Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

You may need to glean some insight to the connection from Ramban's explanation on Shmot 3:11. It's lengthy, but an important part of what he states is that regarding B'nai Yisra'el and Moses leadership, there was a sequence and cause / effect. Ramba"n states that B'nai Yisra'el would listen to Moses about the concept of being freed from Pharoah and slavery. ...


0

Rashi explains that because Canaan was conquering Eretz Yisrael which Noach had given to Shem, in the next posuk Hashem promises to Avrohom that in the future He will return it to his descendants who are the descendants of Shem. It seems to me that the Netziv is addressing a problem that arises from this Rashi, that if so, it would have been more logical to ...


1

I think the Netziv is only supplementing Rashi. Rashi told us that Avraham came to a formerly Semetic land which is now being conquered by a Hammite Canaan, this is somewhat of a contradiction to his prophecy of this land belonging to his Semitic family in the future, so Hashem gave a special reassurance that He will return this land to Avraham's children, ...


5

Being as numerous as the stars nowadays would in fact be inconsistent with our current state, as in exile we now bear the burden of the terrible curses in Deuteronomy, one of which foretells our nation's size being very few, rather than numerous as the stars. See Deut 28:62. וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם, בִּמְתֵי מְעָט, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם, כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם ...


7

Avot 3:19 says: "Rabbi Akiva said: All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given. The world is judged in goodness, yet all is proportioned to one's work." This is a classic conundrum: if we have free will then how can all be foreseen, and if all is foreseen how can we have free will? But, somehow, both statements are true; God, not being limited in any ...


2

The Rosh In Yevamos 6:12 writes that the bris ben habsarim took place when Avraham Avinu was 70 and was in Eretz Yisrael. He then went back to charan and left again at the age of 75(parshas lech lecha).


3

R' Samson Rapahel Hirsch, in his commentary on this verse, explains (as alluded to in the question) that "קלל" refers to "decreasing the material means of a person or thing" ("lightening" them, like in the root "קל"), while "ארר" refers to a deeper curse, "internally and intensively, to rob somebody of the abilities for their inner life." Other nations can't ...


1

Other answers have explored why the Torah mentions the future in your case, so i'm just going to bring another case of this. Bereishit 32:33: עַל-כֵּן לֹא-יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת-גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר עַל-כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ, עַד, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה: כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף-יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב, בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה. Explaining this particular case, perhaps the ...


3

כלי יקר explains: "קלל" means "disparage" or "curse" whereas "ארר" means "ostracize and curse". If a dishonorable person disparages an honorable person, mere disparagement would be insufficient retribution, as it wouldn't affect the perpetrator: he doesn't mind such disparagement. Rather, he'd need ארר as retribution.


6

1st Question: How did Pharaoh know? Ramban: the manner of the affliction made it absolutely clear to Pharaoh that it was a punishment for taking Sarai. He therefore asked Sarai what he did to deserve this, and she told him that she was married to Avraham. There are a few ways that the affliction might have been clearly a punishment for taking Sarai: ...


1

Rash"i there states that he gave 1/10 of all his assets ("מעשר מכל אשר לו") - which should mean his sheep, cattle, money, etc. I think the booty from the war may have been excluded, because we see a verse or two later, that he returned this to the King of Sodom. Thus, it wasn't his property. (Logically inferred, and further proof from Avraham's response to ...


1

Another one that Rashi actually points out is in Bereishis 2 14 d.h. Kush v'Ashur. As far as why here, I would suggest that it brings out the unbelievable unnatural event of the destruction, much like Eiliyahu watering everything before the heavenly fire struck.


4

Are there any other places in Tanach where this kind of explicit foreshadowing happens? There are probably a few, but, one memorable one for me is Shmot 16:35 that states that B'nai Yisra'el ate the manna for 40 years until they arrived at the border of Cana'an. Obviously, it hadn't yet happened. As to why such cases occur, in general, this fits into ...


3

Although according to a simple reading of the Torah, the Covenant Between the Parts occurred after Avrohom came to settle in Eretz Yisrael after the age of seventy-five, the sefer Seder Olom here says that it took place in Eretz Yisrael when Avrohom was seventy, and he then returned to Haran for five years, returning to Eretz Yisrael with Sarah and Lot when ...



Top 50 recent answers are included