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?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
human failings in Biblical figures
Parshat Yisro
This weeks question at the shabbos table was:
The parsha starts off with the story of Yisro showing up to join Bnei Yisrael after having heard of the various miracles. He sees the method Moshe uses for judging the people and gives him advice how to improve. Moshe implements the suggested changes and then sends Yisro back home.
Why did Moshe send him home? Yisro came to join the Jewish Nation? Right before Har Sinai and Matan Torah, Moshe sends Yisro home?
The discussion first partially answered, by my 11 year old daughter, the question by saying this is story is not in chronological order and happened after Matan Torah. This is an opinion offered by some commentaries and answers how Moshe could have sent Yisro away before Matan Torah. According to this opinion he did not. It happened after Matan Torah.
But that only answers the question about the timeframe. The question of why he sent Yisro away still remains unanswered. Yisro came to join the Jews and Moshe sent him away?
The discussion of this centered on Moshe's relationship with Yisro. Yisro was his father in law. Yisro shows up and right away criticizes the way Moshe is doing things. He even does so using fairly harsh terms. He says, "what you are doing is not good" (18:17), then he gives him advice how to improve the method of judgement and starts off by saying, "Now listen to my voice as I advise you (18:19)". Then Yisro concludes by saying, "If you do all this, you will be ok (18:23)".
Then it says, "And Moshe did all that he said (18:24), etc.... And Moshe sent his father in law and he went back to his land (18:27)".
Maybe Moshe did not like the way his father in law came and right away started telling him what to do and how to do it, so he sent him away. He figured he would not be able to lead Israel properly with the tension of having his father in law around.
But this leads to the question of do we treat the Biblical figures as having similar emotions and failings that we have? Was Moshe so selfish that he could not bear to have his father in law around? He was so selfish that he sent him away? Was Yisro so haughty that he shows up and right away starts bossing people around?
Maybe. But if we prefer not to ascribe such human weaknesses to our Biblical figures then we need to find an alternative answer to explain what happened between Moshe and Yisro.
This weeks question at the shabbos table was:
The parsha starts off with the story of Yisro showing up to join Bnei Yisrael after having heard of the various miracles. He sees the method Moshe uses for judging the people and gives him advice how to improve. Moshe implements the suggested changes and then sends Yisro back home.
Why did Moshe send him home? Yisro came to join the Jewish Nation? Right before Har Sinai and Matan Torah, Moshe sends Yisro home?
The discussion first partially answered, by my 11 year old daughter, the question by saying this is story is not in chronological order and happened after Matan Torah. This is an opinion offered by some commentaries and answers how Moshe could have sent Yisro away before Matan Torah. According to this opinion he did not. It happened after Matan Torah.
But that only answers the question about the timeframe. The question of why he sent Yisro away still remains unanswered. Yisro came to join the Jews and Moshe sent him away?
The discussion of this centered on Moshe's relationship with Yisro. Yisro was his father in law. Yisro shows up and right away criticizes the way Moshe is doing things. He even does so using fairly harsh terms. He says, "what you are doing is not good" (18:17), then he gives him advice how to improve the method of judgement and starts off by saying, "Now listen to my voice as I advise you (18:19)". Then Yisro concludes by saying, "If you do all this, you will be ok (18:23)".
Then it says, "And Moshe did all that he said (18:24), etc.... And Moshe sent his father in law and he went back to his land (18:27)".
Maybe Moshe did not like the way his father in law came and right away started telling him what to do and how to do it, so he sent him away. He figured he would not be able to lead Israel properly with the tension of having his father in law around.
But this leads to the question of do we treat the Biblical figures as having similar emotions and failings that we have? Was Moshe so selfish that he could not bear to have his father in law around? He was so selfish that he sent him away? Was Yisro so haughty that he shows up and right away starts bossing people around?
Maybe. But if we prefer not to ascribe such human weaknesses to our Biblical figures then we need to find an alternative answer to explain what happened between Moshe and Yisro.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
why the manna
Parshat B'Shalah
This week's question at the shabbos table:
Why did Hashem have to give them the manna? Why not do something more nature based? We know Hashem always prefers to minimize the miracle aspect of what He does and tries to do things as "naturally" as possible, so why not regarding the manna? Hashem could have told them to start of by eating from the many animals they had with them, He coul dhave sent them kosher desert animals, we know they did not actually travel that much but stayed in some locations for long periods of time, so Hashem could have told them to plant crops and harvest and make bread and other food.
Why did He have to do it the tremendously miraculous way He did?
The answer given by all was basically to teach Bnei Yisrael a lesson of emunah so when they would go into Eretz Yisrael and have to "get back to normal" they would realize that even their human efforts are fueled by Hashem and they are successful or failures because of Hashem
This week's question at the shabbos table:
Why did Hashem have to give them the manna? Why not do something more nature based? We know Hashem always prefers to minimize the miracle aspect of what He does and tries to do things as "naturally" as possible, so why not regarding the manna? Hashem could have told them to start of by eating from the many animals they had with them, He coul dhave sent them kosher desert animals, we know they did not actually travel that much but stayed in some locations for long periods of time, so Hashem could have told them to plant crops and harvest and make bread and other food.
Why did He have to do it the tremendously miraculous way He did?
The answer given by all was basically to teach Bnei Yisrael a lesson of emunah so when they would go into Eretz Yisrael and have to "get back to normal" they would realize that even their human efforts are fueled by Hashem and they are successful or failures because of Hashem
Sunday, January 28, 2007
why leave in the spring?
Parshat Bo
The potential question for this weeks shabbos table discussion is:
At the end of the parsha this week Moshe tells the Jewish people that they should remember this day that they are leaving Egypt and not eat chametz, etc.. He then says in 13:4, "היום אתם יוצאים בחודש האביב" - This day you are leaving in the month of the spring.
Rashi points out that we already know when they are leaving, so why does it need to be siad specifically in this fashion?
Rashi explains that it is telling us the great chessed that Hashem did for them that He took the nation out in the spring when the weather is pleasant, rather than in hot or cold weather when it would have been less pleasant.
My question is, why is this such a big chessed - we know the Jews were encircled and protected by the ananei hakavod - the clouds of glory - and they were a form of climate control. We know they were not affected by the weather and elements because of the clouds. So who cares what the weather was like when they left?
My initial thoughts are that while it is true that when they left Egypt they were not affected by the weather, however they did not know that would be the case. They knew they were about to leave Egypt and maybe they were nervous that they were running out in the heat or cold. So Moshe, to allay their concerns told them that Hashem scheduled it as a chessed that they are leaving in pleasant weather. Even though the facts are that it would not matter later. It was to calm their fears.
Answer: I still think there might be something to the above answer I suggested, I now have a better answer. My 7 year old son gave me an answer that I think is correct.
I asked the question at the shabbos table and he answered right away.The ananei hakavod were only put into place when bnei yisroel travelled from Sukkos, which at the beginning of parshat B'Shalach we see was on the second day after having left Egypt. The first day they travelled from Ra'amses to Sukkos and did not yet have the clouds of glory or the pillars of fire.
That being the case, they needed the good weather for that cloudless day.
The potential question for this weeks shabbos table discussion is:
At the end of the parsha this week Moshe tells the Jewish people that they should remember this day that they are leaving Egypt and not eat chametz, etc.. He then says in 13:4, "היום אתם יוצאים בחודש האביב" - This day you are leaving in the month of the spring.
Rashi points out that we already know when they are leaving, so why does it need to be siad specifically in this fashion?
Rashi explains that it is telling us the great chessed that Hashem did for them that He took the nation out in the spring when the weather is pleasant, rather than in hot or cold weather when it would have been less pleasant.
My question is, why is this such a big chessed - we know the Jews were encircled and protected by the ananei hakavod - the clouds of glory - and they were a form of climate control. We know they were not affected by the weather and elements because of the clouds. So who cares what the weather was like when they left?
My initial thoughts are that while it is true that when they left Egypt they were not affected by the weather, however they did not know that would be the case. They knew they were about to leave Egypt and maybe they were nervous that they were running out in the heat or cold. So Moshe, to allay their concerns told them that Hashem scheduled it as a chessed that they are leaving in pleasant weather. Even though the facts are that it would not matter later. It was to calm their fears.
Answer: I still think there might be something to the above answer I suggested, I now have a better answer. My 7 year old son gave me an answer that I think is correct.
I asked the question at the shabbos table and he answered right away.The ananei hakavod were only put into place when bnei yisroel travelled from Sukkos, which at the beginning of parshat B'Shalach we see was on the second day after having left Egypt. The first day they travelled from Ra'amses to Sukkos and did not yet have the clouds of glory or the pillars of fire.
That being the case, they needed the good weather for that cloudless day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
