Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

4

Given the proliferation of published commentaries on the Haggada these days, I'm sure there are an abundance of answers to this question. The two most famous answers, though, come from earlier commentaries. The first from Abarbanel, who asks this in connection to what "לחם עוני" means. What is "poor bread"? Answering that "poor" refers to the composition of ...


4

Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin, shlita, mentions that quotation on page 37 of his essay "Contemporary Tseni'ut" (Tradition Fall 2003), disagreeing with it quite sharply. He says it's found in Rabbi Falk's Oz VeHadar Levusha page 40, but I don't know if Rabbi Falk cites anyone on it. So that's a first step. (I can't help but mention that the family's biography of ...


3

See Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah Chapter 3. "Am Haaretz" just means ignoramus colloquially but the others are defined there. Rambam identifies four kinds of heretics (this is a subset of those who "have no share in the world to come). Three kinds of kofer: One who denies the divine origin of any portion of the written Torah; one who denies the validity of the ...


3

The Haggadah does not say that we would still all be slaves today, nor does it say that we would be slaves. It says: “And if the Holy One, Blessed be He, had not taken our forefathers out of Egypt, behold, we (see below) and our children and our children’s children (three generations only) would have been subjugated (but not slaves) to Pharaoh in ...


1

I heard from Rabbi Yosef Fox the following: Perhaps the idea is to contrast the ideas of slavery and freedom, they are relatives. Through the side by side contrast emerges a greater understanding of what slavery is (under the whims and emotions of man) and what freedom is (under the system of mitzvoth that guide a person to a life of חכמה which is true ...


1

Here's an interesting perspective from Chabad.org: ... the poor person’s lack of possessions allows him a type of freedom from the burden of the physical world. True, his independence comes at a price that few of us would be willing to pay; still, conceptually he represents autonomy, and stands in stark contrast to the slave, who is completely tied to ...


1

There are a number of answers ranging from strengthening Pharaoh so that he could withstand the plagues, to the difference in language showing that Pharaoh hardened his own heart at first and G0d only did that later after Pharaoh had reached the level of requiring punishment, ... Check out Hardened Hearts: Some Explanations to see some of them ...


1

Divine providence is not limited only to people. Divine providence is that G-d governs the existence of every single physical entity. From the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest galaxies in outer space. Each instance, every element is only in existence because of it's life force from G-d. Reshoim included. The question you really need to ask is ...


1

According to the shaar bitachon of Chovos Halevavos chapter 3 - all human beings including non-jews. Four: He watches over and directs the lives of all men, He does not abandon any of them nor neglects any of them . None of their matters, small or great are hidden from Him, and no matter can distract Him from remembering another matter, as written: ...


1

"Apikorus" derives from the Greek Eπικουρος (epikouros) - the name of a philosopher ("Epicurus" in Latin) who believed, among other things, that the gods had abandoned this world after having created it. An epicurean, in this context, is one who rejects any belief in divine providence, God's involvement in human history and in revelation. According to the ...


1

Here's something on "apikoros" Tov Halevanon commentary on shaar yichud ch.2 of Chovos Halevavos: The word "apikoros" refers to the name of a man who was called "apikoros", yimach shemo, who would completely deny the existence of G-d, the Moray (Maimonides' guide for the perplexed) mentions him in the end of the first chapter, those drawn after ...


1

The Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch. 52 explains this line in two ways. In his first explanation, he writes that the point is not that Hashem would have / could have only taken us out then, but rather that no one else could have taken us out, whether then or at some later point. This is because the Exodus was the creation of the Jewish nation from potential ...


1

1) Perhaps it means the culturally we would still be enslaved to Pharaoh. We would be entrenched in the Egyptian values, their ethical and philosophical beliefs. We would be assimilated into the Egyptian society never to break away if not for God taking us out and providing us with a new outlook on life. 2) Perhaps it is not telling us a historical ...



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