Hot answers tagged

10

This is found in Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabba, beginning of chapter 18 and Yalkut Shamoni Eicha 1034. The Tanna Devei Eliyahu version is: מאי שפכי כמים לבך נוכח פני ה' מכאן אמרו כל ת"ח שיושב וקורא ושונה ועוסק בתורה הקב"ה יושב כנגדו וקורא ושונה עמו What does "Poor out your heart like water opposite the face of Hashem" mean? From here they said that ...


6

The principles of Occam's razor and תפסת מרובה לא תפסת are not equivalent. Occam's razor is a logical principle stating that when comparing equivalently predictive hypotheses, the one that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. The principle of "תפסת" on the other hand, is not a logical principle in the same way. Instead, it is more ...


5

The difficulty in understanding the Rashi on a simplistic level is that no sacrifice atones for intentional sin. However, if you look at the actual text of the Midrash which Rashi is basing himself off of (Bamidbar Rabba 13:14), the atonement of this sacrifice was for something much more specific. The Medrash recounts how Yehuda was responsible for dipping ...


5

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi and Maharsha both write that that the term "ein___ela___" (x is only y) doesn't mean that is the only thing that it means, but rather that this is how it is being interpreted there. R. Mizrachi in his commentary to Rashi on Lech L'cha (15: 3): אין הבט אלא מלמעלה למטה...ואינו רוצה לומר שכל הבטה היא מלמעלה למטה...אלא הכי פירושא אין הבט ...


5

This would be puzzling because the Gemara (Sotah 12) states, “’She saw him, that he was good…’ R. Nechemiah says, ‘Fitting for prophecy.’ Others say, ‘He was born circumcised.’ And the Sages say, ‘At the time Moshe was born, the whole house filled with light. [...] When Pharoah’s daughter found him it says: ‘And she saw him, the boy.’ It ...


4

There seems to be confusion in the literature about that exact point. The Literature of the Sages, Part 2 describes the perakim as subdivisions of the parshiot, and notes in footnote 370 that "the editor of the printer edition did not understand that the perakim are part of the parsha..." explaining the confusion about numbering. However, The Anthology in ...


4

In general, rabbinic commentators (e.g. Maimonides, Maharal, Ramchal, Vilna Gaon) have been strongly opposed to the literal interpretation of medrash, and these midrashim are no exception.* To quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia: These haggadot concerning the leviathan are interpreted as allegories by all the commentators with the exception of some ...


4

Rashi on Sanhedrin 100a seems to interpret it to mean that he died: גל של עצמות. שמת, דאדם שמת נעשה גל של עצמות. A mound of bones. that he died, for a person who died becomes a mound of bones The Maharal in Chiddushei Aggadoth on Shabbath 34a interprets it to mean sudden death: ועשה אותו גל עצמות. פירוש [מיתה פתאמית] וזה נקרא גל של עצמות ...


4

The Maharal in Netzach Yisroel chapter 3 has as full discussion on this Medrash. I don't think there's a point in trying to translate the whole piece but I can try to relate the crux of it: This Medrash is addressing the problem of how we get plurality from One. This question caused many theories to abound. Some suggested multiple causes and others have ...


4

The rhetorical usage of "Oh yeah, we'll see what will be with that" is modern, but the proper usage of ונראה is the future tense, waiting to see what will happen as a result of their actions.


3

The מעם לעז says Yaakov avinu added the sleeves, which is why it says ועשה. Yaakov made the sleeves for the cloak which originally belonged to Adam HaRishon.


3

Maharatz Chajez has a piece inspecting the antiquity of various medrashim. It is conveniently printed in the standard Vilna edition of the Medrash Rabba set as one of the last introductory sections. His analysis, based on lack of being quoted in early Rishonim, leads him to say that Bemidbar Rabba was not as ancient as some of the other sections. He lays ...


3

Rav Hrsch explains that the language changing would have occurred as people spread out in any event. It was the miracle of all the languages suddenly erupting into existence rather than over a period of time that was the miracle of the dispersion. Thus, it affected everyone in the world, with the migdal Bavel as the center of the change (expanding out from ...


2

Buber says there are two traditional attributions. One is by Rabbi Avraham [sic] HaSefardi in Ohel Yosef, where he attributes it to Rabbi Yochanan (the redactor of the Talmud Yerushalmi). However Buber himself must be making an error, as the author of Ohel Yosef (published uncensored under the name Tzefas Paneach - a famous and controversial pirush on the ...


2

The Ramban on Bereishis 1:1 says that the multiple things called ראשית that Chazal speak about are an allusion to the 10 Sefiros.


2

It's a good question which will lead you to some very interesting territory. This concept is not to be taken in a straightforward way. It is, after all, appearing in Midrash. Like most things in Midrash, it is alluding to a different concept. The allegory only gives a simple model to make it possible to comprehend a much more complex concept. For an ...


2

Malbim's reading of Song of Songs breaks it into five chapters, plus a coda about an orchard that was worth thousands. Thus: "his song was five, and a thousand."


2

At the end of the day, it was a mitzvah from Moshe to the meraglim. Secondly, the fruits' incredible qualities were undeniable. Not bringing them back for klal yisrael to see would prevent the nation from making their own judgments about the land's bounty. At least Calev and yehoshua could make a stronger case with the evidence.


2

I've tried to keep to the literal interpretation as much as possible. ‘Reuven’, as it is stated, (Exodus 3, 7,) “I have surely seen the affliction of My people.” ‘Shimon’, named for (Exodus 2, 24,) “And God heard their groaning.” ‘Levi’, named so because the Holy One, blessed be He connected to their plight from the midst of the bush, to fulfil what is ...


2

Isaiah (58:2): וְאוֹתִי, יוֹם יוֹם יִדְרֹשׁוּן, וְדַעַת דְּרָכַי, יֶחְפָּצוּן; כְּגוֹי אֲשֶׁר-צְדָקָה עָשָׂה, וּמִשְׁפַּט אֱלֹהָיו לֹא עָזָב, יִשְׁאָלוּנִי מִשְׁפְּטֵי-צֶדֶק, קִרְבַת אֱלֹהִים יֶחְפָּצוּן The Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana (4:8) says: ואותי יום יום ידרושון זו תקיעה וערבה The reference is to the Aravah ceremony which was performed on the ...


2

There are some general understandings on these things. The Yerushalmi is believed to be completed by Rabbi Yochanan, Reish Lakish, and their peers around the year 350; the Bavli, by Ravina and Rav Ashi (and one generation past them), around the year 500. We generally follow the Bavli as it had the time to consider the Yerushalmi, then supersede it. Some ...


2

My Chumash gives the reference to the Medrash Rabbah 71 (8). In this Medrash Rabbah it's 71 (11). I see there one notarikon. ותאמר רחל נפתולי אלהים נפתלתי וגו׳ . נופתי פתיתי תליתי אחותי עלי. א״ר יוחנן נינפה היה לי לעשות לפני אחותי. אילו שלהתי ואמרתי לו תן דעתך שהם מרמין בך לא היה פורש which I understand to mean from the commentary: נופתי I ...


2

What is odd about this pasuk is the sequence of tenses. Normally, once we start with a consecutive vav construction (ואמרנו), and the subject stays the same (ie. the sentence is unmarked: there's no contrast involved, or there's not quotation), we continue using consecutive vav. The major exception is when a word intervenes in the clause before the verb, ...


2

Like can been found in Sefer Orot HaGra, on the section dealing with Torah, the Vilna Gaon expresses the idea that all events and all people from the beginning of time to the end are contained within the five books of Moshe. He explains that all these hermeneutical details are necessary in order to include every detail of creation.


2

You didn't add the sources regarding Dina marrying Job (included in the text that you marked), here are a few (the rest of your sources are spot on): Baba Batra 15b, similar to Yerushalmi Sotta 25b (translation from here): ויש אומרים איוב בימי יעקב היה ודינה בת יעקב נשא כתיב הכא כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי וכתיב התם כי נבלה עשה בישראל.‏ Some say that ...


1

The footprint of a suka need not be convex. In other words, there can be two points inside a suka, equally high off the ground, such that the straight line segment joining those two points includes some points outside the suka. Proof: Mishna B'rura 634:1 forbids such a case where the local convex area is less than seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths ...


1

Rosh HaShannah is called the birthday of the world. (HaYom haras olam...see machzor mussaf) However, the pinnacle of creation is Adam, the first man. Therefore, Rosh HaShannah is the birthday of Adam. (the world's birthday is represented by Adam's birthday.) The first three words of the pasuk (HaYotzer yachad libam...)can be translated: "The One who forms ...


1

Rav Hutner explains that the 3000 parables were not 3000 parables that related to distinct topics. The purpose of a parable is to allow grasping of a concept that is too abstruse and so removed from the pupils capacity to comprehend. The familiar (mashal) then serves as a tool to access the foreign (nimshal). The concepts Shlomo sought to explain were 3000 ...


1

These quotes come from 2 different people. Rav Hoshaya said the first. Rav Huna in the name of Rav Matna said the other. As a matter of fact, Rav Huna listed three things called Reishit. These are different opinions by different people, so there is no contradiction. It is also possible to have three "firsts" similar to the idea of having 10 books on the ...


1

Midrashim in general are nice and a good souce for Divrei Tora for the Shabes table. However one cannot bring the words of the Midrash as Halacha, unless Chazal or one of the Rishonim specifically referred to that midrash as a source of that specific Halacha. Rashi (and many others) commonly bring Midrash Tanchuma to explain verses in the Tora, as well as a ...



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