1) Ch. 32, v. 19: "L'av'd'cho l'Yaakov minchoh hee shluchoh ladoni l'Eisov" – To your servant TO Yaakov it is a present to my master to Eisov – Shouldn’t the verse have said "MEI'av'd'cho miYaakov"?
2) Ch. 32, v. 32: "V'hu tzo'lei'a al y'reicho" – And he is limping on his thigh – Wasn’t Yaakov already limping during the night, immediately after he was hit on his thigh?
3) Ch. 34, v. 3: "B'Dinoh bas Yaakov" – In Dinoh the daughter of Yaakov – In verse 1 she is called bas Leah.
4) Ch. 34, v. 25: "Va'y'hi va'yom hashlishi bi'h'yosom ko'avim" – And it was on the third day when they were aching – Why did Shimon and Levi carry out their plan specifically on the third day?
5) Ch. 34, v. 25: "Va'yovo'u al ho'ir betach va'yahargu kol zochor" – And they came upon the city assured – How could two youngsters, aged 14 and 13 years respectively feel so assured that they could kill all the males of the city and not be stopped? Even if they felt that the weakened males would offer no resistance, would the women of the community not offer resistance
1) Ch. 28, v. 18: "Va'yitzoke shemen al roshoh" – And he poured oil upon its top – Since Elifaz relieved Yaakov of all his possessions how did he have oil?
2) Ch. 29, v. 20: "Va'yi'h'yu v'einov k'yomim achodim b'ahavoso ossoh" – Shouldn’t Yaakov’s yearning for Rochel make days seem like years rather than years like days?
3) Ch. 29, v. 26: "Lo yei'o'seh chein bimkomeinu lo'seis es ha'tz'iroh lifnei habchiroh" – It is not done like this in our locality to give the younger ahead of the older – Perhaps Yaakov had a precedent for taking a younger daughter in marriage ahead of an older one. What is it?
4) Ch. 29, v. 27: "V'nitnoh l'cho gam es zose" – And WE will give you also this one – Why did Lovon express himself in the plural form, since he was the only one giving his daughter in marriage?
5) Ch. 30, v. 23: "Osaf Elokim es cherposi" – Elokim has collected my shame – Rashi (M.R.) explains that by having given birth to a son Rochel could now blame her son for a broken dish or for some missing figs. Notwithstanding that the issue at hand is rather minor, nevertheless, is she allowed to lie under such circumstances?
1) Ch. 25, v. 21: "Vatahar Rivkoh ishto" – And his wife Rivkoh conceived – The word "ishto" seems to be superfluous.
2) Ch. 25, v. 26: "Vayikra shmo Yaakov" – And he called his name Yaakov – Rashi offers two opinions, either that his father Yitzchok gave him this name, or that Hashem gave him this name. Rabbeinu Chaim ben Paltiel says that we can only accept the opinion that Hashem gave Yaakov his name, as we find in 27:36, "Va'yomer hachi KORO shmo Yaakov……" Eisov says to his father, "Has HE not called him Yaakov because he has tricked me twice." If Yitzchok gave Yaakov his name, Eisov would surely have said, “Hachi KOROSO shmo Yaakov," – haven’t YOU called him Yaakov. This seems like a daunting question, especially with Rashi's keeping with the straightforward explanation of the verses (see Rashi Breishis 3:8).
3) Ch. 25, v. 24: "V'hi'nei somim b'vitnoh" – And behold twins in her uterus – "Hi'nei" is used where there is a surprise. Rivkoh was already advised that she was carrying twins, so what was the surprise?
4) Ch. 26, v. 7: "Va'yomer achosi hee ki yo’rei leimore ishti pen yaharguni" – And he said she is my sister because he was afraid to say my wife lest they kill me – There seems to be an inconsistency in the syntax of this phrase. The verse narrates that Yitzchok, 3rd person, said, "va'yomer." Then it quotes Yitzchok's actual words, "achosi hee." Since after this, the verse again narrates his thinking, that he was afraid to say ……, and is not quoting his words any more, it should have said "pen yaharguHU".
5) Ch. 26, v. 33: "Al kein shem ho'ir B'eir Sheva" – Therefore the name of the city is B’eir Sheva – In 21:31 by the incident of Avrohom and Avimelech we find, "Al kein koro lamokome hahu B'eir Shova," so it seems that it already had this name. For the answers, click here
1) Ch. 23, v. 2: "Vatomos Soroh b'Kiryas Arba hee Chevron" – And Soroh died in Kiryas Arba it is Chevron – Wasn't Soroh in B'eir Sheva?
2) Ch. 23, v. 4: "Geir v'soshov" – A sojourner and an inhabitant – Rashi comments that Avrohom said that if they would not cooperate to sell him the burial area he requested, he would rightfully take it by force, as he was a “toshov.” This seems contrary to the words of Rashi on 13:7, that as long as the Canaanites ruled the land it was rightfully theirs.
3) Ch. 23, v. 9: "M'oras hamachpeiloh" – The double cave – What was double about this cave?
4) Ch. 23, v. 10: "L'chole bo’ei shaar iro" – To all who COME to the gate of his city – Compare this with "l'chol YOTZEI shaar iro" (Breishis 34:24) by Sh'chem.
5) Ch. 24, v. 57: "V'nishaloh es pihoh" – And we will ask her opinion – In verse 51 we find, "Hi'nei Rivkoh l'fo'necho kach vo'leich," clearly stating that it was a done deal, so why do her mother and brother suggest that she be asked?
1) Ch. 18, v. 2,3: "V'hi'nei shloshoh anoshim, Va'yomer A-DO-NOY" – And behold three men, And he said A-DO-NOY – There is a false theological concept of trinity, that there are three combined spiritual powers/beings that combine into becoming one deity, hence tri-nutty. They bring a proof from these two verses. Three people came in front of Avrohom and he addresses them as one and calls them a-do-noy, one. This cheap bit of theological logic is readily rebutted in numerous ways. How?
2) Ch. 18, v. 4: "V'hisho'anu tachas ho'EITZ" – And repose under the tree – Rashi says "tachas ho'ilon." Sifsei Chachomim explains that Rashi is forewarning that EITZ is actually wood, and thus seems to indicate a tree that was felled. ILON is a live tree. If so, why doesn't the verse say ILON?
3) Ch. 18, v. 9: "A'yei Soroh ishtecho" – Where is Soroh your wife – Why did the angels ask where Soroh was? Is this not contrary to the rule of the gemara Kidushin 70b, that one should not ask about the welfare of a woman even from her husband?
4) Ch. 18, v. 25: "Hashofeit kol ho'oretz lo yaa'seh mishpot" – Would the Judge of all the land not do justice – On a simple level we understand the words "hashofeit kol ho'oretz" in Avrohom's plea to mean that if we were dealing with a small-time judge who does not issue verdicts that are in line with justice, it would not be so startling, as he is not a major judge, and his influence is also limited. However, since Hashem is the Judge over the whole world, His not administering fair rulings is catastrophic. How can we explain these words in a different light and Avrohom's words would have a deeper meaning?
5) Ch. 21, v. 7: "Heinikoh vonim Soroh" – Soroh nursed children – Rashi questions the word "vonim," CHILDREN. Didn’t Soroh only nurse one child, her son Yitzchok? Rashi answers that the wives of the guests brought along their young nursing children. These women spoke negatively of Soroh, saying that she was too old to conceive and give birth to a child. No doubt she picked up a waif from the street. To counter this Soroh nursed their children, thus negating their negative assertion. Surely people spoke badly of Soroh before the occasion of this festive meal. If so, why did Soroh wait until now to nurse others' children
1) Ch. 12, v. 4: "Va'yeilech Avrom kaasher DI'BER eilov Hashem" – And Avrom went just as Hashem spoke to him – In verse 1 we find, "VaYOMER Hashem el Avrom." Why the change from "amiroh" to "dibur?"
2) Ch. 14, v. 14: "Shmonoh ossor ushlosh mei'os" – Three-hundred and eighteen – Rashi (gemara N'dorim 32a) says that this refers to Eliezer, Avrohom's slave, whose name has the numerical value of 318. This is a most difficult explanation of our verse, as the verse expresses itself in the plural form, "chanichOV, y'lidEI." This is especially puzzling in understanding Rashi, who has set out to explain the Torah in a straightforward "pshuto shel mikra" manner (Breishis 3:8).
3) Ch. 14, v. 22,23: "Harimosi yodi, Im michut v'ad sroch naal" – I have raised my hand, If from a thread to a shoelace – Why was it necessary for Avrom to raise his hand and utter an oath that he would take none of the spoils of war? If he indeed takes nothing it is obvious that he would be keeping his word.
4) Ch. 15, v. 15: "V'atoh tovo el avoshecho b'sholom" – And you will come to your forefathers in peace – The M.R. 38:12 derives from these words that Terach, Avrohom's father, repented. How is this conclusive? Perhaps Terach would not repent, but the merits of Avrohom would protect Terach in his judgment in the world-to-come, as per the gemara Sanhedrin 104a, "A son's good deeds are a merit for his father."
5) Ch. 16, v. 2: "Ulai ibo'neh mi'menoh" – Perhaps I will build through her – How would Soroh build a family through Hogor's having children?
1) Ch. 6, v. 9: "B'dorosov" – In his generations – Rashi says that some deduce from this word that had Noach lived in the generation of Avrohom he would had been considered negligible, a pejorative explanation. Why would one interpret negatively if it is just as easy to interpret positively, as is the opinion of our Rabbis, which is mentioned earlier in this Rashi?
2) Ch. 7, v. 2: "Mikole habheimoh hat'horoh" – From each ritually pure animal – The gemara Z'vochim 116a asks, "Were there then kosher and non-kosher species at the time of the great deluge?" The gemara answers that this refers to those that would be kosher and non-kosher in the future. The gemara then asks, "How indeed did Noach know to differentiate?" The gemara answers that Noach brought the animals in front of the ark and those that were able to enter were the future kosher species from which he took seven. Our Rashi says that Noach knew because he learned the teachings of the Torah. If so, why does the gemara say that Noach passed them in front of the ark to know?"
3) Ch. 7, v. 2: "Hat'horoh tikach l'cho…… asher lo t'horoh hee shnayim" – The ritually pure you shall TAKE for yourself …… that is not ritually pure two – Why by the kosher species does the verse say TAKE and by the non-kosher is there no mention of taking?
4) Ch. 7, v. 14: "Ho'ofe …… tzipor" – Bird ….. bird – What is the difference between these two words?
5) Ch. 8, v. 2: "Va'yiko'lei ha'geshem" – And the rain ended – We find the word "va'yiko'lei" in one other place in the Torah, "va'yiko'lei ho'om mei'hovi" (Shmos 36:6), – and the nation ended bringing. What is the connection?
Q: 1) Ch. 1, v. 1: "Breishis" - Why doesn't the verse say "reishis" rather than "breishis"?
A: 1) This would require the verse to follow through with "hoyoh eis hashomayim v'eis ho'oretz," without mentioning Who created them. Hashem wanted to place His Name in the first verse. (Rabbeinu Tovioh)
2) To allude to 2 "reishis," the creation of this ephemeral world and the permanent world-to-come.
3) To teach us that we not delve into what took place before the creation, or above, or below. The letter Beis is closed on all sides, except forward to the next letter, indicating that we only delve "forward." (Kabalists)
4) So that the Torah begin with the letter Beis, indicative of "brochoh," blessing.
5) All the letters, save Alef, begged Hashem to begin the Torah with them. Hashem gave each a reason why not, except for the letter Beis. (The letter Alef was recompensed by being the first letter in the Ten Commandments.) (Holy Zohar in his preface to Breishis)
Q: 2) Ch. 1, v. 11: "Tadshei ho'oretz deshe" - Why do we have these three differences between Hashem's stating how the vegetation should produce and how it actually produced? Here it says "tadshei" but in the next verse where it took place it says "vato’tzei"? Here there is no "l'mi'neihu" but in the next verse there is "l'mi'neihu." Here "eitz" has no prefix Vov, while in the next verse it does.
A: "Tadshei" means it should come into being as grass, a green shoot, the very earliest stage of growth. The next verse tells us "vato'tzei," the earth issued forth developed vegetation. This also explains "l'mi'neihu." When it is but a minimal shoot sprouting forth its species is not recognized. A somewhat developed plant is recognized as a specific species. The letter Vov in the next verse before "eitz," teaches us that the earth gave forth six (the numerical value of the letter Vov) species of trees. Although we have many more species, they are subspecies of the six basic trees. (Tosfos Hasho'leim)
Q: 3) Ch. 1, v. 27: "Va'yivra Elokim es ho'odom b'tzalmo" - How can it be that Hashem created man in His FORM? Hashem has no form (see "Ani maamin #3).
A: 1) "In His form" means that just as Hashem has no form, so too, mankind has no form, i.e. each person looks different from the next. (Tzror Hamor)
2) "In His form" means in the form of angels. (Chizkuni)
3) "In His form" means that mankind was given free reign in choosing to do good or bad. (Haa'meik Dovor)
Q: 4) Ch. 1, v. 27: "B'tzelem Elokim" - Starting from the first verse in the Torah onwards, Targum Onkelos always translates Elokim as "Hashem" (Y-H-V-H). Here, in 5:1, and in 9:6 he translates Elokim as "Elokim" (In my printed Chumash in 9:6 I find "Hashem," but "meso'res Targum" says that in these three places it is Elokim). Why does he deviate in these three places?
A: 1) "The form of Elokim" is such a lofty concept that Targum did not want to tamper with the exact wordage of the Torah. (Marpei Loshon)
2) This is not to be translated so that the thought of comparability between Elokim and mankind should not even be considered. (Pas'shegen Ksav)
3) As mentioned earlier, the Chizkuni says that "tzelem Elokim" means the form of angels. The correct translation for this is indeed Elokim, while everywhere else it means Hashem.
An interesting question arises: According to those who posit that this word is not actually translated, is it required to read the verse three times to fulfill "shtayim Mikra v'echod Targum"?
Q: 5) Ch. 2, v. 17: "B'yom acholcho mi'menu mose tomus" - Since Odom lived for another 930 years how were these words fulfilled?
A: 1) "Mose tomus" means that you will be liable for the death penalty. (Targum Yonoson ben Uziel, Ramban)
2) Since Odom died within a millennium this is the same day in Hashem's calculation, as per the verse "Ki elef shonim b'ei'necho k'yom esmol" (T’hilim 90:4 - see Rashi ad. loc.).
1) Ch. 29, v. 12: "L'maan hokim os'choh ha'yom lo l'om" – So that you are established today for Him as a nation – These verses are discussing the positive effects of commitment to "arvus," each individual’s responsibility for the actions of every ben Yisroel. This is an awesome undertaking. If someone has acted incorrectly, all have some level of responsibility. If so, how does this help establish us as a nation? If anything, it seems that the opposite is true. It adds demerits to each of us.
2) Ch. 29, v. 27: "Va'yash*L*i'cheim el eretz acherres" - We find an oversized letter Lamed in the middle of the word "va'yash*L*i'cheim." What is its significance?
3) Ch. 29, v. 19: "Haksuvoh ba'seifer ha'zeh" - This verse tells us that for the person who will not comply with the dictates of the Torah there await punishments that are WRITTEN in this Book. Yet in the admonitions of the previous parsha we find the opposite, "asher LO chosuv b'seifer haTorah hazose" (28:61).
4) Ch. 30, v. 11: "Ki hamitzvoh hazose" - The Ramban says that these words teach us that it is a mitzvoh to repent, to do teshuvoh, for our sins. According to the Ramban why is there no brochoh instituted for the act of teshuvoh?
5) Ch. 30, v. 14: "Ki korove ei'lecho hadovor m'ode b'ficho uvilvovcho laasoso" – Because the matter is very close to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it – The Ramban explains that this verse refers to teshuvoh, and "b'ficho" refers to oral confession, while "bilvovcho" refers to the emotional commitment to walk the straight and narrow in the future.
Why is the "b'ficho" component mentioned ahead of the "bilvovcho" component? One surely has the intent to repent in his heart before he confesses to having sinned?
For the answers, click here!
1) Ch. 26, v. 10: "V'atoh hi'nei heiveisi" – And now behold I have brought – The medrash comments: "V'atoh," now immediately, "Hi'nei" with happiness, "Heiveisi," I have brought of my own. The first two points are self-understood, but what is added by the third point, given that it is obvious that bringing "bikurim" is the mitzvoh to bring the first-ripened produce of one's own field?
2) Ch. 26, v. 12: "Bashonoh hashlishis shnas hamaa'seir" – In the third year the year of the tithe – These words make it sound like the first and second years of the seven year cycle are not years of tithing, and this is not so, as there is the requirement to tithe "maa'seir rishon" and "maa'seir sheini."
3) Ch. 26, v. 16: "V'shomarto v'ossiso osom" – And you shall safeguard and you shall do them – Rashi says that this is a blessing. A voice from heaven emanates and says, "You have brought the tithe this year. You will merit repeating this next year." It seems that this comment is based on translating "v'ossiso" not as "you SHALL do," but rather, as "you WILL do." It seems as if one who brings the tithe will live forever.
4) Ch. 28, v. 3: "Boruch atoh bo'ir" – Blessed are you in the city – The medrash says that you are to be blessed on account of the mitzvos you do in the city. This is an enigmatic statement. Blessing comes upon a person no matter where he performs mitzvos.
5) Ch. 28, v. 13: "Unsoncho Hashem l'rosh" – And Hashem will place you to a head – What is the intention of the Lamed before "rosh?"
1) Ch. 21, v. 10: "Ki seitzei lamilchomoh al oi'vEcho unsonO Hashem Elokecho b'yo'decho v'shoviso shivyO" – When you will go out to war against your ENEMIES and Hashem your G-d will give HIM into your hand and you will capture his CAPTIVE – The verse begins with the plural form of enemies and continues with the singular.
2) Ch. 21, v. 12: "V'os'soh" – And she shall let GROW – This is Rashi's (Sifri) translation. Since this is inaction, why does the Torah express it as transitive?
3) Ch. 22, v. 2: "Vahasheivoso lo" – And you shall return it to him – When the Holy Admor of Satmar zt"l visited Jerusalem he was asked by a local doctor if the ruling of "v'rapo y'ra'peh" (Shmos 21:19), from which we derive that a doctor has permission to heal, requires of him to answer every call to heal. The Holy Rebbe responded, "This is clearly included in the mitzvoh of 'vahasheivoso lo.'" The next morning this response was publicized in a local shul. One upstart said, "What kind of answer is this? The verse quoted has nothing to do with the question!" What is the connection? Was this a whim of the Holy Rebbe or is it based in an earlier source?
4) Ch. 23, v. 4,5,6: "Lo yovo Amoni uMoavi bikhal Hashem, Vaasher sochar o'lecho es Bilom ben B'ore, V'lo ovoh Hashem Elokecho lishmo'a el Bilom" – An Amonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, And that he hired for you Bilom the son of B’ore, And Hashem did not desire to listen to Bilom" – The flow of these verses seems to indicate that if ch"v Hashem was willing to have Bilom's curses come to fruition then Amonites and Moabites would be accepted into our congregation, i.e. allowed to marry a bas Yisroel.
5) Ch. 23, v. 25: "Ki sovo b'cherem rei'echo v'ochalto anovim k'naf'sh'cho so'vecho" – When you come into the vineyard of your friend and you may eat grapes to your satisfaction to your satiation – Rashi (gemara B.M. 89b) explains that this refers to a hired worker. It is only when the worker is harvesting ripe produce and placing into the owner's vessels that the worker may also partake of the produce. If however, he is hired to prune the vines or the like he may not eat the fruit.
The gemara Taanis 9a states that although Hashem gives reward for mitzvos in the world-to-come, when it comes to the mitzvoh of charity there is reward given in this world as well. The gemara goes on to say that we may even "test" Hashem in this by giving charity and expecting to see reward right here in this ephemeral world, based on the verse "b'chonuni noh b'zose." Why indeed is charity unique in this manner? for the answers, click here
1) Ch. 17, v. 6: "Al pi shnayim eidim o shloshoh eidim yumas ha'meis lo yumas al pi eid echod" – By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the guilty person be put to death he shall not be put to death by the testimony of one witness – a) Since we know that one witness is insufficient even for money matters (Dvorim 19:15), why does our verse repeat this by capital punishment? b)If two are believed here, why bother telling us that three are also believed?
2) Ch. 17, v. 7: "Yad ho'eidim ti'h'yeh bo borishonoh l'hamiso" - The witnesses who testify to the guilt of someone who has transgressed a sin that deserving of the death penalty are the ones who execute the sinner. What is the rationale for this ruling?
3) Ch. 19, v. 19: "Va'asisem Lo Ka'asher Zomam La'asos" - The gemara Makos 2a derives from our verse that the Torah requires that the witnesses give sufficiently specific testimony which could make them liable to be refuted by other witnesses who could say that the first ones are false by virtue of not having been at the location where they claim the situation took place at the time they testified it took place, commonly called "imonu heh'yi'sem." If witnesses don't open themselves up to this risk, they are invalid.
It seems that this ruling makes it impossible to ever have acceptable witnesses. If the first set of witnesses requires the possibility of being refuted by the second, then the second can only be accepted if it can be refuted by the third set, and so on. Eventually we will run out of people, so then the last set will be invalid. This will create a reverse domino effect as the ones before them will likewise be invalid, all the way back to the first witnesses. How can we ever have acceptable witnesses?
4) Ch. 19, v. 19: "Kaasher zomam LAASOSE" - The mishnoh Makos 5a derives from the word LA'ASOSE "v'lo kaasher ossoh", that only when the sentence has not been executed and the witnesses are found to be false in a manner called "hazomoh", that others testify that the earlier witnesses were not present at the time and location which they claimed they saw the act done, do we carry out reciprocal punishment. However, if the sentence was irrevocably carried out, the false witnesses are not punished.
This obviously deserves an explanation. If they are punished when nothing was actually done to the falsely convicted person, surely when the sentence was carried out, and they have brought about actual damage to an innocent person (lashes, death, etc.), they surely deserve to be punished.
5) Ch. 20, v. 20: "Rok ho'eitz asher TEIDA" - When we have a doubt if a Torah prohibition applies, we apply the dictum "sofeik d'Oreisoh l'chumroh," when in doubt regarding a Torah-level law, we are stringent. However, there is a disagreement between the Rambam and the Rashboh if acting stringently is required by Torah law or if by Torah law one may be lenient, and it is only a Rabbinical decree to be stringent. According to the opinion that "sofeik d'Oreisoh m'd'Oreisoh l'kuloh,' that by Torah law one may be lenient, why does the Torah say that only a tree which YOU KNOW is not a fruit producing tree may be cut down? Even when one has a doubt if it produces fruit, he would also be permitted to do so by Torah law.
1) Ch. 11, v. 26: "Ha'yom brochoh ukloloh" – Today a blessing and a curse – The word "ha'yom" seems unnecessary.
2) Ch. 12, v. 7: "Usmachtem b'chol mishlach yedchem" – And you shall rejoice in all that you apply your hand – What does this mean?
3) Ch. 13, v. 5: "Acha'rei Hashem Elokeichem teileichun …… uvo sidbokun" – After Hashem your G-d shall you walk …… and in Him shall you cleave – Why does our verse says "acha'rei" rather than "achar," given that "acha'rei means "after at a distance" while "achar" means "right after?"
4) Ch. 16, v. 15: "V'hoyiso ach so'mei'ach" – And you will be only joyous – The gemara Sukoh 12 derives from this expression that the night going into Shmini Atzerres is also included in the status of being joyous. "Ach" is a term that connotes limitation, and yet, it seems that we expand the joyous activities into the night of Shmini Atzerres.
5) Ch. 16, v. 16: "Sholosh p'omim bashonoh yeiro'eh chol z'churcho es pnei Hashem Elokecho" – Thrice a year shall all your males appear to the countenance of Hashem your G-d – Our Rabbis expound on the words in Shir Hashirim 7:2, "Mah yofu foma'yich banolim," that the footsteps of the bnei Yisroel when they make their thrice yearly pilgrimage is beautiful. This is puzzling, as when the bnei Yisroel actually appear in front of Hashem in the Mikdosh compound they are prohibited to wear shoes.
1) Ch. 7, v. 12: "V'hoyoh eikev tish'm'un …… ushmartem vaasisem" – And it will be as a result of your hearkening …… and you will safeguard and you will do – All of these requirements are expressed in the plural form. Yet, when it comes to Hashem's response we find it expressed in the singular form, "v'shomar, vaa'heivcho, uveirach'cho."
2) Ch. 8, v. 10: "V'ochalto v'sovoto u'veirachto" – And you will eat and become satiated and you shall bless – The gemara Brochos 20 says that he who has his wife or son recite the grace after meals to be "motzi" him has fulfilled the mitzvoh, but a curse of hunger will come upon him. Why is this so?
3) Ch. 9, v. 17: "Vo'espose bishnei haluchos vo'ashlicheim mei'al shtei yodoy vo'ashabreim l'eineichem" – And I gripped the two Tablets and I threw them from upon my two hands and I smashed them in front of your eyes – When Moshe was still in the heavens Hashem had already told him, "Lech reid ki shicheis amcho" (Shmos 32:7). If so, why did he bring the Tablets down with him, knowing full well that he would smash them? Why not just leave them in the heavens? If he would reconcile the bnei Yisroel with Hashem he could bring them down afterwards.
4) Ch. 10, v. 2: "V'samtom bo'orone" – And place them into the ark – Isn't it obvious that their place would be inside the "orone hakodesh?"
5) Ch. 11, v. 17: "V'choroh af Hashem bochem" – And Hashem's anger will burn in you – How can we take these words as a message of hope?
1) Ch. 3, v. 23: "Bo'eis hahee" – At that time – At which time?
2) Ch. 3, v. 26: "Va'yisa'beir bi Hashem l'maanchem" – And Hashem angered in me on your account – Although Rashi explains that "l'maanchem" means "because of you," others say that it means "for your sake," for your benefit. What benefit did the bnei Yisroel derive from Moshe’s being denied entry to Eretz Yisroel?
3) Ch. 3, v. 27: "Ur'ei v'einecho" – And see with your eyes – Moshe begged to be allowed to enter the land and his entreaties were denied. What was accomplished by having him see the land?
4) Ch. 4, v. 2: "Lo sosifu al hadovor asher onochi m'tza'veh es'chem v'lo sig'r'u mi'menu lishmor es mitzvos Hashem Elokeichem asher onochi m'tza'veh es'chem" – Do not add onto the matter that I command you and do not diminish from it to safeguard the precepts of Hashem your G-d that I command you – The last four words of this phrase are a repeat of what was said earlier in this verse word for word.
5) Ch. 4, v. 2: "V'lo sig'r'u mi'menu lishmor es mitzvos Hashem Elokeichem asher onochi m'tza'veh es'chem" –And do not diminish from it to safeguard the precepts of Hashem your G-d that I command you – What is taught by adding the words "lishmor es mitzvos Hashem Elokeichem," and why is this placed by the prohibition to not diminish?
1) Ch. 1, v. 1: "Eileh" – These – There are six parshios in the Torah that begin with the letter Alef. They are, “Eileh toldos Noach, Eileh pikudei, Im b'chukosai, Eileh massei," and "Attem nitzovim." What message or allusion can we derive from this group of six?
2) Ch. 1, v. 1: "El KOL Yisroel" – To ALL of Yisroel –Why here does it say that he spoke to ALL, and in verse three it says that he spoke to "bnei Yisroel," not saying KOL, and even later, when it says that "Ho'il Moshe bei'eir" (verse 5), it doesn’t even say to whom he clarified?
3) Ch. 1, v. 11: "Vivo'reich es'chem kaasher di'beir lochem" – And He will bless you as He has spoken about you – Since our verse is discussing a blessing why is it expressed as "di'beir," an expression of harshness, rather than "omar," a soft expression (see Medrash Tanchuma 936:13) of having said that He would bless you?
4) Ch. 1, v. 16: "Shomo'a bein acheichem ushfat'tem tzedek" – It is heard among your brothers and you shall judge properly – Rather than translating "ushfat'tem" as "and you SHALL judge," an imperative, which is the common translation we might explain these words to mean "and you WILL judge." How would this fit into the context of this verse?
5) Ch. 1, v. 37: "Gam bee hisanaf Hashem biglalchem leimore gam atoh lo sovo shom" – Also in me has Hashem angered by virtue of you saying also you will not come there – Moshe is telling the bnei Yisroel that Hashem became angry with him because of their sin by the incident of the spies. This is very puzzling, as we do not find this being the case. The gemara M'nochos 41a says that Hashem does not punish for the lack of fulfillment of a positive precept (with the exception of not partaking of the Korban Pesach and not having oneself circumcised). However, if one did not fulfill a positive mitzvoh at a time that Hashem is angered with the masses, then even the flaw of not doing a positive mitzvoh can be punished. Technically, Hashem's command to Moshe by the drawing forth water from/by the rock was a positive command, "Speak to the stone." Moshe did not comply, and hit it instead. He only was guilty of not doing a positive command, as hitting or not hitting it wasn't mentioned by Hashem. If so, why should he receive a punishment?
1) Ch. 31, v. 2: "Mei'eis haMidyonim" – From the Midyanites – Why doesn't the verse say "mei'haMidyonim?"
2) Ch. 31, v. 3: "Heicholtzu" – Arm – This is Rashi’s translation. What other translations do you have?
3) Ch. 31, v. 6: "Osom v'es Pinchos" – They and Pinchos – "Osom" seems to be superfluous.
MASSEI
4) Ch. 33, v. 4: "U'Mitzrayim m'kabrim eis asher hikoh Hashem bohem kol b'chor uvei'loheihem ossoh Hashem shfotim" – And the Egyptians are burying those whom Hashem smote every firstborn and in their gods Hashem extracted punishment – The verse should have said, "U'Mitzrayim m'kabrim kol b'chor asher hikoh Hashem bohem."
5) Ch. 33, v. 6: "Va'yachanu v'Eisom asher biktzei hamidbor" – And they rested in Eisom which was at the edge of the desert – Compare this with "B'Eisom biktzei hamidbor" (Shmos 12:37). Why do we have the added word "asher" here?
1) Ch. 26, v. 2: “S’u es rosh kol adas bnei Yisroel” – Count all the people of the bnei Yisroel congregation – Why was there a need to count them again so shortly after the previous census?
2) Ch. 26, v. 5: “Chanoch mishpachas haChanochi” – Chanoch the Chanochite family – Rashi explains the prefix and suffix for the names of the families, which are a letter Hei and Yud. The gentile nations mocked the bnei Yisroel, saying, “Of what value is their counting their families to their ancestral tribes? Since the Egyptians totally mastered over the men they surely did as they wished with the women, and the descendants are not those of the bnei Yisroel.” Therefore Hashem gave His seal of purity on the families by adding a Letter Hei before and a letter Yud afterwards. These two letters are one of His Holy Names.
The bnei Yisroel had a count earlier in parshas Bmidbar. The verses there only give us the tribal heads and the census by tribes. Why wasn’t the approbation of the letters Hei and Yud given earlier?
3) Ch. 28, v. 6: “Olas Tomid ho’asuyoh b’Har Sinai” – The daily Oloh offering which was processed at Har Sinai – Why is the daily oloh offering referenced back to the original oloh offering at Har Sinai?
4) Ch. 28, v. 10: “B’ShabbatO” – In HIS Shabbos – Is the word Shabbos male or female?
5) Ch. 28, v. 11: “Uvroshei chodsheichem” – And on the heads of your months – An expression corresponding to “your months” is not found by any Yom Tov. The verse does not similarly say, “B’shabbas Shabbatchem, b’yom Bikureichem, b’yom Sukoseichem.” (“B’shovu’oseichem” in 28:26 is explained by the Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh.) Why?
1) Ch. 22, v. 7: "U'ksomim b'yodom" - Rashi said that the elders of Moav had signs from the elders of Midyon to indicate if they would be successful. If Bilom would come with them after their first request he is of SUBSTANCE, "Yeish bo MAMASH." If he would push them off, he is of NO VALUE, "Ein bo TO'ELLES." When Bilom responded that they should wait the night for a response, they said that there is NO HOPE in him, "Ein bo TIKVOH." Why does Rashi use three different expressions of level of expectation from Bilom?
2) Ch. 22, v. 18: "M'lo veiso kesef v'zohov lo uchal laavore es pi Hashem" - Rashi says that from here we derive that Bilom had an unsatiable lust for money. How do we derive this from his words? Why not just say that he was strongly expressing his great dedication to follow the words of Hashem, even to the tune of foregoing tremendous financial rewards? We find a similar expression used by Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo in the mishnoh in Pirkei Ovos 6:10. He met a person during his travels who offered him a position as the spiritual leader of his community. Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo responded that he would not accept the position, even if he were given all the silver, gold, and precious stones that exist. We find no commentator disparagingly remarking that Rabbi Yossi ben Kismo lusted riches, so what is the difference between the two?
3) Ch. 22, v. 21: "Va'yokom Bilom baboker va'yachavosh es asono" - Rashi (M.R. 20:12) says that Hashem told Bilom, "Although you have arisen and saddled your donkey, Avrohom has already preceded you, as is written "Va'yashkeim Avrohom baboker va'yachavosh es chamoro" (Breishis 22:3). Why did Avrohom’s getting up early supersede Bilom's?
4) Ch. 23, v. 4: "Shivas hamiz'b'chos" - Rashi says he built seven altars to counteract the seven alters built by the Avos, four by Avrohom, one by Yitzchok and two by Yaakov. What other corresponding altar matter is indicated by the seven altars?
5) Ch. 24, v. 3: "Sh'sum Ho'ayin" The gemara tells us that Bilom was blind in one eye. Rashi on this verse and says that this is derived from the translation of "sh'sum" (removed).In a second interpretation, Rashi says it means open and we derive that he was blind from the word "h'ayin" meaning ONE eye open, not both, hence blind in the other eye. Likewise, Rashi on the mishnoh in Avodah Zoroh p. 69a D"H V'tigov, explains that "sh'sum" means open. He quotes the words of Targum "D'shapir cho'zei". Also Tosfos Gemara Niddah 31b says the same as Rashi in A.Z. 69a. In any case, we have the same conclusion. Targum has a well earned reputation of translating things in their literal sense. Since either interpretation means that one eye was blind, how can we explain his translating "sh'sum h'ayin" as who sees well?
1) Ch. 20, v. 8: "V'dibartem el ha'sela" - The gemara Taanis 9a says that the bnei Yisroel received the clouds of glory by virtue of Aharon, the wellspring by virtue of Miriam, and the manna by virtue of Moshe. When Miriam died the wellspring stopped, but was reinstated by virtue of Moshe and Aharon. When Aharon died the clouds of glory dissipated, but were reinstated by virtue of Moshe. Since Moshe had the merit to bring about the clouds of glory, the water, and the manna, why were the earlier two of these three brought about by the merits of his siblings?
2) Ch. 20, v. 10: "Shimu noh hamorim" – The rebellious ones please hear – Rashi says that this word is sourced in the Greek language to mean "fools." Obviously it has the simple meaning of "teachers." Rashi combines both and says that Moshe rebuked them, saying that they were fools who attempt to teach their teachers. If this word has a straightforward meaning in Loshon Hakodesh, why is there a need to also give it another level of meaning in a foreign language?
3) Ch. 20, v. 25: "V'haal" – And bring up – The Baal Haturim notes that this word only appears in the Torah one other time, "v’haal es hatzfardim" (Shmos 8:1). He does not explain the "mesoroh" connection. What explanation do you have?
4) Ch. 20, v. 26: "V'hafsheit es Aharon" – And undress Aharon – This would take place on Hor Hohor, removed from the Mishkon compound. How was he permitted to wear his priestly attire there, as it contains shatnez, which is only permitted when doing a priestly service?
5) Ch. 21, v. 33: "Va'yeitzei Og …… lamilchomoh" – And Og went out …… to the war – When Sichon went out to do battle against the bnei Yisroel, the verse says "Va'yilochem b'Yisroel" (verse 23), he actually engaged in war, while here it only says that Sichon "went out to the war." Why the difference? For the answers, click here.
Important Numbers
