12

The Chidushei HaGriz (§ 161) comments that the narrative between Shmuel and Shaul is a basis for the Rambam's opinion in 6:4. In verse 18, Sh'mu'el says that Sha'ul was told to destroy אֶת-הַחַטָּאִים אֶת-עֲמָלֵק: And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said: Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed....


12

There are a few explanations, all of which (except one) can be found by looking at the following commentaries on the verse cited in the question, Deut. 23:19: Ibn Ezra thought that dogs were simply understood to be disgraceful animals and not to be associated with the purity of sacrifice Ramban writes that dogs are used for hunting and are therefore ...


11

(Source: Sefer HaChinuch 576 in the Venice edition, 560 in the Frankfurt edition) The commandment in that verse doesn't really refer to entering the temple — the language is that he can't enter the assembly. This is the way of saying that he can't marry into the nation. However, to live in the same cities as them, to trade and do business with them, etc., ...


11

The standard understanding is that it means "memory of" either way, just a question of how it's vowelized. (You'll find both vowelizations in different texts of Psalm 145, known to most of us as the daily "Ashrei", on the line "zecher rav tuvcha..."). But just for fun, the Gemara, (b. bathra 21a), records a discussion wherein Joab thought the commandment ...


10

Maybe this is why Rashi (to 25:19) understands זכר in a more concrete sense: it doesn't mean eradicating "their memory" in the abstract, but "anything which is a remembrance of them" - i.e., as he says, any person from that nation or anything that ever belonged to them. That we'll still remember them annually isn't a contradiction to that. (Incidentally, ...


10

Biblical scholarship usually identifies the word kelev here as a colloquial term for a male prostitute — this seems clear from the parallelism within the verse (zonah [f.] = kelev [m.]) as well as with the previous verse (qedesha [f.] = qadesh [m.]). The terms qadesh/*qedesha* may refer to 'sacred' cultic or temple prostitution, while zonah and kelev would ...


9

Introduction What could be contained in this question, and manner in which we answer it, is going to depend on several things. First of all, we should clarify what we're asking about: your specific question mentioned only phrases that needed 'reinterpretation', but there are many more cases that deserve inquiry, such as gezairah shavas (see the Rambam's ...


9

I heard once from Rabbi Dovid Fohrman that this was exactly the question that the sons of Yaakov were challenging him with. Bereishis 37:32 וישלחו את-כתונת הפסים, ויביאו אל-אביהם, ויאמרו, זאת מצאנו: הכר-נא, הכתונת בנך היא--אם-לא And they sent the cloak to him, and it was brought to their father, and they said, "We found this. Recognize, please, is ...


9

The Gemara in Meseches Brachos 7a says the following addressing this seeming "contradiction": (Source from Sefaria.org) והא כתיב (שמות לד, ז) פקד עון אבות על בנים וכתיב (דברים כד, טז) ובנים לא יומתו על אבות ורמינן קראי אהדדי ומשנינן לא קשיא הא כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם הא כשאין אוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם But it is written (Exoudus 34:7) "Who ...


9

Torah Temimah (text here) cites the Sifri here (my loose translation): גם דור עשירי – נאמר כאן דור עשירי ונאמר להלן בעמוני ומואבי דור עשירי (פ׳ ד׳) מה דור עשירי דלהלן עד עולם אף דור עשירי שבכאן עד עולם It says here "the tenth generation" and it says later "the tenth generation" (verse 4), just as "the tenth generation" later [may not marry in] forever, ...


8

It does not apply to "planned birds". (Chullin 12:1) Basically, it has to be that you encounter it in the wild.


7

This is a classic ruba d'leisa kaman. In the overall population, a very, very small number of animals are prohibited. Knowing nothing else, presented with an animal before us, we assume it is permitted. (This is known as "leisa kaman", "it does not appear before us", as the negative outcome is a theoretical. A weaker form of rov is "ruba d'isa kaman", "a ...


7

The Mishna Berura (685 sk 18) only recommended this practice for Parashat Zakhor, seemingly because it may be a biblical obligation (ShA OC 685:7). Betzel HaChokhma (6:50) said this applies to any readings being used to fulfill the Mitzva (eg. on Purim morning, if someone missed Zakhor). Ketzot haShulchan (3:84:13 footote 22) said to read one way in Shvi'i ...


7

I am nearly 60 years old at this time and began studying middle eastern customs and languages since the age of 17 with a well known Biblical translator from Assyria. As this is a very sensitive subject, I will try to be as clear and to the point as possible without being vulgar. In many cultures around the world, marriage is much more than just a simple ...


7

Rambam's son, R. Avraham, as cited in Kesef Mishne, end of Ishus 1:1, answers that the command is to marry with kidushin and nisuin, which is why Rambam refers to even the first part as a mitzva, meaning the start of one, but doing the first part alone doesn't do a mitzva. KM implies by his wording, q.v., that the main part of the dual mitzva is the second ...


6

The Ramban addresses this issue. He says that the problem is people committing sins and thinking that they can bribe God by bringing korbanot with their profits. Thus a prostitute would use her earnings to pay off God, and people who hunted with dangerous dogs which killed people would use their profits as an "atonement." According to the Ramban, even ...


6

Like all Torah commandments, "timche et zecher amalek" has a clear halachic definition. Rashi (Devarim 25:19) tells us what "zecher amalek" means: "From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep" (translated from Artscroll Rashi) Similarly, Rambam writes (Hilchot Milachim 1:1) 'ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק שנאמר 'תמחה את זכר עמלק - [...


6

There are multiple kinds of Segolites (penultimately stressed two syllable words marked with Segol/Tzere-family vowels). Some are Segol-Segol (6-dots) and move to Tzere-Segol (5-dots) when in construct form (Neder -> Neider : Vow -> Vow-of), while some start with 5 dots and remain that way in construct from (Seifer -> Seifer : Book -> Book-of), while others ...


6

Excellent questions; I'll take these out of order, forgive me here. "The congregation of God" here simply means marrying into the Jewish mainstream. So a man who chose to be castrated is allowed to marry a convert, but not a born-Jew. "What is the spiritual significance?" Don't go there. It's a technical law on the books. For all other aspects, he's a Jew ...


6

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's translation gives the traditional Jewish interpretation: It's all about witnesses. He produces witnesses that she cheated on him while they were "betrothed" (like engagement, before they move in together, but with a very strong commitment). Her family produces proof that no, the husband's witnesses are perjuring themselves. This all ...


5

There is no indication that שמלה refers to an exclusively women's garment. All indications are that it does not (actually as @avi pointed out it does not really even mean a garment per se); from other verses throughout the Torah and from this verse itself - if שמלה alone meant an exclusively women's garment, the verse would not need to modify שמלת אשה and ...


5

However, two pesukim later, we see וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה (and a man shouldn't wear a woman's dress) — apparently, a dress is an exclusively female piece of clothing I disagree with your logic. וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה does not mean that a שמלה is exclusively a woman's clothing. I would understand simlah in that case to mean ...


5

According to Rashi they were not killed. In his commentary to Joshua 7:24, Rashi writes that they were taken to see in order that they not copy his actions. Verse 25 says "וירגמו אותו" - they stoned him, in singular. "וישרפו אותם", they burned them, in plural, Rashi says refers to the tent and other property. "ויסלקו אותם" - they stoned them in plural, ...


5

I'm basing this off of some things that I learned from R' Tzvi Berkowitz. I don't recall his sources, so he'll just be my source. The mitzvah of Yibbum is building off of the relationship that existed between the deceased brother and his wife. This is why the yavam can "marry" the yevama even בעל כרחה (against her will) and even שלא מדעת (without ...


5

Mamzerut is not a punishment for the deed, the punishment ends with the death of the parents, if it applies. Mamzerut is a situation, a מציאות . I think of it as a genetic disease, or a social/geographical condition in which the child is born because of the parents . I shall add some mekorot later.


5

Sefer Hachinuch Mitsvath 532: ונוהגת מצוה זו בזמן שישראל על אדמתן, כי אז היתה להם רשות ויכלת בידם להלחם. והעובר על זה ולא עשה המעשים שזכרנו בטל עשה זה. This commandment is practicable in time that Israel are in her Country (I am not absolutely sure that is realy the case up to day...). This is in Milhemeth Hareshuth (following Rashi in Humash following ...


5

The Torah Temimah suggests that this is an extension of the law brought in the Rambam Hilchos Ishus 15:20 (emphasis on the part that he quotes): וכן צוו על האשה שתהיה מכבדת את בעלה ביותר מדאי ויהיה עליה מורא ממנו ותעשה כל מעשיה על פיו. ויהיה בעיניה כמו שר או מלך מהלכת בתאות לבו ומרחקת כל מה שישנא. וזה דרך בנות ישראל ובני ישראל הקדושים והטהורים בזיווגן. ...


5

Rashi (21:11) cites a Midrash that explains the juxtaposition of the passages of the captive woman, the hated wife, and the rebellious son: אֲבָל אִם נְשָׂאָהּ סוֹפוֹ לִהְיוֹת שׂוֹנְאָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַחֲרָיו "כִּי תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ וְגוֹ'", וְסוֹפוֹ לְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, לְכָךְ נִסְמְכוּ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הַלָּלוּ (תנחומא): However, if ...


4

Gersonides (Ralbag) is puzzled by this. He offers two answers. The first is that the children were minors, and that they consequently came under the category of Achen's property, with regard to the punishment. We must then say that the verse in Deuteronomy takes apllies only once the child becomes an adult by Jewish Law. This would appear consistent with the ...


4

I don't remember the source, but one of the earlier understandings of "wipe out the memory of Amalek" is that it is a euphemism which means that you wipe out the descendants and people. Meaning, if they have no children, they have nobody to remember them. One could tie this to Yizkor as a concept. I don't like that answer, because the Torah would not ...


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