Hot answers tagged mishpatim
You are right. There is a Shita of the Meiri Bais HaBechira in Megila that says that on Parshas Shekalim you should only take out one Sefer Torah. I imagine that the reason the Shulchan Aruch mentions that we use two Sefer Torahs is because of Lo Pelug.
Sefer HaToda'ah (The Book of Our Heritage) says that taking out multiple scrolls would seem unnecessary when the second portion is in close proximity to the first. Never-the-less, he says that the custom is to take out multiple Torahs.
Rashi in Pesachim 56a writes that Sefer HaRefuos was hidden because their hearts were not humbled over their illness but were, rather, healed immediately. Rambam in Peirush Hamishna (Pesachim 4:10) rejects this approach arguing that just as one may not hold back food from the hungry, so too one may not withhold healing from the ill. Instead, Rambam writes ...
Abarbanel explains (in my own loose translation): …and so gave another rule related to Sukos, saying "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk".… It seems to me… that idolators would do this when they got together: that is, they'd boil kids in milk when they harvested grain, thinking that they would thereby appeal to their ...
Rambam, Avadim 3:5, explicitly addresses your question, and the answer is 'no'.
Good question. A freed slave did not go to another master. He obtained the status of a full-fledged Jew. (In fact, many of the laws pertaining to converts in the Talmud are actually phrased as "converts and freed slaves.")
The term used for a Tzaddik who suffers is "Tzaddik V'Ra Lo", literally (perhaps) "A Righteous one and bad is his". The Talmud uses the term to describe one who is righteous, but has bad things happen to him, i.e. "the righteous man who suffers". The Zohar reads it as the righteous one who has bad, i.e. one who still has some vestiges of his evil ...
This passage speaks of a case where men fighting negligently [due to their cations this is not considered an accident] caused a woman to have a miscarriage. Despite the death of the baby, the punishment is a fine, rather than a punishment for killing. They would be liable for additional damages if the woman was hurt. If the baby was born and lived but was ...
As Rashi explains in ברכות on 10b and in פסחים on 56a: שגנז ספר רפואות לפי שלא היה לבם נכנע על חולים אלא מתרפאין מיד People would not take the illness as a stimulus to do Teshuva, rather they would immediately look up the cure - and lose the divinely-sent lesson of the illness.
God is not physical and nobody can actually see him. Ideas such as "seeing God" are only in the Torah so that we can relate to what actually happened to some extent (Rambam Yesodei Torah Ch. 1). In each context, we have to understand what this "seeing" is referring to. This is the way I understand the difference: Mishpatim- Seeing God represents seeing the ...
Malbim clearly says it refers to a miscarriage ("ויצאו ילדיה ולא יהיה אסון אין לפרש דוקא ילדיה הרבים דסתם הרה אין מפלת רק ולד אחד"). I haven't had a chance to check other commentaries, but I've always understood it to refer to a miscarriage. However, as avi notes, the translation is simply "and her children came out" with no medical explanation given.
The gemara in Yevamos 49b asks a similar contradiction between that verse and the description of Yeshayahu (6:1) in which he states that he saw Hashem. The gemara says that this is no contradiction because Moshe had a clear lens through which he saw Hashem whereas Yeshayahu's was unclear. This is understood to mean that since Moshe's perception was so clear ...
Rashi on the verse, quoting the Midrash Tanchumah, says that they were supposed to die, but G-d postponed it: and they perceived the God of Israel: They gazed and peered and [because of this] were doomed to die, but the Holy One, blessed is He, did not want to disturb the rejoicing of [this moment of the giving of] the Torah. So He waited for Nadab and ...
It is traditionally translated as miscarry in the Jewish texts. However the literal translation is just that the child exits the woman and no specific mechanism of exiting is mentioned. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the different translations are based on the phrase "and there was no fatality/disaster/accident." The question is, who's ...
The Gemara in Bava Kama starting at 83b discusses th issue at great length, bringing numerous sources for the non-literal understanding of the Pasuk. Besides those mentioned in the Gemara, later authorities brought many more hints from the text of the Torah that the pesukim refer to monetary payment. It would be too lengthy of a discussion to quote them all ...
Ba'al Ha Turim quotes a midrash, saying that Gd knew that Israel would sin and cause His Providence to depart. This would leave them vulnerable to the feral beasts of the field if they conquered the land too quickly. So future sins would keep Gd from preventing the animals from overrunning the land.
Sifrei says in Deuteronomy Re'eh: מנין כשאתה קונה לא תהא קונה אלא עבד עברי שנאמר כי תקנה עבד עברי From where [do we know] when you buy [a slave] you should only buy a Hebrew slave? As it says: 'When you shall buy a Hebrew slave. Ohr Hachaim explains very similarly in Exodus on our verse (The Birchas Shimon, who comments on the Ohr Hachaim, points ...
The Rashi you quote is from the Mekhilta. The Ramban, too, holds that this verse can only refer to a Canaanite woman (see his commentary in which he disputes Rashi somewhat). The pesuqim discuss an 'Ivri who stole and is subsequently being sold by a Beit Din. The Kli Yaqar (21:4) explains that, if the 'eved was married previously married, the master is ...
The entire point of reading Parashat Shekalim is to "announce" that Adar/Nissan are on the way, and as a reminder of the באחד באדר, משמעין על השקלים. Taking out 2 Sifrei Torah forces people to take note. Those who aren't following inside a Chumash would hardly notice anything amiss if one simply rolled a few columns and read a different Maftir and Haftara. ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible