Tag Info

New answers tagged

-1

Eliyahu,as well as Chenoch, had to be born again as babies in the world in order for them to be able to relate to the people of the world and all the sufferings, only GOD Himself could ever just show up and appear out of nowhere from Heaven and know what was going on in the world and everything about it, so they were reincarnated in new earthly bodies from ...


1

The Lubavitcher Rebbe actually also addresses your question and specifically answers it in the same Sicha as quoted in one of the answers. Specifically, Yaakov says "Im Lavan Garti" which we know stands for Taryag. So the Rebbe explains that Rashi specifically changes the words from the Gemara in bringing it down to say "shamarti" instead of "Keeyamti". The ...


0

While it is true that the Torah weighs every word and that many important Halachos are learned from minute hints, the Torah doesn't shy from verbosity when something is to be learned from it. An example of this is the story of Eliezer's journey to find Rivka. The depiction of her giving him to drink is repeated three times: in his prayer, when she does it, ...


1

The weather has many variables and is therefore still in the hands of Hashem. We pray for good weather, but we don't pray for the rest of nature to continue. Although Hashem controls the whole world, when something out of the ordinary happens we can't trace it to Hashem unless it stands out in timing or in its wonder. When the wind causes something it is ...


0

There is a medrash (from memory) that had they refrained from eating as they were commanded, they would have been allowed to eat after Shabbos. That is, since it was still the sixth day, it was still part of creation. As a result the fruit of the tree of knowledgs was not ripe. Had they waited, the decision to refrain would have been their own free will ...


0

Maimonides opens his Guide to the Perplexed explaining that before eating from the tree, there was only pure, rational, objective, "true and false." The continuum of "good" to "bad" is a sliding scale of subjectivity. That's what changed. It used to be that morally-wrong things were just as obviously "not so" as 1+1=4; it became "eh, I feel like that's bad ...


2

The Maharal writes that although it was Hashem himself who killed the first-born, as we stress in the Haggada, permission was given to the destroyer. Usually the משחית doesn't have permission to wreak havoc on mankind. But during a מגפה the מלאך המות reigns freely. This is alluded to in Bava Kamma, in Hakoness, that during a plague one should walk on the ...


0

The Abarbanal on Numbers 2 explains this. He explains that ideally since there are 12 tribes that come from 4 mothers that there would be two groups of 3 tribes from לאה, one group from רחל and another from the שפחות. However, since Levi was not with the other tribes (since he was in the middle), the groups were put in this way: Yehuda, Yisaschar, and ...


1

Evil is, no pun intended a "necessary evil". For evil allows for free choice. This site puts it very well (cant vouch for the rest of the site): An animal killing its prey for food cannot be accused of committing an evil act since it has no choice in this matter. It was created by God with a predatory instinct and no free will. Similarly, angels ...


1

In my answer to another question, I summarized the approach of R' Goldvicht ZT"L as to why Yosef did not reveal himself to his brothers. The climax of that answer is that when Yosef saw that Yehuda was willing to put himself on the line to save Binyomin, he understood that the perceived jealousy that had existed between the other brothers and the sons of ...


3

Derishos Shabbos - The Apta Rav - page 231 - top left says that Shechem was given as payment for Yosef taking care of Yaakov's burial, which the other brother's were unable to do. ושכם הרי אינו נותנו לו בחנם רק עבור מה שמטריח אותו בקבורתו מה שאין סיפק ביתר הבנים לעשותו


3

Because they're lovers. And lovers can and should do all sorts of ervah-related things in private that don't belong in public. (That verse is actually the Talmud's prooftext.)


2

Shir hashirim is in the form of God speaking to his lover/wife Israel. Even if voices are ervahs for you and me, the husband is obviously permitted to his wife's voice and see her real hair and other things.


0

Here is Rabbi Ashlag, which is one of the greatest Mekubalim of about a hundred years ago: TWO CREATIONS: A) MAN, B) A LIVING SOUL From the above, we can clearly understand the verse: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living (Chayah) soul (Nefesh)” ...


0

Is one word a noun and the other an adjective? Yes, exactly. Wiktionary explains that קדוש is an adjective, and קודש is a noun. So, קְדֹשִׁ֤ים יִהְיוּ֙ לֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם means they shall be holy (adj.) to their God. וְהָ֥יוּ קֹֽדֶשׁ means they shall be holy (n.).


0

Ramban explains that Hashem specifically said to tell Aharon about his sons. Not tell Aharon and his sons about themselves, or his sons about themselves. Why? ולא ירצה להזהיר את אהרן עצמו בתורת המומין כי אהרן קדוש ה' כולו יפה ומום לא יהיה בו אבל יזהירנו על זרעו שיורם ויזהיר אותם לדורותם ... And he doesn't want to warn Aharon himself about the ...


3

Malbim Beur Hamilot explains: הקרב הוא מה שמתאבקים מקרוב וזאת עושים בכח היד, והמלחמה הוא מרחוק וזאת צריך אימון האצבעות לשלוח חציו למטרה קרב (battle) refers to swordfighting here. This is done with the hands. מלחמה (war) is shooting arrows, which requires skilled fingers.


0

most likely the verse has nothing to do with a literal dog, but rather a male temple prostitute that was called a dog priest - they actually practiced sodomy in the temple as a male prostitute (they also had females doing the same) - the profits for thier services was given to the temple until they began claiming they could forgive sins through thier sexual ...


0

Both. Idols and icons. At least in my Tanakh. My Tanakh (New JPS translation) says "You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above or on the earth below or the waters under the Earth."


6

The word is אֵת. When the word is "joined" with the next word with a makaf "־" then they become treated as one long word, and there is no longer an accent on that syllable. Unaccented closed syllables (unlike accented closed syllables) take short vowels, so the vowel shifts to its shorter counterpart: tzere -> segol. You can also see this same phenomenon in ...


12

When the word stands on its own, with its own trup-mark, it's אֵת, with a tzeireh. When it's attached to the next word with a dash and therefore does not have its own trup-mark, it's אֶת, with a segol. I think I learned this in high school; unfortunately, I don't know a more precise source. I'm not sure what would be the underlying reason behind some ...


7

Rav Hirsch on 24:10 states that one reason for the doubt is that he was born before the revelation. This would make it a case in which a woman converts after she has given birth so that the child is not Jewish. there is still a doubt whether this rule applies to cases where the child was born before the mother had received the Torah on Sinai ...


7

Ramban says that by "he converted", it means he chose to live according to a Jewish lifestyle. The rest of the nations followed the patrilineal system, according to which he would have been Egyptian. Choosing to be Jewish was his "conversion", in a way. ומה שאמר בת"כ (פרשה יד א): בתוך בני ישראל, מלמד שנתגייר, אינו שיצטרך בגירות, אלא ככל ישראל שנכנסו ...


1

In Devarim they're listed the way you suggested, all in one posuk. Daas Sofrim says (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39783&st=&pgnum=169) that in Vayikra they're given each their own posuk to stress the issur because these animals were commonly eaten, and also because each one is on a different level in ruchnius (and Chazal say that ...


2

The assumption behind this question is that every letter, every word and every verse of the Torah is measured out carefully. Thus, we see that from an extra vav, a halacha may be derived. When, in the discussions often found in the gemara, one Tanna interprets an extra word in one way to prove his point, we must take pains to explain how his disputant, the ...


1

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 66a) explains that לא תקלל חרש, באומללים שבעמך הכתוב מדבר--"Scripture writes, Thou shalt not curse the deaf; thus applying the injunction even to the humblest of thy people." This means that the prohibition applies even to the lowliest members of society, and not only to the leaders or judges.


2

Sefer Hamitzvos Hakatzar (by the author of Chafetz Chayim) lists as prohibition 45: A prohibition-command not to curse a kasher Jew, as it says "do not curse a deaf person". That it says "a deaf person" is as an extra point: that even this fellow, who doesn't hear and [thus] isn't pained by this curse, one nonetheless violates by cursing him.


1

The Maayanah Shel Torah quotes the Ahavat Yehonatan, who says that the lepers in Melachim II were actually suffering from natural leprosy, not Tzara'at. If so, nothing can be proved from their case (at least according to the Ahavat Yehonatan). I suspect many commentaries disagree with this conclusion (including the one quoted on the previous page)



Top 50 recent answers are included