Tag Info

Hot answers tagged


The next Rashi gives two answers to this question: שהיו שמחין לאידם של ישראל ועוד שלא יאמרו יראתנו הביאה הפורענו' זו They were happy with the enslavement of Israel, and also so that they wouldn't be able to say that their god brought these disasters upon Egypt.


I think that the issue here is less to do with the word itself, which is used some eight times altogether in Tanakh, than it is with the fact that it denotes an action being done to Bilaam. God is mit'alel the Egyptians, the men of Gibeah are mit'alel the concubine, Saul is concerned lest the Philistines might mit'alel him (1 Chr 10:4), but Bilaam declares ...


See Rashi's explanation in Shemot 10:14 regarding the phrase "... there was never Arbeh like it and afterwards there will not be...". Rashi explains that there are different species of locusts one of which is called arbeh. He explains that this plague of locusts in Egypt was only of that species called arbeh. So, I'm assuming that the use of the definite ...


The mipharshei Rashi on 11:5 try explaining why Rashi chose to explain the reason for the death of the firstborns of the captives as being so they should not think it was their gods punishing the Egyptians, even though they are not mentioned in that passuk. See the Sifsei Chachamim, his words are basically from the Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh. From what they ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible