Whats Bothering Rashi?

[Jewscout]

Rashi was an 11th Century CE torah scholar and commentator on the Talmud. Today one of the big things are "What's Bothering Rashi?" articles that look at the issues that Rashi has with the weekly Parashat, which are a personal favorite of mine. I intend on posting the weekly WBRs on here in hopes that it will help in people's understanding of the Torah.
Enjoy!

[Jewscout]

Parashas Beha'aloscha(65)
This week's sedra (and the following two, as well) tells about several
incidents that occured while the Israelites were traveling in the
Wilderness. One of these concerns the laws of Pesach Shaine (the Second
Pesach) when certain people were not able to observe the main Pesach on the
14th of Nisan. They then observe Pesach Shaine a month later on the
14th of Iyar.

Numbers 9:1

And Hashem spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai in the second year
of their Exodus from the land of Egypt, in the first month saying.

RASHI

In the first month: Rashi: The chapter at the beginning of this book
was not said until Iyar (the second month). You learn that there is no
order of precedence or succession in the Torah. And why did He not begin
with this chapter? Because it is to Israel's discredit, that throughout
the forty years that Israel was in the wilderness they offered no other
Pascal offering except for this one.

What Is Rashi Saying ?

The first verse in the book of Numbers (1:1) says that Hashem spoke to
Moses on the first day of the second month of the second year after the
Exodus from Egypt. Our verse (nine chapters later) speaks of Hashem
speaking to Moses on the first month of the second year after the Exodus.
Clearly, the events described in our verse took place before the events
described in the beginning of the book. The events are not recorded in
chronological order.

"There is No Earlier or Later in the Torah"

While the Torah generally follows a chronological order, there are
instances when it does not. Rashi points this out several times in his
Torah commentary (for some examples see Rashi on Genesis 6:3, Exodus 4:20,
and Leviticus 8:2). But it is not readily apparent that those events
are not in chronological sequence, because in each of those instances no
dates are mentioned. Our verse, on the other hand, is a unequivocal
example of the non-chronological order, since the Torah explicitly records
the dates in these two verses. And, as Rashi points out here, the
earlier date (our verse) is recorded later in the Torah than is the later
date, (verse 1:1).

This principle of "there is no earlier or later in the Torah" is
understood differently by different Torah commentators. Rashi, not
infrequently, calls upon this principle to explain verses. The Ramban, on the
other hand, is strongly opposed to the wholesale application of this
principle. He exclaims in protest ( in his comment to Leviticus 8:2) "Why
should we turn upside down the words of the Living G-d." But because of
the explicit dates in our verses, all commentators agree that our verse
is most certainly out of order chronologically. The reason that an
event is written in the Torah out of chronological order must be understood
in each case.

"To Israel's Discredit"

In our case Rashi gives us a reason why the Book of Numbers did not
begin in chronological sequence, i.e. with our verse which took place
earlier. He says that this was the only time that the Israelites brought
the Passover offering during the entire forty years that they were in the
wilderness.

But on this point, we can ask several questions.

Hint: One question can be gleaned when we see Exodus 12:25 and Rashi ad
loc.

What would you ask?

Your Question:

Questioning Rashi

A Question: There the Torah says about the Passover service "And it
will be when you come into the Land and you should keep this service." As
Rashi says on that verse, the mitzvah of the Passover offering was
obligatory only once the Israelites entered Israel. Thus the Passover
offering spoken of in the next verse (9:2,) was itself unusual, it was the
exception rather than the rule. So what kind of discredit can it be
considered if they didn't bring this offering during the forty years in the
wilderness, for they had not yet entered the boundaries of Eretz
Yisroel?

Can you answer this question?

Hint: Think logically.

Your Answer:

Understanding Rashi

An Answer: True, while they were in the wilderness there was no
obligation to bring the Passover offering. But the fact that they remained in
the wilderness for forty years was to the Israelites' discredit. Had
the spies not sinned, the people would have entered Israel the very same
year. This is what Rashi is stressing when he says "throughout the
forty years that Israel was in the wilderness" - it is the forty year delay
that was the result of a grievous sin that is to the discredit of
Israel.

Another Question:

Rashi says that this was the only Passover offering made during the
forty years in the wilderness. How does he know this? Maybe there were
others that weren't recorded. Remember, not every thing that happened
during those forty years was recorded.

Your Answer:

A Deeper Understanding

An Answer: If we look in the Book of Joshua (5: 2) we read the
following:

"At that time Hashem said to Joshua, 'Make sharp knives for yourself
and circumcise the Children of Israel again, a second time.' So Joshua
made sharp knives for himself and circumcised the Children of Israel at
Givas Ha'arlos. This is the reason why Joshua circumcised them. The
entire people that had gone out of Egypt - the males, all the men of war -
had died in the wilderness on the way after they went forth from Egypt.
All the people that went forth were circumcised, but all the people
that were born in the wilderness on the way, after they left Egypt were
not circumcised. Because for forty years the Children of Israel journeyed
in the wilderness until the demise of the entire nation, the men of
war, who went forth from Egypt and had not heeded the voice of Hashem ,
about whom Hashem had sworn not to show them the land that Hashem sworn
to their forefathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey."

We see from the above that the newborn Israelite males were not
circumcised in the wilderness. We also know that neither an uncircumcised male
nor the father of an uncircumcised infant (Exodus 12:48) is allowed to
partake of the Pascal sacrifice.

It follows, then, that after the decree to wander in the wilderness for
forty years, since there were so many uncircumcised males, that there
were no other Passover sacrifices possible.

And ,in fact, we find that immediately after Joshua had the males
circumcised it says:

"And they made the Pesach on the fourteenth day of the month in the
evening in Arvos Yericho. (Joshua 5:10)

Clearly the ability to offer the Pascal sacrifice was dependent on the
circumcision of the males. And since no males were circumcised in the
wilderness, they had to wait until they could be circumcised before they
could offer the Passover sacrifice.

Ergo, there was one and only one Pascal sacrifice during all the years
the Israelites were in the wilderness.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek

[Jewscout]

Parashas Shelach(65)
This week's sedra tells the story of the Spies and their fateful sin of
badmouthing the Land of Israel.

Numbers 13:2

Send for you men and they will tour (spy out) the land of canaan which
I am giving to the Children of Israel ; one man from each the tribe of
his father, send each prince of them.

RASHI

Send forth for yourself: Rashi: Why was the section of the Spies placed
in juxtaposition to the section about Miriam? Because she was stricken
on account of slander, which she spoke against her brother and these
sinners, witnessed [what happened to her] and yet did not take a lesson
from it!

What Is Rashi Saying?

On the basis of the idea of S'michos Parshios, Rashi quotes a midrash
that criticizes the Spies. They should have learned the evils of slander
from the fact that Miriam spoke slander against Moses, her brother, and
was punished by G-d. But as you think about the comparison between the
Spies' behavior and Miriam's slander, you should have some questions.
Are they comparable cases?

Your Question:

Questioning Rashi

A Question: Miriam spoke slander against Moses, the Spies gave an evil
report about the Land. Since when is saying something bad about an
inert object, like land, considered slander? Another point that could be
made: Miriam spoke against the "man of G-d," Moses, the master of all
prophets. How can the evil report of the Spies begin to be compared to
Miriam's audacious act? Considering the differences between the two
situations, one wonders why the Spies should have seen the connection and
learned a lesson from Miriam's sin.

Do you see any comparison between the two parashios?

Your Answer:

Understanding Rashi

An Answer: If we look again at the section about Miriam and we look
closely at Rashi's words, we can get a better understanding.

Miriam and Aaron spoke about the Cu****e woman whom Moses took for a
wife. A Cu****e is, according to simple p'shat, a woman from Cush, a
country whose natives are black-skinned. This is the only aspect of this
woman mentioned in the Torah. Rashi mentions that Miriam was stricken and
her punishment for her slander was "and behold Miriam was afflicted
with leprosy like snow (12:10).

Perhaps by understanding Miriam's punishment we can understand the
deeper meaning of her sin. Miriam's skin, the Torah tells us, was white as
snow; the Chu****e woman's skin was black. A paradoxical situation
existed, as the Cu****e woman was pure "on the inside" although she was
black on the outside. While Miriam, on the other hand, was "pure" (white)
on the outside even though she had sinned and was impure on the inside.

The lesson is: Don't judge by appearances. What looks "pure" on the
outside may be problematic on a deeper level, and contrariwise, what looks
"black" on the surface may be quite pure and beautiful on the inside.

See that Rashi emphasizes Miriam's punishment, more so than her sin,
when he says, "she (Miriam) was stricken on account of slander." Her
punishment was the symbolic "white as snow" appearance of leprosy.

Do you see how this ties in with the sin of the Spies?

Your Answer:

A Common Denominator Between Miriam and the Spies' Sins

An Answer: The Spies also judged by outward appearances and drew
incorrect conclusions from outward appearances. What evidence is there of
this?

Your Answer:

The Spies' Misperception

An Answer: Moses told them to "see the Land …and the cities they dwell
in; if they are open (non-walled) or fortified" (13:19). On 13:19 Rashi
says that Moses gave them a sign: "If they live in open cities, they
are strong…but if they live in fortified cities, they are weak." This is
the opposite of what we might have thought. We would have thought that
based on appearances, a fortified city would be harder to conquer, but
Moses told them otherwise. In effect, he said "Don't judge by outward
appearances."

What report did the Spies return with? They said, in their most ****ing
sentence: "However, the nation is mighty, the people that dwell in the
Land. And the cities are greatly fortified to the utmost (13:28)". They
drew the exact opposite conclusion than Moses had instructed them. They
are strong…because they dwell in greatly fortified cities! They fell
into the perceptual trap of judging by outward appearances.

Clearly, they had learned nothing from Miriam's, experience who was
punished for judging by appearances.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek

[Jewscout]

Parashas Korach(65)
This week's sedra tells us of the first major organized rebellion against Moses and Aaron from within the Jewish camp. It also teaches us about the motivations which ly behind them. Let us look at one of the Rashi-Comments.

Numbers 17:5

This is a remembrance for the CHildren of Israel so that that no foreign man who is not of the seed of Aaron shall draw near to offer incense before Hashem and it will not be like Korach and his congregation as the word of Hashem had been to Moses.

RASHI

And he will not be as Korah: Rashi: [read this as] So that he will not be as Korah.

Questioning Rashi

What Type comment is this? How do you know?

Your Answer:

An Answer: Clearly a Type II comment, it is short and Rashi inserts his words 'kdei sheh' in place of the Torah's one letter 'vav'. Then he continues with the Torah's words And he will not be as Korah This means that he is guiding us away from a misunderstanding. Which misunderstanding? How might I have understood this verse otherwise?

Your Answer:

Which Misunderstanding ?

An Answer: The words And he will not be as Korah can have several different meanings

1) And he shall not be as Korah (a command).

2) And there won't be as Korah (in the future - a promise)

3) So that he will not be as Korah (an explanation of purpose)

Rashi rejects the first two options and has chosen the last - "so that he will not be as Korah. "

Why do you think he does so?

Your Answer:

A Correct Understanding

An Answer: Only the third option corresponds to the context of the verses. In verse 3 Moses is told to take the firepans and save them as a "sign" for the Children of Israel. Verse 5 refers to them as a memorial "in order that no stranger, who is not of the seed of Aaron, shall offer incense etc. 'so that that no foreign man who is not of the seed of Aaron'

Rashi tells us that the words 'lma'an asher' "so that" of verse 5 must also be applied to our verse. It is as if the Torah says "so that a stranger shall not offer …and so that he be not as Korah .." This explains the purpose of the fire pan memorial.

An Important Rule

This comment teaches us something very important in understanding Biblical Hebrew. The 'letter Vav isusally translated as "and" but in fact it has several possible translations. In addition to "and", it can also mean:

1) The letter that transforms a verb from the past tense to a verb in the future tense and vice versa. Example: yomar means" he will say" while va'yomar means " he said."

2) "so that" as in our case.

3) "or" as in mekallel aviv v'imo mos yumas which means "He who curses his father or (not 'and') his mother will be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

Being aware of this helps us avoid many misunderstandings in the Torah and also clarifies some strange-looking Rashi-comments.. For example, see our analysis below (Numbers 18:32).

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Parashas Matos(65)
The sedra begins with the topic of vows. We learn the laws when a woman
makes a vow and either her father (if unmarried) or her husband annul
it.


Rashi focuses on intentions versus actions.
Numbers 30:6

But if her father disallowed her on the day of his hearing, all her
vows or prohibitions which she forbade on herself shall not stand; and
Hashem will forgive her for her father had disallowed her.

RASHI

And Hashem will forgive her: Rashi: To what case is the Scripture
referring? To a woman who took the Nazarite vow. Her husband* heard and
nullified it, but she was unaware of this. She then violated her vow by
drinking wine and defiling herself by contact with a corpse. She is in
need of forgiveness even though it was nullified. Now if those who['s
vows] have been nullified require forgiveness, certainly those who['s vows]
have not been nullified.
- - - -
*[footnote: some change this to "her father" because these verses refer
to a father's nullifying his daughter's vow, not a husband nullifying
his wife's vow. In our analysis we will refer to the father.]

What would you ask about this comment?

Your Question:

QUESTIONING RASHI

A Question: Rashi feels the need to explain the particular
circumstances that these words are referring to. Why? What is not clear?

Hint: Rashi's statement " She is in need of forgiveness even though it
was nullified," implies a question.

What question?

Your Answer:

WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI?

An Answer: Our verse speaks of a situation where a young woman makes a
vow but her father immediately nullifies it. Then it says that the
woman is forgiven. Forgiven for what? we would ask. If her father nullified
her vow, even if she acts contrary to the vow, she has not "violated"
anything, since the vow was legitimately annulled. In such a case, what
need is there for G-d's forgiveness?

This is the question that Rashi is dealing with.

How does his explanation help matters?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING RASHI

An Answer: Granted the woman's father nullified her vow, but she was
not aware of that. She thought her vow was still valid. So we have a
situation where she thought that the vow was valid, but nevertheless she
went ahead and violated it by drinking wine. This is an unusual case,
where a person intended to commit a sinful act, yet, in fact, did not.
Rashi tells us that even though formally and legally she has not sinned,
her sinful intention is nevertheless in need of Divine forgiveness.

INTENTIONS vs ACTIONS

This is an important message. Judaism has always placed its emphasis on
man's actions more so than on his intentions or beliefs. Granted that
the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a) makes a point of the importance of
intentions by saying, "G-d desires the heart," meaning that He wants our right
intentions. Nevertheless, we know, for example, that giving charity,
even for selfish motives, is better than not giving. In such a case,
intentions are secondary to actions. The Israelites' declaration at Mt.
Sinai "We will do and we will hear (i.e. understand)" (Exodus 24:7), which
gave precedence to action over intention - is a central credo of the
religious Jew. Nevertheless, intentions are not irrelevant. They are the
spurs to action. "The heart desires and body implements" for right or
for wrong. A person who eats a piece of kosher meat though he thinks it
is not kosher, has not transgressed a law for which he can punished.
Yet Rashi's comment teaches us that G-d does hold him accountable. He
must ask forgiveness for his sinful intention.

RASHI'S Kal V'chomer

Rashi used a kal v'chomer, a logical induction: If one need ask
forgiveness for a permissible act, but for which one had a sinful intention, (
the woman who "violated" a vow that had already been annulled) then we
can logically assume that he must certainly ask forgiveness for
actually committing a sinful act.

QUESTIONING RASHI

A Question: Is this not all too obvious? Doing a transgression is
obviously worse than not doing one! Why the need for Rashi to even mention
it. Anyone could have made the same deduction.

Rashi's source is the Talmud (Tractate Kiddushin 81b) where it says:

"When Rabbi Akiva would read this verse he would cry and say: 'If a
person intended to take a piece of pork and by mistake took a piece of
[kosher] veal, even so he is in need of atonement and forgiveness, how
much more so, the person who intended to take a piece of pork and in
actuality did take a piece of pork !"

It is clear that Rabbi Akiva's reaction was an emotional one(he cried),
not merely a logically deduced one. He was shaken by the awesome
responsibility of keeping G-d's commandments and the dire consequences for
the one who transgresses them, even in mind only. His was a musar
reflection. So, asking why such a deduction is necessary, since it is logical,
misses the point. The point was not a deduction, analytically arrived
at, but an awesome existential awareness. This also may be Rashi's
intention.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Parashas Masei(65)
This week's sedra is the last in the Book of Bamidbar, in fact, the
last of the four books of the Torah. The fifth and last book, Devarim, is
Moses's final speech to the People of Israel before his death. In this
sense it stands apart from the other four books.

Parashas Masei consists mainly of two topics. The record of Israel's
journeys in the Wilderness from their exodus from Egypt until their
encampment forty years later in the Plains of Moav in Jordan, which overlook
the Land of Israel . And the borders of the Land which would be divided
up between the nine and a half tribes. In that later section we find
these verses:

Numbers 33: 52, 53

52: You shall drive out ("V'horashtem") all the inhabitants of the Land
before you; and you shall destroy all their prostration stones, all
their molten images you shall destroy , and all their high places you
shall demolish.

53: You shall possess the Land ("V'horashtem") and you shall settle in
it for to you I have given the Land to possess it.

Note: I have written the Hebrew term which is identical in both verses.

RASHI

52: You shall drive out ("V'horashtem"): Rashi: You shall expel them.

What is Rashi Saying?

Rashi gives us the meaning of the word "V'horashtem"

If we look above at 32: 39 and Rashi there we understand his purpose
here. There he says that the root word "riesh" can have two different
means. It can mean "to inherit' as in the word "yerusha" or it can mean
"to drive out." ( I would say in English we have two similar words: "To
possess" through inheritance or "to dispossess" through being driven
out.)

Considering the possibility of two different interpretations of this
word, what would you ask of Rashi?

Your Question:

QUESTIONING RASHI:

A Question: Why did Rashi choose this one? Why not the other meaning -
to inherit ?

Hint: Read the whole verse.

UNDERSTANDING RASHI

An Answer: Our verse says: "You shall drive out ("V'horashtem") all the
inhabitants of the Land before you."

The additional words "all the inhabitants" lends support that the word
"V'horashtem" means to drive out, because we have an object to this
verb, What will you "Moriesh"? - the inhabitants of the Land.

Considering that, let us see the next verse and its Rashi Comment.

53. You shall possess the Land ("V'horashtem"): Rashi: And you shall
dispossess it of its inhabitants, and then you will dwell in it i.e. you
will be able to remain in it. But if not ( i.e. if you do not drive
them out) you will not be able to remain in it.

In light of what we said above, what would you ask?

Your Question:

QUESTIONING RASHI:

A Question: In this verse the words "of its inhabitants" are absent. It
was on the basis of these words in the previous verse that we said
Rashi chose the interpretation "to dispossess." But these words are absent
in our verse and he still translates this as "dispossess". Why?

THE RAMBAN DIFFERS

The Ramban comment on this verse is a very significant one:

"In my opinion this is a positive command. He command them that they
should dwell in the Land and inherit it for it was given to them, and
they should not abhor God's inheritance. (i.e. by not living in it) [And
if they live somewhere else] they transgress God's command."

Powerful words!

We see that the Ramban in fact translates the verse this way: "You
shall possess the Land ("V'horashtem") and you shall settle in it for to
you I have given the Land to possess." (Note: This is as we have
translated it above in the beginning of this analysis. )

We should note two things. 1) Ramban says the word means to posssess
(i.e. inherit) , not dispossess. 2) The correct English translation for
the Ramban is "you shall" and not "you will" settle (or dwell) in it. It
is a command. The Ramban says this is the Biblical source for the
mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisroel.

The Ramban took his own words seriously. At the end of his life, an old
man, he came to live in Eretz Yisroel. Without buses, cars or prepared
homes or prepared food or any financial means of support. Without
N'fesh B'nefesh.

UNDERSTANDING THE RAMBAN

We can guess why the Ramban differs with Rashi. Perhaps because, as we
said, the object ("the inhabitants of the Land") is missing in our
verse. Secondly, if the verse is only telling us we must dispossess the
inhabitants of the Land this was already stated in the previous verse.

Can you defend Rashi's interpretation?

Your Answer:

DEFENDING RASHI

Two things, at least, can be said in defense of Rashi's interpretation.
First the whole context here (see verse 55) seems to lean towards the
point of throwing out the inhabitants and then , as a consequence,
living in the Land. Verse 55 explicitly says what our problems will be if we
do not clear the Land of its inhabitants. So Rashi probably figured
that our verse has the same thrust. Regarding the missing words "the
inhabitants of the Land" another Rashi comment (Exodus 15:9) says we can say
we can empty a vessel or empty the contents of the vessel. Both would
be written the same in Biblical Hebrew. Therefore emptying the Land and
emptying the Land of its inhabitants is the same. For Rashi our verse
is not a command, for the command (to dispossess the inhabitants) was
already given in verse 53 above. So it is a warning - clear the land so
you can live in it or else you will have only tzoros living in it.

A FINAL NOTE

The 29th of Tamuz , Aug. 5 this year, is the 900th yahrtzeit
(anniversary) of Rashi's death. An amazing record - 900 years of being studied
daily by tens of thousands. When we note the above Rashi comment we
realize how timely (unfortunately) he remains even after nine centuries.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Parashas Shoftim(65)

This week's sedra details many laws between Man and Man. At the end of
the sedra we are taught the strange ceremony that is performed by the
Elders if a dead person is found between two cities and we don't know
how he was killed or who killed him.

Deut. 21:7,8

And they (i.e. the Elders) answered and said 'Our hands have not shed
this blood nor have our eyes seen (this act)'.

RASHI

Our hands have not shed : Rashi: Is it possible to imagine that that
the Elders of the court committed murder? Rather, 'We did not observe him
and dismiss him, without food and without escort." The Priests say:
Forgive your people Israel, etc

WHAT IS RASHI SAYING ?

What is bothering Rashi is clear, he begins his comment with the
question. Why should the Elders of the City need to absolve themselves of
this murder? They are not the accused party. Therefore, Rashi reinterprets
these words to mean 'We, the Elders, have not neglected this stranger,
letting him off without food or letting him leave without accompanying
him." The implication is that since we took good care of him when he
visited our city, his unfortunate demise cannot, even indirectly, be
attributed to us.

We should point out that Rashi mentions two points in the Elders'
statement. First, that they didn't see him and second, that they didn't let
him go without food. The meaning is that had they seen him they would
have provided him with food and escort. It should be noted that the two
parts of this statement are parallel to the two parts in the Torah
verse. The Torah's words "Our hands did not shed this blood" are paralleled
in Rashi by "we did not dismiss him without food and escort." And the
Torah's words "Our eyes did not see" are paralleled in Rashi by "We did
not see him."

Looking at this comment, do you have a question?

Your Question:

QUESTIONING RASHI

A Question: It is understandable that had the victim been escorted, his
murder might have been prevented. But what does going without food have
to do with be being murdered ? If had had food, would that have
prevented his murder?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING RASHI

An Answer: Rashi himself in his Talmud commentary on Sota 45b, says
that being without food led the man to attack others to obtain food. His
aggressive and illegal behavior may have brought him into physical
confrontation, which then resulted in his being murdered. Had he been given
food by the city people, he never would have gotten into trouble. And
this is significance of the Elders' denial "we did not dismiss him
without food. "

But we can ask another question, regarding the last words in this
Rashi-comment:

Your Question:

THE PRIESTS SAY: FORGIVE YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, Etc.

A Question: Why does Rashi add these words? Actually these are the
Torah's words. Why does the Torah add them? After the Elders' have claimed
total innocence, of either directly or indirectly, being party to this
man's death, why is there any need for atonement? Atonement means a sin
has been atoned for? What sin?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING THE TORAH'S WORDS

An Answer: There is a corpus delicti, the murdered body is lying in
front of us. So a murder was committed. There's no denying that. The
Elders of the city have proclaimed their innocence; as leaders of the
community they acted responsibly. But never the less, someone did commit a
murder. It for this crime that the Priests have to request atonement from
G-d.

Eglah Arufa: A Mitzvah with Meaning

The Eglah Arufa ceremony is quite strange. A young calf is taken to a
stony valley that has never produced crops. There it is killed by
breaking its neck and the Elders and Priests make their public declarations.
There is much symbolism here (see Rashi on 21:4). But can the ceremony
as a whole be rationalized?

The Abarbanel explains that this public ceremony, with it dramatic
center piece of breaking the calf's neck followed by short public
statements by community leaders is meant to awaken people's attention and cause
public outrage to this humanly caused tragedy. Modern society knows
only too well, how inured we can become to even the most shattering
obscenities, if they happen often enough. We are aware how the crime-filled
newspapers that we read daily, contribute to our growing insensitivity
and to our moral paralysis. As has been said about the Holocaust, one
death is a tragedy, six million is a statistic. The Torah, aware of the
human inclination towards habituation, created the shocking Eglah Arufah
ceremony to shake us and shock us out of our moral slumber. So that we
don't conduct business as usual when a human being's life has been
snuffed out through violence.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Parashas Ki Seitzie(65)This week's sedra contains more mitzvos (74)
than any sedra in the Torah. Among them are various mitzvos that pertain
to Jewish conduct in warfare.

Rashi refers to Targum. We must understand what he means.
Deut. 23:16 Do not deliver a slave to his master who was rescued to you
from his master.

Do not deliver a slave: Rashi: As its Targum. Another interpretation,
Even a gentile slave owned by a Jew, who fled from outside the Land to
the Land of Israel.

WHAT IS RASHI SAYING ?

Rashi refers to Targum Onkelos. Who seems to say "Don't return a
gentile slave to his master" The Ramban understands this the same way.

If this is correct (The Mizrachi on the other hand says Targyum means a
Jewish slave of a gentile master), then Rashi offers two
interpretations, the first from the Targum that this is (according to the Ramban) a
non-Jewish slave escaping from his gentile master. Rashi's second
interpretation is from the Talmud (tractate Gittin 45a) which says this is a
non-Jewish slave escaping from his Jewish master. In neither case
should the slave be returned to his master.

P'shat and Drash

The first is p'shat, the second, drash.

Why do you think the first is p'shat?

Hint: See the context of this verse.

Your Answer:

An Answer: The interpretation that this is a slave running from his
non-Jewish master fits best with the context of the previous verses. >From
verse 10 and onwards, the Torah speaks of Israel at war with their
gentile enemies. This is the most likely scenario for a slave to escape
from his gentile master to the winning side. He may even have heard that
Jewish masters must treat their servants with a certain amount of
decency.

But whenever Rashi offers two interpretations, we can ask a question:

Your Question:

Questioning Rashi

A Question: Once Rashi has given us p'shat, which is reasonable and
fits in well with the context, why does he need to offer a second, drash,
interpretation?

Can you see why?

Your Answer:

Understanding Rashi

An Answer: The first interpretation is too reasonable! Meaning, it is
obvious that if a gentile slave escapes from his pagan, idol worshipping
master, that we should not return him to that kind of life,
particularly if he begs us not to. There is no reason in the world why we should
return him to his master. This is so self-evident that the Torah doesn't
even have to command us regarding this. Therefore, Rashi gives us the
second interpretation, which is not at all obvious. This is a case of a
gentile running away from his Jewish master. Why shouldn't he be
returned? Why is one Jewish master better than another? The answer is that
one master lives in the Land of Israel and the other does not.

In the Ramban's words:


"He (the escaping slave) should serve those dwellers of the Land of
Hashem, and thus be saved from serving those who dwell in the impure
lands (outside of the Land of Israel) which have no mitzvahs conducted in
them."
Spoken as a true lover of Zion! And the Ramban certainly was one.
Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Parashas Ki Savo(65)The sedra begins with the mitzvah of the offering
of first fruits and ends with the blessing and the curse that will
befall Israel if they follow or stray from the path of service to G-d. A
series of blessings and curses were to be recited publicly once the Jews
arrived in the Land. The two mountains, Mt. Eival and Mt. Gerizim were
chosen as the site for this ceremony. Among them is the following and
Rashi's comment.

Rashi and Bechor Shor view the verse differently.
Deut. 27:18

Cursed is the one who misleads the blind person on the way; and all the
People answered 'Amen.'

RASHI

Whoever misleads the blind: Rashi: One who is blind regarding a
particular matter and he offers him bad advice.

Rashi takes this verse in a metaphorical sense, that is, not one who is
physically blind, but one who is ignorant, regarding a particular
issue. The prohibition is against intentionally giving bad advice to
someone, ("lead him astray") since he cannot adequately evaluate the advice,
as he is "blind" in this particular area of expertise. This is similar
to Rashi's comment on Leviticus 19:14.

QUESTIONING RASHI

A Question: The simple meaning of this verse is not to lead a blind man
in the wrong direction while he is walking on the road. Why does Rashi
prefer the allegorical interpretation to the simple meaning?

Hint: See this verse in its context.

Your Answer:

WHAT IS BOTHERING RASHI ?

An Answer: All the curses in this section (27:16-26) refer to
transgressions done in secret, out of sight of potential witnesses. See verse 16
where it speaks of making idols and placing them "in a hidden place."
And verse 24, which speaks of one who hits another "in a hidden place."
All the other curses refer to transgressions, which are either done at
home or can be done in a surreptitious way. But our verse does not seem
to fit with that theme. It speaks of misleading a blind man "on the
way." If we take the verse at face value, meaning misguiding a blind man
as he walks on the road, that is an act done in full public view and
would deviate from the list of hidden transgressions recorded in this
section of accursed behaviors. Therefore Rashi looks for an interpretation
that will fit the context.

How does his comment accomplish that ?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING RASHI

An Answer: Rashi transforms our verse into a "hidden transgression." No
one can see another man's intentions. So that when he gives his
misleading advice he can always claim that he did so innocently, with no
devious intent. In this sense it is a "hidden transgression."

Bechor Shor Offers P'shat

The Bechor Shor, always in pursuit of the simple p'shat, has suggested
something quite straight forward. He takes Rashi's idea a step further
and thus brings it nearer to a p'shat interpretation. He says we should
take the verse at face value. The man actually misled a blind man on
the way. Never the less, this can rightfully be considered a "hidden
transgression" since the perpetrator can always defend himself by saying he
did so innocently; he didn't realize he was guiding him wrongly. Nobody
can know another person's intention, it remains hidden.

Again we see how p'shat is available, if we only open ours eyes to see
it.

Shabbat Shalom
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."

[Jewscout]

Shabbat Shuva(66)This week is Shabbat Shuva. So we will discuss some
ideas on the topic of T'shuva (repentance). Last week's sedra, Netzavin,
(Deuteronomy chapter 30) is the Torah portion devoted to T'shuva. There
we find the following verses:
1) It will be that when these things come upon you - the blessing and
the curse - then you will return it to you heart, among all the nations
where Hashem, your G-d has cast you.

2) And you will return unto Hashem, your G-d and listen to his voice,
according to everything that I command you today, you and your children,
with all your heart and all your soul.

3) Then Hashem , your G-d, will return your captivity and have mercy
upon you and He will gather you in from all the nations to which Hashem,
your G-d, has scattered you.

.....

8) and you will return and listen to the voice of Hashem and perform
all his commandments that I command you today.

9) ...then he will return to rejoice over you for good as he rejoiced
over your forefathers.

10) When you listen to the voice of Hashem, your G-d, to observe his
commandments and his decrees that are written in this book of the Torah
when you shall return to Hashem, your G-d, with all your heart and all
your soul.

11) for this commandment that I command you today - it is not hidden
from you and it is not distant -

14) Rather the matter is very near to you - in your mouth and your
heart to perform it.

Note: The word "return" ( from the Hebrew root "shav" ) is repeated
exactly seven times in the section. The seven code is an indication that
the topic has special significance.

For this commandment: Rashi: interprets "this commandment" to mean the
whole Torah (see his comment on the words "For it is close to you")

The Ramban on the other hand interprets the words " this commandment"

to refer specifically to the mitzvah of repentance, T'shuvah. The Torah
refers to it as "in your mouth and in your heart to do it." This
certainly sounds like the act of T'shuvah.

Thus for the Ramban (Nachmanides) doing T'shuvah is one of the 613
commandments in the Torah.

Interestingly enough, The Rambam, (Maimonides), does not consider the
act of T'shuvah to be one of the 613 mitzvos. (It certainly is a
mitzvah, but not one of the 613.) The Rambam begins his Laws of T'shuva with
the following words:

"If a person transgresses any of the laws of the Torah, then when he
does T'shuva and turns away from his sin, he must confess before G-d
etc."

We see that the Rambam lists the act of T'shuva as the precondition for
the mitzvah of confession, but not as a mitzvah in its own right.

How can we understand this difference of opinion between the Ramban and
the Rambam? Why does one- the Ramban - consider t'shuva to be one of
the 613 mitzvos and the other - Rambam - does not?

Can you explain this?

Hint: Can you explain why T'shuva should be a separate mitzvah at all?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING THE RAMBAM'S POSITION

An Answer: I would suggest the following explanation. If, for example,
a man steals, do we need a special mitzvah to tell him to repent and
stop stealing? (There is, in fact, a mitzvah to tell him to return the
stolen article.) Of course, he must not steal in the future just as he
was commanded never to steal, in the first place. That is obvious. So
telling him to do t'shuva is in effect telling him to stop stealing, but
he has already been commanded for that.

This would seem to be the Rambam's reasoning. If T'shuva means turning
away from one's sinful behavior, then we are always commanded to that,
without the need for a special mitzvah. So, the Rambam says, when we do
the obvious act of turning away from our past sins, then the special
mitzvah of confession is obligatory upon us.

But if this is so common-sense -ical, then how are we to understand the
Ramban who says T'shuva is a special mitzvah? Can you think of a
justification of the Ramban's position ?

Your Answer:

UNDERSTANDING THE RAMBAN'S POSITION

An Answer: I would suggest this explanation of the Ramban's position.
Doing T'shuva is not just stopping doing a sin one had been doing. For a
person to truly repent means a major psychological and spiritual change
in the individual. This changes has the power to elevate him
spiritually much more than just the act of not doing a sin. This major spiritual
act has been praised by the Sages. They say that even the truly
righteous do not attain the same spiritual heights that the Ba'al T'shuva
does.

This may be the reason that the Ramban considers the mitzvah of T'shuva
to be special and separate from the mere act of improving ones self.
The spiritual leap forward that it signifies is an important aspect of
one's spirituality, therefore it is a mitzvah in its own right.

My we all be privileged to make such a leap in these days of T'shuva.

Shabbat Shalom
G'mar Chatima Tova
Avigdor Bonchek


"What's Bothering Rashi?" is a production of "The Institute for the
Study of Rashi."