NYC Local News

Catskills Local News

Monsey Local News

Photos

Photos



YWN Coffee Room » Bais Medrash

Kashas on the Parsha

(258 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by coffee addict
  • Latest reply from HaLeiVi

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    zaidy,

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. zaidy78
    Member

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    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 וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה.

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    As for the Mekach Ta'us problem, Yaakov was Mekadesh with Bi'a. There is a Chazaka that אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות. This couldn't be more true about Yaakov Avinu. He was גמר ומקני since he rather that it be a good Keddushin.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. coffee addict
    having withdrawal symptoms

    her intentions were to save leah the embarrasment

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. oomis
    Best Bubby EVER

    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!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. yekke2
    Member

    The מקנה קונ' אחרון אהע"ז סי ס"א סק"ה writes that the first נישואין was בטעות but he remarried her. According to this, he asks, when he married her a second time, she was a בעולה, and therefore should only have שלשה ימי משתה as opposed to the normal 7 of a בתולה. T (עיין שם מה שהביא ממרדכי קידושין אות תקמ"ה בענין נישואי טעות ושו"ת רש"י)

    The ריב"א על התורה brings from ר"ת that יעקב was חושש for לבןs trickery, and therefore had דעת that if it would be לאה he wanted to be מקדש her. (Although that is contradictory to the מדרש that he gave סימנים to רחל so that he shouldn't trick - but it could be this was different - if he was anyways having the ביאה, he wouldn't want it to be a ביאת זנות and therefore wanted the קידושין (see HaLevi before))

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. yekke2
    Member

    Q: The גמרא 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 ארבעים ימים קודם יצירת הוולד בת קול אומר בת פלוני לפלוני -- what happens when they get switched around now?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. yekke2
    Member

    תוס קידושין נ"ב says that we learn from לבן that one should not marry off his younger daughter before his older daughter.
    The question is: Why do we learn from לבן because he gave לאה - We should learn from יעקב, because he wanted to marry רחל even though she was younger!?

    The מדרש says that רחל and לאה were twins - therefore יעקב was לשיטתו 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, רחל was older!!!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. yekke2
    Member

    בענין נישואי טעות

    The Brisker Rav says that before מתן תורה even the אבות had no קידושין, but just had נישואין (As seen in רמב"ם פרק א' אישות הל' א) -- and רעק"א in כתובות מ"ה says that it isn't שייך to have a נישואי טעות, so the question doesn't start.
    (Although תוס' כתובות ז brings that Eliezer was מקדש Rifka, and רש"י על התורה brings a few times קידושין by the אבות).

    עיין עוד בלקח טוב כלל י"ג אות ו' שחקר בזה

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    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...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. Toi
    beware the cleats

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. yehudayona
    Member

    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?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. yekke2
    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.

    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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. yekke2
    Member

    ___________________________________________________

    PARSHAS VAYISHLACH:

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

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

    When עשו came to kill יעקב, יעקב bowed 7 times, using his 7 powers of קדושה to fight עשוs 7 powers of טומא, leaving עשו with only 1 level of קדושה. [According to the פשט that עשוs intentions when he hugged יעקב were not pure, you have to say that his plan didn't work]

    (I might have heard this בשם the פנים יפות, but I am not sure)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. yekke2
    Member

    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?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. yekke2
    Member

    Why was יעקב scared to kill עשו (Rashi says that ויצר refers to killing others) -- there is a דין of הבא להרגך השכם והרגו, that if one comes to kill you, can kill him first?

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

    There are those who answer that עשו came to kill יעקבs family, not יעקב himself (because עשו promised not to kill יעקב while יצחק was still alive), and therefore he didn't have the היתר 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 פסק of the ריבש because he is בהול (confused, not thinking straight), which comes under the category of אונס. I don't understand this, because the היתר of אונס does not apply to the 3 Cardinal Sins of עבודה זרה, שפיכת דמים וגילוי עריות, which are יהרוג ואל יעבור? One could answer that the אונס does not create a היתר to kill, but rather changes the circumstances so that it isn't יכול להצילו באחד מאבריו.)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. yekke2
    Member

    How does רש"י know that it was דינה who was missing? The פסוק says י"א מילדיו; how does רש"י know who it was?

    The מהרש"ל says that דינה is the only one who makes sense, whereas the others have no explanation, so רש"י knew it was her.

    There is a תירוץ that the בית המקדש was in the portion of שבט בנימין, because he is the only who didn't bow to עשו. If it was another brother missing, then the ביהמ"ק could be in his portion. It follows, therefore, that it was דינה who was missing.

    One can ask - maybe it was לוי who was missing, and he didn't get the ביהמ"ק because שבט לוי didn't get a נחלה in אר"י?

    The גאון answers that the פסוקים hint to דינה -- 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 חשוב. However, if there is only one woman and many men, even if the woman is חשוב, we use a masculine form.

    When the maidservants came forward, the פסוק says ותשתחוין - plural feminine. When לאה came, however, it says וישתחוו - plural masculine. The reason is because לאה was the only woman -- and where was דינה? This is רש"יs proof that it was her who was missing more than any of her brothers.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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:

    The Matamei Yaakov answers that after Yaakov wrestled with Eisav’s guardian angel and emerged triumphant, he was no longer afraid of Eisav and abandoned his previous plans as no longer necessary. Yaakov’s newfound confidence can be better understood in light of an insight of the Brisker Rov. Eisav’s angel informed Yaakov (32:29) that because he had successfully wrestled with Hashem and with men, his name would be changed to Yisroel. Rashi explains that “with men” refers to his victories over Lavan and Eisav. How could the angel tell Yaakov that he had triumphed over Eisav when he had yet to even encounter him in person?

    The Medrash says that the dust which was kicked up from the clash between Yaakov and Eisav’s angel ascended all the way to Hashem’s Throne of Glory. The Brisker Rov explains that the Medrash isn’t relating a trivial fact about the location of the dust. It is coming to teach that this was no mundane wrestling match, but rather a battle which was being fought in Heaven. If so, once Yaakov had emerged victorious from his celestial duel, it was already a foregone conclusion that he would be successful in his earthly encounter with Eisav. In light of this explanation, it is easy to understand why Yaakov scrapped his initial military scheme, for he was now secure that he had nothing to fear.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. yekke2
    Member

    ישר כחך!!!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    PARSHAS VAYEISHEV
    ------------

    Yehuda suggests not to kill Yosef.
    ״ויאמר יהודה אל אחיו מה בצע כי נהרג את אחינו״
    Rash"i says," מה בצע " to mean," מה ממון", 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??

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. yitayningwut
    I have no idea wut this screen name means. Do YOU know what this screen name means?

    BaalHabooze -

    I have a theory about that. I think Yehuda was appealing to the brothers with a whole list of reasons why not to kill Yosef, because secretly he felt guilty about it. He was afraid to tell them that outright, so in order to convince them he argued his case from three unrelated angles: בצע – financial gain, אחינו – guilt, and כסינו את דמו – deniability, and the three are condensed into the verse.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. yekke2
    Member

    The גמרא בבא מציעא נ"ט says that נח לאדם להפיל עצמו לכבשן של אש ואל ילבין את פני חבירו ברבים. This is why תמר didn't announce Yehudahs partnership in the story.

    רבינו יונה in שערי תשובה that the איסור is because of אבוזרייהו דרציחה, which is יהרוג ואל יעבור. The question is that יהודה was now giving her the death sentence (wrongly), and therefore was a רודף - she had the rights at least to embarrass him pub lically!! (בנין ציון ח"ב סי' קע"ב)?

    The אחיעזר סי י"ט סק"ג asks this by all עדים זוממים we should say you can kill them מדין רודף? (See אפיקי ים חלק ב סי מ who discuses this at length)

    Even though יהודהs role here finished after he sentenced her, the שליח בת דין is a שליח - according to the תוס in ב"ק ע"א that יש שליח לדבר עבירה when the שליח is a שוגג, then יהודה is still a רודף?

    Even according to תוס ב"ק ע"ט that אין שליח לדבר עבירה even when the שליח is a שוגג, there is a דין of רודף even by a גורם למיתה (See דברי יחזקאל סי כ"ו אות ג and אמרי משה סי ל בהג"ה and the אחיעזר above), and therefore יהודה is causing her to be killed?

    However - the אמרי משה says that this הלכה of גורם למיתה only applies by a Jew, because in a every רודף there are two parts: A) The חיוב מיתה of the רודף and B) הצלת הנרדף (Saving the victim. This דין of גורם למיתה is only in the saving of the victim, not as a חיוב מיתה on the רודף, and by a בן נח the תורה isn't so worried about הצלה.
    According to this, one can answer with the פשט of the פרשת דרכים דרוש א ע'י - where proves that תמר held like those that they were all בני נח before מתן תורה (whereas יהודה said they had דיני ישראל), and therefore she didn't have this הלכה of רודף by גורם.

    However, if they were בני נח, the מחנה אפרים שלוחים סי י"ד says that every גוי has שליחות to another גוי, and will also have the הלכה of יש שליח לדבר עבירה - and therefore we don't need to come onto the דין of גורם!!
    (See משאת בנימין סי צ"ז רעק"א גיטין כ"ג משנה למלך שלוחין פ"ב ה"א ש"ך חו"מ רמ"ג סק"ה; See also תומים ל"ב סק"ב and תרומת הדשן רצ"ד)

    The קצות החושן asks סי שמ"ח סק"ד - according to those who hold that יש שליח לדב"ע by שוגג, why does the שליח בית דין need to go to גלות if he kills by mistake [when he is הוסיף רצועה אחת] - it should be the בית דין because of שליחות? *

    The בית יצחק brings from ר' ישראל סאלאנט that once בית דין have paskened, they are no longer involved, and anybody can carry out the מלקות or the מיתה, and therefore the שליח בית דין is not מהלכות שליחות - it would come out that יהודה is only a גורם מיתה which is פטור by a בן נח.

    ---------
    * I don't understand why the שליח is a שליח when he is הוסיף רצועה אחת, because he is finished his job, so the קצותs קשיא doesn't really start.

    (מראה מקומות taken from חבצלת השרון עה"ת by ר' מרדכי קרליבך)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    PARSHAS BO
    --------

    It says by Makkas Bechoros, that Hashem killed all the bechorim "from Man to Animal" (מאדם עד בּהמה) 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)?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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.)?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. WIY
    Managed to post for 3 years without getting a subtitle

    BaalHabooze
    Your last weeks kasha bothers me too.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. playtime
    Likes to take himself aback

    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).

    Posted 1 year ago #
  30. WIY
    Managed to post for 3 years without getting a subtitle

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  31. yekke2
    Member

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  32. yekke2
    Member

    There was a מעשה in ירושלים where a גר who had had מילה but no טבילה went to R' Shmuel Salant, to find out whether he should keep שבת or not (because a גוי who keeps שבת is חייב מיתה). R' Shmuel wasn't there at the time, and another רב forced him to write on שבת.

    The בנין ציון סי' צ"א brings the גמרא that the מצוה of שבת was given at מרה, and asks that at the time, the entire כלל ישראל had had מילה (before eating קרבן פסח), but the טבילה didn't take place until הר סיני. The גמרא יבמות מו says that a גר who has had מילה but not טבילה is not a Jew. So what is פשט in the הלכה that גוי ששבת חייב מיתה?

    (I think the חתם סופר is מדייק a רמבם somewhere that the whole איסור for a גוי to keep שבת is because of 'גזל', and before it was given to כלל ישראל there was no such הלכה, and therefore the אבות kept the תורה. You can say the same thing here - if it was given to them, then there is no גזל. But i don't remember where it is)

    The בנין ציון says that once they had מילה, they were considered בני ברית and could keep שבת, and he learns from here that that every גר שמל ולא טבל is מחוייב to keep שבת. (See the אבני נזר יו"ד סי' שנ"א סק"ד, who goes along similar lines)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  33. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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 כּל בּכוריהם הורגת....i ממצרים גאלתנוand in the evening we say המכּה בּעברתו כּל בּכורי ויוצא את עמו מתוכם 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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  34. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  35. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    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?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  36. WIY
    Managed to post for 3 years without getting a subtitle

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  37. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    WIY,

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  38. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  39. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  40. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  41. 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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  42. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  43. HaLeiVi
    Plays the aeolian harp by air

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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  44. yekke2
    Member

    The entire תורה, both שבכתב and בעל פה was given at הר סיני, with all the details.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  45. playtime
    Likes to take himself aback

    Haleivi:
    BaalHabooze is asking the same question that perplexed me after I watched 'the ten commandments'

    Posted 1 year ago #
  46. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    The entire תורה, both שבכתב and בעל פה was given at הר סיני, 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

    Posted 1 year ago #
  47. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  48. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  49. BaalHabooze
    On the rocks

    yekke2 - That is true, very true.
    So how do you understand what the Aseres Hadibros are all about?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  50. benignuman
    The Congenial Na Nach

    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).

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.