Kashas on the Parsha

Home Coffeeroom Bais Medrash Kashas on the Parsha

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 276 total)
  • 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
    Participant

    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
    Participant

    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
    Participant

    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?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 276 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending