Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › Kashas on the Parsha
- This topic has 276 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by ☕️coffee addict.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 3, 2010 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #592075☕️coffee addictParticipant
I had a kasha on last week’s parsha which i didn’t get an answer to so i wanted to see if anyone in the coffee room knows and maybe add your own kasha on the parsha to the thread
In last week’s parsha (eikev) the passuk compare’s Eretz Yisrael to Mitzrayim and Rashi says that Cham built Tzoan in Mitzrayim and Chevron in EY for his sons so how is it that chevron is part of EY if it belonged to Cham (i’m including intrinsically the answer the Shaarei Aharon gives, Shem was supposed to get EY so any part that Shem didn’t get shouldn’t be part of EY and if you say that Avraham bought it he just bought Maaras Hamachpela and it’s feild not the whole city
please ask questions if I’m not being clear
August 3, 2010 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1169134rtParticipantwhat is the problem with Cham having eretz canaan?
August 3, 2010 7:22 pm at 7:22 pm #1169135theprof1ParticipantCham had EY even though Hashem promised it to Shem. Cham built the land and it was named Canaan after one son. Had Canaan observed the 7 Noach mitzvos he would have been able to stay.
August 4, 2010 2:53 am at 2:53 am #1169136☕️coffee addictParticipantCham had EY even though Hashem promised it to Shem
malchitzedek melech shalem was shem and shalem is yerushalayim
noach divided the world into 3 parts and shem got EY Hashem didn’t promise it to him he “gave” it to him
October 21, 2010 2:26 am at 2:26 am #1169137☕️coffee addictParticipantI’m refreshing this post b/c i have a new question that i don’t know the answer to and maybe the CR can help me.
In this weeks parsha the passuk says Chadal lihiyos Sarah orach K’nashim to which rashi says that dam niddah stopped
but in Noach where it says Vatihi Sarai Akara lo yalad
the gemera in yevomos says either she was an aylonis, she was a tumtum or she didnt have a rechem. If this is so, then how can she have dam niddah in any of those 3 cases
October 21, 2010 3:45 am at 3:45 am #1169138WIYMembermbachur
Look back a few Pesukim in Perek Yud Alef Pasuk Ches and read the Rashi.
October 21, 2010 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1169139WIYMemberMbachur
Nu did it help?
October 22, 2010 1:10 am at 1:10 am #1169140☕️coffee addictParticipantPerek Yud Alef Pasuk Ches
i don’t underrstand over there it talks about the dor haflagah and rashi says b’olam hazeh
October 22, 2010 3:49 am at 3:49 am #1169141Shouldnt be hereMemberNot really on this weeks Parsha but I heard it this week
?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????
We do not see that Avrohom Avinu should express any
feeling over Hagar’s exile.
2 really belongs in another thread but I’M lazy
A good one!! The Ansvei Sdom were “frumies”
They were wicked with the excuse that were acting L’Shem Hashe????? ???? ???? ??????, ??’ ???
October 22, 2010 4:46 am at 4:46 am #1169142WIYMembermbachur
Sorry it was Perek 18 Pasuk 8 see Rashi there.
October 22, 2010 1:43 pm at 1:43 pm #1169143☕️coffee addictParticipantwellinformed, i know about that rashi.
Chadal means she stopped, are you saying that she stopped after she saw dam on that day (which was when the malachim came) it seems like it’s talking about before that day
October 22, 2010 8:13 pm at 8:13 pm #1169144WIYMembermbachur
Yes, before the day the Melachim came it seems like it had stopped, (meaning it had stopped years before that) then the Melachim came and it started again.
I agree your Kasha still stands. Ask a Rabbi, Id like to know the answer as well.
October 24, 2010 12:57 am at 12:57 am #1169145☕️coffee addictParticipantBH for artscoll (if they didn’t come out with an english transalation for the midrash i would’ve never seen it or even figured it out if i did
there are two pshatim in chadal
one means that it started then stopped
one mmeans it never started
(the midrash quotes 2 psukim i cant remeber where they are and i dont have a midrash handy)
October 24, 2010 6:33 am at 6:33 am #1169146WIYMemberMbachur
The problem is Rashi translates chadal as pasak. I don’t think pasak has both meanings as well.
October 24, 2010 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm #1169148HaLeiViParticipantWith regard to Tumtum, Tosafos in Yevamos 64, I think, says that obviously that was resolved by the time they were married. The point is more that anyone that was that way can’t have or is unlikely to have children. As far as Ailoness goes, perhaps it is still possible to have a cycle with out being fully equipped.
October 24, 2010 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #1169149☕️coffee addictParticipantWellinformed,
the midrash btw is mem ches, tes zayin
and the matnas kehuna explains it like this
ill have to look at rashi again
Haleivi,
and what about not having a rechem
October 24, 2010 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1169150HaLeiViParticipantWhile I consider the first Kasha answered, the second one is definitely a hard one. It was an attempt, not definitive. Anyhow, not necessarily does it have to mean that there was nothing at all. It could be refering to essential parts.
October 24, 2010 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #1169152☕️coffee addictParticipanti only asked 1 kasha
October 25, 2010 6:36 am at 6:36 am #1169153HaLeiViParticipantI’m considering Tumtum as one Kasha (not anymore) and Aylonis as a second.
October 29, 2010 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #1169155Rak Od Pa'amMemberWhy dont we see any concern by Avrohum Avinu A”H over Hager at either of her 2 expulsions from his home?.
He was concerned about Yishmael.
See Pirush Hamishnayos L’ambam Avos 5:19 Those who dont have it handy go to http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42469&st=&pgnum=21&hilite=
It still is hard to understand. Given that ???”? suppreseed his gahmiyos but why wasnt he concerned over Hager about who ??”? say ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? and was concerned over Yishmael who OTD ed?
2) Why did Hashem tell him not be concernd over Hager when he wasnt?
October 29, 2010 3:22 pm at 3:22 pm #1169156squeakParticipantchad pami, chada m’turetz b’chaverta. Hashem said not to be worried about Hagar, so Avraham was not worried. Hashem also said not to be worried about Yishmael, but he was anyway, which is a lesson in chinuch bonim.
October 29, 2010 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm #1169158Rak Od Pa'amMemberHuh???
Go find your Chumash
???? ?”? ???? ?? is before ???? ?”? ????? ??
October 31, 2010 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #1169159HaLeiViParticipantWhy should he be worried about an adult? It was bad in his eyes to send out his son. Hagar was Sara’s maid
November 2, 2010 12:54 am at 12:54 am #1169160Pashuteh YidMemberI have a different kashya. There is a Rashi which says Eliezer really wanted to marry off his own daughter to Avraham. Avraham told him I am boruch and you are arur, v’ein arur misdabek bvaruch. I am troubled by this strong and possibly hurtful language. Especially about a choshuveh person like Eliezer about whom it says Yafeh sichoson shel avdei avos yoser mitoroson shel banim.
November 2, 2010 3:36 am at 3:36 am #1169161☕️coffee addictParticipantI don’t understand your question, is it that why did Avraham say that, or how can Eliezer be considered arur, please explain
November 2, 2010 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #1169162WIYMemberPashuteh Yid
Hashem calls Cham Arur so all his children are Arur I believe Eliezer was a descendant of Cham so that’s why he is Arur. Avraham wasn’t insulting him just stating the facts.
November 2, 2010 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #1169164Pashuteh YidMemberWIY, so if somebody is ugly and asks to make a shidduch, you tell him he is ugly? If he has a low IQ, you tell him he is stupid? Just stating the facts??? Why not say, I don’t think it will work out.
November 2, 2010 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #1169165WIYMemberPashuteh Yid
Hashem cursed the children of Cham. Hashem blessed the children of Avraham. Oil and water don’t mix. Eliezer was a Tzaddik and him and Avraham were very close even though Eliezer was his slave. The only reason Avraham said no was because Hashem said that Elizer being a descendant of Canaan and Cham is cursed. If there was any other reason Avraham would have said it. Maybe Avraham did say it won’t work out at first and Eliezer pressured him for the reason and so he forced Avraham to explain.
November 2, 2010 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm #1169166HaLeiViParticipantWhen Chazal say what he answered it is not a quote, it is his reason and therefore the root of any response he said no matter how he said it. He might have told him, I love you very much and you’re a great guy, but there is a certain Yichus problem which is not your fault at all.
November 2, 2010 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #1169167WIYMemberHaleivi
Why can’t it be a direct quote?
November 2, 2010 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #1169168HaLeiViParticipantChazal aren’t telling stories, they are teaching Torah. Often you’ll find different depictions from different places in Chazal. In the Medrash you can see more to the conversation that Reb Yochanan Ben Zakay had with Vespasian, than what the Gemara mentions. It is not a contradiction of the facts, it is merely a difference of depiction. Each one is pointing out the important facts.
If we would read about our time in Chazal, we would also be surprised at what is left out. As the Maharal often explains, what we see in the Gemara is Chazal’s perspective of what is important and noteworthy.
It may be that Avaraham Avinu said those words exactly, and it can also be that he didn’t even mention those words at all. Chazal are telling us what his answer was, in essence.
To further explain this concept, if I were to tell you that a fence tells you not to enter, even if it is very simple to step over it, you wouldn’t ask, ‘but a fence can’t talk!’ Actually, a fence can talk, albeit it can only say one thing. It also does not have a choice to say it or not. Often, something is considered said, when actions are what spoke it.
Nobody listened in to the conversation of Avraham and Eliezer. Chazal knew what the reason is that he didn’t want to be Meshaddech with him. Chazal also Darshened from the Pesukim that Eliezer hinted that he would want to be Meshaddech. The answer is implicit in Avraham Avinu’s actions. Eliezer might have understood himself or he might have not. If the latter was the case, then Avraham Avinu answered him, surely in a nice way.
By the way, it says that after this Shlichus, Eliezer’s status was changed to Baruch. So it definitely wasn’t a personal insult. It was a Yichus issue. We find in the Gemara an instance where a Talmud did not want to marry his Rebbe’s daughter because he felt that his Yichus is better.
November 3, 2010 12:59 am at 12:59 am #1169169Pashuteh YidMemberHaLeivi, I hear what you are saying.
December 19, 2010 2:44 am at 2:44 am #1169170Trying to be helpfulMember??”? ?????? ?”? ?”? ?? ?????” – ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????
??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??
??? ???? ????? ?? ……. ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????
?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???
Did any one see a ????? ????????????
December 19, 2010 3:20 am at 3:20 am #1169171decisive viewpointMemberI have a question on this week Parsha (Vayechi):
Yacov says with regards to Reuven “reishis oni” whic Rashi says means that Reuven was conceived with Yacov’s first tipah. Now, the Rambam says that a woman cannot conceive from Bia Rishona. How then did she conceive Reuven with Bia Rishona?
December 19, 2010 5:15 am at 5:15 am #1169172WolfishMusingsParticipantMachlokes Rashi and the Rambam?
Or else (warning: possible heresy alert) possibly the Rambam was just wrong on that fact — especially in light of what is now known.
The Wolf
December 19, 2010 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #1169173wants to be a WIYMemberdecisive viewpoint & WolfishMusings
SEE ??”? ?????? ?”? ?”?
December 19, 2010 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm #1169174☕️coffee addictParticipantwants to be I was thinking of that teretz too.
December 19, 2010 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #1169175deiyezoogerMemberLook up the Ohr HaChaim on that pusik.
December 20, 2010 12:43 am at 12:43 am #1169177wants to be a WIYMember?????? ???? ???? ????
?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ????”?
????? ???? ??????
December 20, 2010 1:51 am at 1:51 am #1169178RuffRuffMemberWolf, as for Rashi arguing with the Rambam, see what Rashi whites by Lot’s daughters. Anyhow, the Rambam didn’t make it up, it’s in the Gemara.
January 5, 2012 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1169179☕️coffee addictParticipanthow can Yaakov bring up Reuvain’s maaseh with switching the beds, you’re not allowed to have someone recall his past transgressions if he does tshuva?
January 5, 2012 3:05 am at 3:05 am #1169180dash™ParticipantYaakov only kept the Mitzvos when he was is Eretz Yisroel and this occured in Mitzrayim.
January 5, 2012 10:37 am at 10:37 am #1169181Shticky GuyParticipantRashi in Vayigash explains how we arrive at the 70 people who were in ????? with ????. He says there were 66 counted in the ??????, and ???? was born on arriving there making 67, and ???? and his 2 sons makes 70.
What about ????’s wife ???? who, ??”? say was the daughter of ????? We mention ???? herself and also ????’s other granddaughter ??? ?? ???. So why not ????. And dont say that ??”? is not bringing ???? because he says that the ?????’s twin sisters had all died, so he is including ????. The only guess is that she may have also died.
Does anyone have a solution or has anyone seen this anywhere?
January 5, 2012 11:14 am at 11:14 am #1169182☕️coffee addictParticipantDash,
Seriously!
(I’m lavan garti taryag mitzvos shemarti)
January 5, 2012 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #1169183HaLeiViParticipantShtickey, the Ramban there points to the Pasuk that says explicitly that the count is besides for their wives.
Rashi asks about the Te’umos and answers that the Te’umos must have died. Rashi obviously learned in the words, ???? ??? ??? ????, that we are not counting the wives they got from the local population. Therefore, the Te’umos should be counted. Yosef, however, did not get sold along with a Te’uma, and perhaps Rashi is going with the Medrash that Asnat was Potifars daughter, or as you said, she died, too.
January 5, 2012 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #1169184HaLeiViParticipantCoffee, Yaakov was telling him why he is not fit for Bechora, Kehuna and Malchus.
January 5, 2012 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #1169185☕️coffee addictParticipantHaleivi,
Would it suffice just by saying pachaz kamayim (why mention ki alisa miishkavei aveecha)?
Basically the reason he can’t get bechora is bc he is pachaz not because of what he did
January 5, 2012 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #1169186littleappleMemberI agree Yaakov was giving mussar (see Onklos- kibal ulphan)
January 5, 2012 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #1169187☕️coffee addictParticipantShticky,
Someone else asked me this and I told him the only people that were counted were sons descendants whereas asnas is from a daughter
January 5, 2012 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #1169188Ken ZaynMemberCan any learned poster please help me with pashut peshat in a pasuk and a rashi. At the end of vayetzei (31, 33) the pasuk discusses lavan searching for his idols in the tents of yakov, rachel, leah and the two amahos (bilha and zilpa). What is the order in which he searched according to the pasuk and acc to rashi? The pasuk says first yakov’s tent (which rashi says means rachel). From here is confusing: “leah’s tent then the amahos, and he went out of leah’s tent and into rachel’s”. How could he go directly from leah’s tent into rachel’s (for rachel’s second search) if the pasuk just said that after leah’s tent he went to the amahos tents and not to rachel’s tent? (and the ramban says he only went once to leah’s tent)? And rashi is also shver to me as he writes that lavan returned to rachel’s tent BEFORE searching the amahos which again seems to be keneged the pasuk?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.