Parshat Naso
This week's question:
The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.
Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothing left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the opportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.
But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?
I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".
Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.
The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.
It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact set of korbanos.
I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Naso: not getting out of hand
Parshat Naso
This week's question:
The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.
Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothing left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the opportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.
But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?
I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".
Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.
The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.
It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact set of korbanos.
I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.
This week's question:
The last section of the parsha goes through the donation of korbanot the nesiim gave at the dedication of the mishkan. All 12 gave the same exact donation.
Rashi tells us why the nesiim were so quick to be the first to participate with a donation at the dedication ceremony. he tells us that for the building of the mishkan the nesiim had said they would let the people give first and they would give whatever was lacking afterwards. It turned out the people gave so much there was nothing left for the mesiim to give. They were upset they missed the opportunity to participate, so now they jumped forward right away.
But why and how did they all give the same exact thing? This was not base don a commandment that they had to bring a specific korban, so how did all 12 individually think of the same exact korban?
I think they must have gotten together and decided what to bring. That way it would not "get out of hand".
Think of it similar to the "wedding takkanos" of Agudas Yisrael in America. Weddings were getting out of hand as each person needed to outdo the one before him. So Aguda made rules and now nobody should feel the need to outdo the other guy and spend beyond his means.
The same here. If they each would bring their own thing, the first guy would bring, let's say, one cow. The second guy would say,"That's all he brought? I will bring 2 cows." The next guy would then bring 5 cows and 2 sheep. The next would bring 10 cows and 15 sheep. etc.
It would get out of hand, so they agreed that they would each bring the same exact set of korbanos.
I did see a pshat that despite the fact that they each brought their own korbano, they were still brought with the individual style and "kavanos" of the specific tribe.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Bamidbar: Moshe's children
Parshat Bamidbar
I have not posted my questions here in a while. I am going to try to get back to it...
This week's question was... during the lineage of the family of Levi, it says "These are the generations (children) of Aharon and Moshe..." and it goes on to list the children of Aharon, and not the children of Moshe.
Rashi tells us that we learn from the fact that it calls the children of Aharon as being also the children of Moshe that one who teaches someone else Torah, it is as if that person is his child. So the children of Aharon were also the children of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah.
That is very nice, but what about the actual children of Moshe? Why do they not get mentioned at all? It is listing the children of all the Levite families, so why not list Moshe's children as well?
We did not have an answer for this. I saw one answer about how Moshe's children had stayed behind with Yisro in Midian. I do nto remember why, but I did not like that answer, as they are still Moshe's children and should have been mentioned...
I have not posted my questions here in a while. I am going to try to get back to it...
This week's question was... during the lineage of the family of Levi, it says "These are the generations (children) of Aharon and Moshe..." and it goes on to list the children of Aharon, and not the children of Moshe.
Rashi tells us that we learn from the fact that it calls the children of Aharon as being also the children of Moshe that one who teaches someone else Torah, it is as if that person is his child. So the children of Aharon were also the children of Moshe, because Moshe taught them Torah.
That is very nice, but what about the actual children of Moshe? Why do they not get mentioned at all? It is listing the children of all the Levite families, so why not list Moshe's children as well?
We did not have an answer for this. I saw one answer about how Moshe's children had stayed behind with Yisro in Midian. I do nto remember why, but I did not like that answer, as they are still Moshe's children and should have been mentioned...
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
following instructions
Parshat Tzav
In 8:36 it tells us that Aharon and his sons did as Hashem commanded through Moshe.
Rashi tells us that this tells us the praise of Aharon and sons that they did not divert at all from what Hashem told them to do. Everything was followed precisely.
Why does the Torah have to keep telling us this? This is exactly why they were the leaders rather than other people leading the nation - because they followed Hashem's instructions precisely without mixing in their own preferences.
The Torah keeps telling us how they followed precisely what Hashem said. Ok, we got the point already. Why keep telling us?
In 8:36 it tells us that Aharon and his sons did as Hashem commanded through Moshe.
Rashi tells us that this tells us the praise of Aharon and sons that they did not divert at all from what Hashem told them to do. Everything was followed precisely.
Why does the Torah have to keep telling us this? This is exactly why they were the leaders rather than other people leading the nation - because they followed Hashem's instructions precisely without mixing in their own preferences.
The Torah keeps telling us how they followed precisely what Hashem said. Ok, we got the point already. Why keep telling us?
Thursday, March 8, 2007
what would you do?
Parshat Ki Tisa
This weeks question for the shabbos table might be:
When Aharion helped them create the golden calf, even though he tried to delay, did he do the right thing or should he have refused?
Had he refused they likely would have killed him, but maybe sometimes one needs to take a stand. Maybe if he was forceful enough he could have been persuasive and maybe they would not have killed him. Later when Moshe talks with him about it we see AHaron making excuses - you know how bad the people are, etc... - maybe he felt guilty and ashamed because he knows he should have refused?
This weeks question for the shabbos table might be:
When Aharion helped them create the golden calf, even though he tried to delay, did he do the right thing or should he have refused?
Had he refused they likely would have killed him, but maybe sometimes one needs to take a stand. Maybe if he was forceful enough he could have been persuasive and maybe they would not have killed him. Later when Moshe talks with him about it we see AHaron making excuses - you know how bad the people are, etc... - maybe he felt guilty and ashamed because he knows he should have refused?
Sunday, March 4, 2007
wiping out Amalek
Parshat T'Tzaveh
This weeks question at the shabbos table:
Are we supposed to remember Amalek or forget Amalek?
The Torah says remember Amalek and what they did but then says to wipe out memory of Amalek. Which is it? Wouldn't wiping out their memory be best accomplished by not talking about them?
This weeks question at the shabbos table:
Are we supposed to remember Amalek or forget Amalek?
The Torah says remember Amalek and what they did but then says to wipe out memory of Amalek. Which is it? Wouldn't wiping out their memory be best accomplished by not talking about them?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
relevant names
Parshat Mishpatim
This week's shabbos table question on the parsha was (drum roll please..):
Near the end of the parsha the Torah starts talking about other types of laws than most of the parsha. It mentions shabbos, working 6 days and resting animals on 7th. Shemitta. The 3 main holidays. Then it gets into removing the seven nations from Eretz Yisrael.
When the Torah describes the three holidays, it does not call them by their main names, rather it calls them by alternative names. Hag Hamatzot, Hag Ha'Katzir, Hag Ha'Asif. Why? Why not call them by Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot?
My 10 year old son thought maybe the Torah wants to teach us these alternate names.
I thought that maybe here the Torah is not really explaining the actual holidays. As a matter of fact the context seems to have moved into concentration on the land and agriculture. It says about shabbos that 6 days work and on 7th not work, so the animals will rest. Shemitta so the field will rest, Hag Hamtzot (this one it actually describes a little), Hag Ha'Katzir to bring the new fruit, Hag Ha'Asif to gather the grains. Throw out the goyim from the Land of Israel. etc..
Being that the main focus here seems to be on the land rather than on the actual details of the various holidays, I suggested that that is the reason the Torah used these alternative names - these names referencing the agricultural aspect of the holidays are more relevant than the more well-known names, at this point.
This week's shabbos table question on the parsha was (drum roll please..):
Near the end of the parsha the Torah starts talking about other types of laws than most of the parsha. It mentions shabbos, working 6 days and resting animals on 7th. Shemitta. The 3 main holidays. Then it gets into removing the seven nations from Eretz Yisrael.
When the Torah describes the three holidays, it does not call them by their main names, rather it calls them by alternative names. Hag Hamatzot, Hag Ha'Katzir, Hag Ha'Asif. Why? Why not call them by Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot?
My 10 year old son thought maybe the Torah wants to teach us these alternate names.
I thought that maybe here the Torah is not really explaining the actual holidays. As a matter of fact the context seems to have moved into concentration on the land and agriculture. It says about shabbos that 6 days work and on 7th not work, so the animals will rest. Shemitta so the field will rest, Hag Hamtzot (this one it actually describes a little), Hag Ha'Katzir to bring the new fruit, Hag Ha'Asif to gather the grains. Throw out the goyim from the Land of Israel. etc..
Being that the main focus here seems to be on the land rather than on the actual details of the various holidays, I suggested that that is the reason the Torah used these alternative names - these names referencing the agricultural aspect of the holidays are more relevant than the more well-known names, at this point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
