Hot answers tagged

6

This is indeed what Rabi Yochanan says in maseches Sota 10a.


4

According to Nazir 4b, Samson, having a special form of nezirut (Nazirite status), was allowed to become tamei (ritually impure or "unclean") even though the typical nazirite vow would preclude such a leniency: נזיר שמשון מותר ליטמא למתים שכן מצינו בשמשון שנטמא A nazir shimshon is allowed to become impure via [contact with] the dead, for we find by ...


3

Samson was not a nazirite in a complete sense, for he never took a nazirite vow.It was merely that the angel caused him to be separated from impurity. What were the laws applying to him? He was forbidden to drink wine and cut his hair. He was, however, permitted to incur impurity due to contact with the dead. This concept is a halachah transmitted by ...


2

In order to annul a vow, there must be a reason to annul it. Usually, that reason is of the form, "If I had known XYZ, I never would have taken that oath!" The 9th perek of Masechet Nedarim discusses annulling vows using the reason that something happened after the oath was taken which, had the person who swore known it would happen, he wouldn't have sworn ...


2

From Targum, and Rashi in his name, and Radak and Malbim, it seems implicit in his words לה׳ ולגדעון that he was referring to his sword, meaning victory, with their response the proof to this, as Radak points out. See also pasuk 14 there where the expression חרב גדעון was used as phrase concerning the prophetic dream about his victory.


1

Ramban (see the translation in Judaica press Shoftim pages 367-371) has a big discussion about the matter. One should note that he explicitly states that this is not the same as the case of S'dom since it was only a small group of people who just wanted to "enjoy" immorality. Ramban states that some of them were "baalei Givah". The rest of Bnai Yisrael ...


1

The Malbim says that they could not release their oath since they had an alternative solution which was the scenario that they enacted.


1

No.The stories in Shoftim are mostly not chronological. And Rashi points out (on his commentary there) that Micha lived in the beginning of the Shoftim era: "ויהי איש מהר אפרים" - אף על פי שנכתבו שתי פרשיות הללו בסוף הספר של מיכה ושל פלגש בגבעה בתחלת השופטים היה בימי עתניאל בן קנז שנאמר (לקמן יח לא) וישימו להם את פסל מיכה וגו' כל ימי היות בית אלהים בשילה ...


1

From Hidabroot. Rabbi Menashe Yisrael explains that Yehoshua was compared to the moon, however the Shoftim after him were compared to the stars. Just like stars do not get their light from the moon, or from each other, so too Yehoshua did not shine a light upon a new leader. שאילתך, היה מקום לשאול, גם בנוגע לתקופת השופטים, למה לא התנבאה דבורה למי למסור ...



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