Hot answers tagged parashat-shemini
The Malbim explains this in his commentary "Hatorah Ve'hamitva" to Sifra 73 (explained here to the best of my understanding): Camel hooves are in fact partially split, and according to common science they are considered to have "split hooves". However the Torah requires (see Vayikra 11:3 and Rashi there) that they be "שסעת שסע" - completely split into ...
May I recommend an excellent book on the subject? The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax by Nosson Slifkin. One may disagree with his reasoning and conclusions but it is definitely the most thorough work on this issue.
Since the question is asked based solely on Vayikra 11:8, the answer is (as quoted by Rashi there, but this is the generally accepted view) that there is no issue with touching them, except in connection with the Temple at the time of the holidays of Pesach, Sukkos and Shavuos (or any other time a Jew wanted to be there). and you shall not touch their ...
The Maskil LeDavid on Rashi in Vayikra 10:17 asks the same question. He says that we must say that all the sin offerings were coming to atone for something, that's the nature of a sin offering. Rashi (Vayikra 10:16) tells us that 3 sin offerings were brought that day, and the Maskil LeDavid explains what they were for: “[Take] a he-goat [as a ...
Here is the hisvaadus that presents this idea (in seif yud). Found by googling so I can't provide any additional information. ובזה גופא — קוראים פ׳ שמיני שמונה פעמים. וכמדובר פעם הפתגם בזה מחסידי פולין: שמיני שמונה שמנה, כלומר, ששנה שקוראים בה פ׳ שמיני שמונה פעמים — תהי׳ שנה ״שמנה״.
It's pretty much the consensus that arneves is the hare (or rabbit - they're different species but are pretty closely related). Various translators identify the shafan as another species of hare (or coney), or as a jerboa, or as a hyrax. The last one seems to be the most well-founded.
Aharon and his sons were involved in the sacrifices for the inauguration of the Mishkan, and were thus informed that their service had to override any public displays of mourning. (While they certainly grieved internally, they had to continue their service.) Shortly before his death, Moshe blesses the tribe of Levi, describing "those who say to their ...
R. Shlomo Kluger in his sefer אמרי שפר here explains: The Mishnah in Berachos 9:5 teaches that a person is obligated to bless Hashem when something bad happens in the same way that he blesses Hashem when something good happens, and Rava explains that the Mishnah means that he should accept the bad thing happily. But others should not should not ...
In Bamidbar 3:4, Elitzafan becomes Nassi over Kehos (which is why Korach went against Moshe).
R' Mordechai Greenberg (Rosh Yeshiva of KBY) once explained that the idea of a Kohen is to be the shaliach (proxy) of the nation in their relationship to Hashem. They bring the offerings of the people, and are meant to be faithful representatives of those whom they represent. Thus, everything that the Kohanim did was emphasized as being "כאשר צוה ה" - ...
Silence is Golden by Rabbi Shmuel Silber According to some he was so shocked that he was emotionally paralyzed. He couldn't react, he couldn't even cry. According to others his faith was so solid and unshakeable he forced himself to continue with his duties. We see from his burning the Rosh Chodesh Musaf that he did indeed react. R. Berel Wein contrasts the ...
The sefer חנוכת התורה here writes: It is not clear what the end of the verse in Yeshayahu 57:1 - “because of the evil the righteous man has been taken away” means. It could mean that the righteous person is taken away to atone for the sins of the generation, or it could mean that he is taken away so that he does not live to see the bad thing that is ...
R. Shlomo Kluger answers: It is written in Koheles (8,8) “there is no ruling on the day of death”, and Chazal explain that for this reason David is not referred to as ‘King David’ when discussing his death, because on the day of death one is not a ruler. And since Chazal explained on the verse in Bamidbar (18,8) “Behold, I have given to you all the holy ...
Animals do not impart or contract ritual impurity while alive (at least not in any situation remotely likely for a pet owner (or anyone) to encounter).
Ralbag's commentary clarifies that "עָלֶיהָ/on it" means "on the fire", and that they placed the incense on the fire after placing the fire on the inner altar. [The Torah would not say "וַיָּשִׂימוּ בָהֵן קְטֹרֶת/and placed incense in them", in the pans, because they didn't put the incense in the pans according to Ralbag.]
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible