New answers tagged midrash
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 ...
This question has been addressed quite comprehensively. I thought I'd just add one other source from the Ramban al haTorah, parshas Vayishlach, (Bereishis 34, 13) where he seems to be in doubt regarding the Midrashic work commonly known as the Sefer HaYashar, however, at the same time he seems to assume that Bereishis Rabbah is considered divrei Chazal: ואם ...
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 ...
You can find it here http://www.publishersrow.com/ebookshuk/cart/shopproductdetail.asp?o=1434949200000&id=10102 This is the text prepared by Finkelstein.
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.
You are missing the point of the story. The point is not to exegise the finer points of the laws of conversion but rather to illustrate the solidarity of this senator.
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 ...
R. Eliyahu Mizrachi and the Maharsha both write that that the term "ein___ela___" (x is only y) doesnt 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 ...
The Ramban on Bereishis 1:1 says that the multiple things called ראשית that Chazal speak about are an allusion to the 10 Sefiros.
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 ...
Top 50 recent answers are included