Hot answers tagged

17

Good question. Or HaChaim (Bamidbar 25:8) asks the same question, and answers that she had the דין of the animal involved in bestiality -- "ואת הבהמה תהרוגו," "and you shall kill the animal" (Vayikra 20:15). וידקר את שניהם וגו'. קשה בשלמא דקירת איש ישראל כמשפט ההלכה, שקנאים פוגעים בו, אבל האשה אינה חייבת מיתה ואינה מצווה, ואם על חששת היותה אשת איש לא ...


12

While there are various other answers to this question, I will highlight a few of them: One simple answer is that Moshe wanted to see the land, and this is what Rashi (Devarim 3:27) suggests: וראה בעיניך – בקשתה ממני: ואראה את הארץ הטובה (דברים ג׳:כ״ה), אני מראה לך את כולה, שנאמר: ויראהו י״י את כלא הארץ (דברים ל״ד:א׳). וראה בעיניך [LIFT UP THINE EYES …] AND ...


11

Tosfiyos Megila 23a gives 3 reasons. 1- Since the Maftir of Shabbos has only 2 Pesukim and we do not read less than 3 Pesukim. We can not start from a earlier or finish with a later Pasuk as it has nothing to do with Shabbos. 2- The Haftora has to do with what we just finished reading, and if every Shabbos we read the same Maftir then all the Haftoras ...


9

Your premise is that God forced Moshe to go up the mountain and look at the land in some torturous fashion, driving home the point that he would never enter it. I believe this is an incorrect premise. We can see from several of the commentaries that going up to the mountain to see the land was something positive, and perhaps even something that Moshe asked ...


7

The Gemara in Taanit 2b derives from the seemingly superfluous letters a reference to the water libation. נאמר בשני (במדבר כט, ו) ונסכיהם ונאמר בששי ונסכיה ונאמר בשביעי כמשפטם הרי מ"ם יו"ד מ"ם הרי כאן מים מכאן רמז לניסוך המים מן התורה On day 2, it says וְנִסְכֵּיהֶֽם, with an extra מ. Day 6, וּנְסָכֶֽיהָ, with the extra י. And on day 7, ...


7

Why both ideas? We can address your final question - why did Rashi cite both of these explanations - on a simple, structural level by looking at the Talmud passage Rashi got them from. In Shevu'ot 9a, the Talmud deals with an apparent tension between these two concepts, each of whose transmitters derive them from the same textual point - the fact that this ...


5

This issue is discussed at length by the Rishonim. Ramban says mentioning the olah suffices so we know all the Rosh Chodesh musafim were offered. Chizkuni says the chatat of Rosh Chodesh atones for different types of sin than the chatat of Rosh Hashana so would be inappropriate to mention in the same breath. But the interesting opinion is that of Rabbeinu ...


5

In high school, I had a rebbe (Rabbi Horowitz) who said that he was a Korach Levi, part of a group that traced their lineage to Korach. And that they referred to the (somewhat misunderstood) Korach as 'the Heilige zeideh Korach'.


5

The question in 36:1-4 was not brought by the Bnos Tzelaphchad but by the leaders of the tribe of Menasheh. The daughters of Tzelaphchad had been told that they could marry whomever they wanted. The tribals leaders realized that if they married outside the tribe, then the land that the women inhertited would become part of their husbands' tribes (when their ...


5

Perhaps there was nothing particular about this act that justified her execution. However, it was still justifiable. The Beis Yosef Y.D 158, followed by the Rema (Darkei Moshe 158:2) and the Shach (158:2) understand, based on Tosefos to Avoda Zara 26a s.v. ולא מורידים, that when the Mishna says אין מורידים, it means that even though your average gentile ...


5

The Chida (1724—1806) writes in his commentary to Numbers 26:23: לפוה משפחת הפוני. לכאורה הול״ל הפווי. ויש לרמוז כי הפוני רמז ה׳ שהיא מלכות פ״ו גימטריא אלהים נ׳ רמז לן׳ שערי בינה י׳ חכמה ודוק כי קצרתי Of Puvah, the clan of the Punites. In reality it should have said "the Puvites." We can say the "Punites" is an allusion to Hashem's kingship: "pu" (...


5

The sages discuss on Bava Basra 109a that the uncles would only inherit by the virtue of the father, so it is impossible that they precede him. Confirming with this idea, the Rambam clearly states the order in Nachalos 1:3, where he says: אם הניח בן יורש הכל. לא נמצא לו בן לעולם מעיינין בזרעו של בן אם נמצא לה זרע בין זכרים בין נקבות עד סוף העולם הוא יורש ...


4

The first place is when they come to Moshe with the original request. At that time, Moshe asks Hashem whether they are right, and Hashem tells him that yes, they are. However, at this point, it is still completely theoretical. Later on, the Torah actually starts talking about dividing the land, more-specifically, the land on the East Bank, part of which ...


4

Targum Pseudo Jonathan in the beginning of Balak states, (english) that Moab and Midian were a united nation and kingdom up to this point. Perhaps we can say from this that Moab was an umbrella term for the kingdom as it is mentioned in Chukat as a geographic location. Midian on the other hand was a district within it from which young women were enlisted to ...


4

Perhaps Rashi attributed the position that Tzelofechad was not the "collector of sticks" (R' Akiva's position) but one of the "Ma'apilim" who prematurely stormed Cana'an in Num 4:14 based on a source in the Midrash rather than on Shabbat 96b-97a. First, it's not clear that the Gemara in Shabbat associates this position, in particular, with R' Yehuda ben ...


4

None of the standard Jewish commentaries at either location seem to make note of this. However, some modern authorities have commented on this connection, such as Rav Amnon Bazak here and Professor Natan Aviezer here, see also here and here. (Google search results here) Edit: Daf al Hadaf to Bava Basra 119b comments on the similarity in words but ...


3

The Maskil LDovid (Shmos 5:4) explains that while the Levi'im were not forced to do hard labor, they were given other, less strenuous jobs to do. He cites a Midrash that according to one opinion some of the Levi'im were (forcibly) enlisted as officers.


3

The pasuk in Bamidbar 27:3 tells us that כִּֽי־בְחֶטְא֣וֹ מֵ֔ת, Tzlofchad died because of his own sin. Rashi there, quoting the Gemarah in Shabbat 96b and 97a, says that אלא בחטאו לבדו מת, ולא החטיא את אחרים עמו. ר' עקיבא אומר מקושש עצים היה. ור' שמעון אומר מן המעפילים היה: Tzlofchad died by his own sin, and he didn't cause other to sin with him. Rabbi ...


3

There is a hint from the text that the עינוי referred to involves an abstention from food. The parsha both in Emor and in Pinchas lists all the holidays and says with regard to each "כל מלאכת עבדה לא תעשו," "all work of labor you shall not do." Except for Yom Kippur. There it says "וכל מלאכה לא תעשו," and all work you shall not do (Lev. 23:28; Num. 29:7). ...


3

This seems to be a Masoretic quirk. The Masorah (in the "Damascus Keter") for that verse notes this unusual occurance and lists the other places in Tanakh where שבת is punctuated this way. [The word] Shabbat [thus punctuated appears] 4 [times]. And their mnemonic: Vehayta Olat Lehakhin Kodshecha. And all [instances of the phrase] Shabbat Shabbaton [are ...


3

A few answers exist to this question. First of all, we can reject the assumptions that just because we know of one particular Midianite woman who was involved (i.e. Kosbi bas Tzur), many other Midianite women were also involved, and that the command to attack Midian as opposed to Moav means that Midianite women were more at fault. In fact, the Gemara (Bava ...


3

The Ohr Hachaim asks your question (amongst others) and answers ובני קרח לא מתו. הודיע הכתוב ענין זה כאן ולא במקום עיקר המעשה, גם לא כתבו במקום מספר הלוים כי שם מקום הודעת המתים מהם, לפי מה שכתבנו כי כאן בא אלהים לקבוע העון בדתן ואבירם ולהקל מעל קרח, לזה גמר אומר ובני קרח לא מתו, הכוונה שזה יגיד זכות אביהם שלא שטפם חובו כדרך ששטף חובם של דתן ...


3

Various suggestions have been put forward in a number of forum pages, see here, here, here here and here. In short: Yeshevav Hasofer notes that not everything in the Sefer is from Rav Heschel himself, but rather that the publisher added things in from other sources: בהיותי במתיבתא שמעתי על כך ממגי"ש שלי. למעשה לפני כשנתיים שמעתי דיבת רבים, שהמדפיס של ...


3

Sifrei to Bamidbar (paragraph 133) addresses this point: ראויה היתה פרשת נחלות שתאמר על ידי משה, אלא שזכו בנות צלפחד שנאמרה על ידן. לכך מגלגלים זכות על ידי זכאי וחובה על ידי חייב:‏ The section on inheritance was fit to be stated by Moses, but the daughters of Tzelofchad merited that it be stated through them. "Merit is effected through the ...


3

Because he planned to ask God that one of his sons should succeed him. The Midrash says: Why did [Moses] make this request [to appoint a successor] [right] after ordering [that the women should inherit]? Simply this. When he saw that the daughters of Tzelaf'chad inherited the properties of their father, he thought, “This is the time for me to make my own ...


2

See Rashi, Sifsei Chachamim and Ramba"n on Breishit 31:48-50 who explain a reference to why in Sefer Shoftim, Har Gil'ad is called "Mitzpeh" over there. In this verse, Rashi makes a reference to the word "Mitzpah" which means "look-out". Rashi on v 49 starts by explaining "The 'Mitzpah' that is in Mt. Gil'ad" ...


2

Rabbeinu Tam (Tosfos Bava Basra 121a 'yom shekalu') suggests that 15,000 people who were originally supposed to die during the last year were spared (including Yehoshua and Kalev). Shlumiel could very possibly have been among them.


2

According to Rashi, peshuto shel Mikra (the actual meaning), there's nothing that points to him actually being Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai in the literal sense (in fact, the opposite is implied when Rashi mentions that he was the head of only one family) and seemingly the Gemara in Sanhedrin (82b) is seen as Agadeta. Aggadeta is not necessarily the posheter ...


2

R' Samson Raphael Hirsch notes this grammatical surprise, too. He says that the initial phrase of Numbers 28:4 should not be read (as, for example, the JPS translation on Sefaria has it) "You shall offer one lamb in the morning," but rather more like "The lamb, indeed only one, you shall offer in the morning" According to R' Hirsch, the Torah is emphasizing ...


2

See Rabbeinu Bachya on Bamidbar 36:7 ולא תסב נחלה וגו' ממטה אל מטה אחר. מצוה לשעה קודם שינחלו ישראל הארץ. והיו י"ב שבטים למטה כנגד י"ב שבטים של מעלה, כל שבט ושבט בפני עצמו, ואילו היה שבט זה מוכר נחלתו לאחד משאר השבטים היה בזה ערבוב הכחות, אבל בארץ ישראל שהוא כלל כל הכחות לא הקפיד. “So that ancestral property will not make the rounds from tribe to ...


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