Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

If you look at the context in the passage, it doesn't appear to be speaking of a single prophet but instead of something that God would do many times through history. 18:10-11 speaks of the option to use divination and other kinds of magic to find things out, but verse 13 says the nation with whom God made a covenant should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him; ...


7

In Shmuel 1 chapter 8 vs 6 Rashi explains that the problem with the request wasthe fact that they said 'to rule over us like all the nations'. The Radak there explains that it was apparent they made their request as a complaint, not that they were looking to be mikayem the mitzvah of appointing a king. See here Why did the people want a king? the first ...


6

I think the answer to this question lies in how Shmuel chose to rebuke the nation. In chapter 12, Shmuel recaps the mistake that the Jewish people have made in requesting a king. In verse 17, he tells them the following: הֲלוֹא קְצִיר-חִטִּים, הַיּוֹם--אֶקְרָא אֶל-יְהוָה, וְיִתֵּן קֹלוֹת וּמָטָר; וּדְעוּ וּרְאוּ, כִּי-רָעַתְכֶם רַבָּה אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם ...


5

Rashi's understanding is only one, as Michoel said, of the "70 faces of Torah". The syntax of this pasuq is inherently ambiguous, and it is not clear whether the correct reading of the verse is as a rhetorical question or a statement. Ibn Ezra explains that the Torah is in fact equating people and trees: ולפי דעתי: שאין לנו צורך לכל זה וזה פירושו כי ממנו ...


4

I cannot speak (entirely) about how rare it is. Nor can I speak about any midrashic analysis of it. However, I can address what causes it. The pashta is a pausal trup sign that splits in half a clause that ends in zakef. Where two occur, first the first one divides, then the second one divides. This division usually occurs on the basis of syntax, such as ...


3

First of all, from a strictly grammatical perspective, the use of this numeral is not particularly strange. While it also might not be particularly common, it does occur like this in other contexts as well. So, for example, שנים חדשים in 1 Kings 5:28, שנים כרֻבים in Exodus 25:18 and שתים נשים in 1 Kgs 3:16. If you want to see some grammars that mention this ...


3

I suggest as follows: In most such cases, the soldier will die childless and with a brother, so his betrothed will be subject to yibum (which is true even from a betrothal, e.g. Rambam, Yibum 1:1) and indeed only "taking" and no betrothal will be necessary (ibid.).


3

The law is exactly in accordance with the literal meaning of the verse in this case. "ונתנו אותו ביד גואל הדם" The Rambam codified this ruling in the halacha immediately following the halacha cited in @Danny Schoemann's now deleted response: רמב"ם הלכות רוצח ושמירת הנפש א:ב ‏ מִצְוָה בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם [לַהֲרֹג אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ] שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ...


3

The simple reading of the verse is, as you stated, the Torah is saying "no it's not, so don't attack the trees." But because the Torah chose to word it in such a fashion, the commentaries saw that as poetic license to draw similarities between humans and trees. (But not in such a way as to violate the halachic interpretation of the verse, namely, don't cut ...


2

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 ...


2

דָּם נָקִי means clean (innocent) blood, and דַּם־הַנָקִי means blood of the clean (innocent). therefore in this context, וּבִעַרְתָּ דַם־הַנָּקִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל which is talking about a event in past-tense,(avenging a already murdered man) there is a "object" (person) in discussion, and a "ה" (the) is appropriate. and when using דם attached to ...


2

When interpreting a pasuk, it is critical to understand the context. One important piece of this context is that there were local courts established in the gates of each town. Thus, in Devarim 16:12: שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט צֶדֶק: You shall set up ...


2

First off, this depends on which approach to Torah commentary one adopts. It seems that much of these sorts of questions are clustered in the last few centuries centuries and onward. It seems that earlier commentaries didn't make so much of different synonyms used, and the like. If, however, one assumes the question to be valid, one could answer based on ...


2

Someone in my synagogue suggested as follows: The Torah is here speaking to the soldier's psychology. His fear is that he will die with unfinished business and that another fellow will finish the business, getting what he should have gotten. Granted, the other fellow will need to betroth first; but that's irrelevant to the soldier, who doesn't care about ...


1

It's not that horses were exclusive to Egypt. Rather, Egypt was the source of the best and most sophisticatedly bred horses and would constantly look towards egypt to maintain his menagerie. A king with many horses make himself dependent on Egypt just as a country with many cars would be dependent on Saudi Arabia or Iran vayimach shemam. Sources: Little ...


1

In the book the Temple, R. Joshua Berman explains that one of the reasons why the tribe of Levi were not given land was because they were intended to mix among the tribes and be the teachers of Torah and the judges. Each Cohen or Levi only worked in the Temple for about 1 week out of the year. As for why this only talks about the Kohanim and doesn't ...



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