please disprove me

  • #1169413

    DaasYochid
    Participant

    Bigben2, how does ???? even come into this discussion? The ????? was on ???.

  • #1169414

    Sam2
    Member

    ca: Maybe they went in to check and make sure there were no mice near the body. They went in 7 days before instead of 8 because they thought that was enough. They miscalculated.

  • #1169415

    coffee addict
    Participant

    sam2,

    i just looked into the shaarei aaron that quotes the gemara in sukkah (25a) and my point is the same as r yitzchak’s where’s you could be bringing a reason for r’ yossi haglili

  • #1169416

    coffee addict
    Participant

    Bump

    The haftorah starts off with “nachamu nachamu ami” while in parshas vayeishev when the she atom were coming to comfort Yaakov about the death of Yosef that a person isn’t consoled on someone that is alive but is thought to be dead

    If that’s the case how can Hashem console us if our connection to Hashem (or eretz yisrael) (or the beis hamikdash) isn’t “dead”

    Additionally how is it connected to a real death (hamakom yinacheim)

  • #1169417

    Lilmod Ulelamaid
    Participant

    The issue with Yaakov was that people were trying to console him for Yosef’s death and since Yosef wasn’t dead, he couldn’t be consoled for his death. With Parshas Nachamu, Hashem is not trying to console us for our “dead connection; rather He is consoling us by telling us that it is not dead. Likewise, if Yaakov Avinu had been told that Yosef was really not dead, that would have brought him consolation.

  • #1169418

    coffee addict
    Participant

    So we thought there was a dead connection we thought that’s it we’re done? Didn’t we know that it was only a temporary galus?

Viewing 275 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to RSS Feed For This Article