- This topic has 276 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
seems a good kasha maybe check the mephorshim on rashi like the gur arye and mizrahi?
Haleivi and coffee thanx for answering.
Haleivi: leave the Ramban out as I am asking for Rashi’s opinion and they often disagree with each other. I was saying that Rashi should include Osnas as Dina’s daughter (not as Yosef’s wife).
Coffee: Do you mean the pasuk ???? ,??? ???? ,????? ,???? ???? ,??? ????? This does not include ???? ????? as you rightly said, but neither does it include ?? ??? who the pasuk writes as ???? ?? ??????? who was Dina’s son. He must be included in ???? ???? so why is Osnas not included in ???? ???? also?
littleapple: thank you I will look there.
Coffee: No – remember we are asking on rashi so lets stick with rashi’s pshat, and he says on the pasuk that shaul ben haknanis was “ben dina shenivaloh l’kenani”. So in rashi’s shita are you able to offer an explanation? If we reckon dina’s son in the 70 then why do we not include her daughter osnas?
Shaul’s mother was definitely dina acc to rashi and she was called kenanis because of her union with shechem. Whether like I learned that shaul was born as a result of that union and later adopted by shimon as a step son, or as you suggest that he was from bnei shimon so his father was shimon and he was not born from dina and shechem but later from dina and shimon is unclear. I have no proof either way (in divrei hayomim it writes simply shaul) but that is not my question. I asked why osnat was not included in the 70.
Interestingly the pasuk I brought above says “bnosov” plural. How many daughters went with him to mitzraim besides dina?
I’m explaining that he’s shimons son through dina”
This is difficult to accept in a literal sense. Gilui Arayos is one of the sheva mitzvos Bnei Noach also, not just a mitzvah for Jews. How can there be any explanation that makes it okay for a brother and sister to conceive a child together, i.e. Shaul? I cannot see how Shimon and Dina had a biological child together. What am I misunderstanding here?
so that makes them a brother and sister through father only (a half sibling) which is permitted for bnei noach
First of all regardless of what was supposed to happen, Shimon and Dinah were full siblings. Secondly do you have a source that half siblings are permitted for Bnei Noach?
Anyways, only Yosef held that they were Bnei Noach, the rest of the brothers (at least the first ten, not sure about Binyamin) held that the Halachos of Bnei Yisroel applied to them.
Dash: Check Rambam Melachim where he talks about it. Only a sister from one parent (I think the mother, not the father) is Assur to B’nei Noach. It’s the 6th Halachah in one of the Perakim, I forget which one though. Maybe 9:6?
I’m just curious, by the way, where did you hear that Yosef thought they were B’nei Noach while the brothers thought they were B’nei Yisrael? I thought that was my Chiddush.
What about the midrash that says that each of the shvatim was born with a twin whom they married? I always wondered how they were allowed to do that…
Olam Chessed Yibaneh.
Oops. I read your post, but for some reason I didn’t see that bit. Sorry.
I’m just curious, by the way, where did you hear that Yosef thought they were B’nei Noach while the brothers thought they were B’nei Yisrael? I thought that was my Chiddush.
I thought it was common knowledge, based on Eiver Min HaChai. (It also makes an interisting drasha on Genesis chapter 44 where for a brief moment Yosef and Yehuda switch their views.)
And thanks for the info regarding a half sibling. I’ll have to look it up, I didn’t know that.
Dash: Yeah, I said it based on the Ever Min Hachai. I found a Gemara though which seems to say we hold like the brothers. Is that Yadua too? 🙂
question i had
just because ephrayim was gonna have descendants larger in number than menasheh, why is that a reason to get the right hand of yaakov upon his head?
I found a Gemara though which seems to say we hold like the brothers. Is that Yadua too?
Which Gemora is that?
Kiddushin (18a I think) calls Esav a “Yisrael Mumar”.
Kiddushin (18a I think) calls Esav a “Yisrael Mumar”.
Maybe, but when I first looked at it, it seemed like how to catigorize Eisav is not obvious.
Tzaddiq: See Rashi 19,he says Yehoshua will come from Ephraim(younger will be greater than older).
I found an answer to the bnosov question. Its the sifsei chachomim on that above pasuk ‘ubnos banov’ on the rashi who says they were serach bas asher and yocheved bas levi. Its beautiful but too long to write out so ayin sham.
Coffee pls bring mekor for your assertion that only the sons descendants were counted despite many pesukim seemingly to the contrary eg kol nefesh lebeis yakov habah mitzraima shivim (ber 46 27) or kol nefesh yotzei yerech yakov shivim nefesh (shemos 1 5) or beshivim nefesh yardu avosecha mitzraima (dev 10 22)?
Ps Look in the Or Hachaim (46 7) on why the shibud began before yocheved and serach were niftar when it should have waited till that whole dor died!
Regarding my kasha (which is at the end of page 1 of this thread) on the pasuk and rashi in vayetzei 31,33 – the answer seems to be as follows. We say ein mukdam umuchar batorah does not apply within one pasuk but the torah is not giving us the chronological order in which lavan searched the tents but in order of chashivus. So it says “lavan went to the tent of rachel AND the tent of leah AND the amahos”. But not in that order, as proven from the remainder of the pasuk “and he went out of leah’s tent and went to rachel’s tent”, not the amahos.
Rashi was also bothered by this so he points out to us that he searched rachel for a second time BEFORE going to the amahos ie its not chronological order.
Shtiky, I don’t think you need to look too far to find that the children of a daughter are not Misyaches to their mother’s family. A girl marries out. That’s the way it is in all family listings in the Torah.
Does Rashi bring the Medrash that Asnat was the daughter of Dina? Perhaps he is simply disregarding that.
Because it is not a Kasha according to the Ramban. So, if Rashi holds that even married women were counted, then perhaps he wasn’t going with this Medrash.
The Torah says a few times(this repetition itself requires explanation) that Osnas was the daughter of Potifar-Potifera.So even according to the Medrash that she was the daughter of Shechem and Dina,perhaps for the very same reason she is called the daughter of Potifar, she is also not considered one of the special ‘seventy souls’.V’dok-this is a deep concept.(By the way, if the Shvotim regarding many halachos had a din of b’nei noach,then Osnas’ yichus goes after her father as is the din by b’nei noach. If so she is part of the nation of Shechem,not Yakov).
As for how Shimon could marry his full sister even though this is assur even for b’nei noach,here is a possible answer to this difficulty.Chazal say dina did not want to leave the city of shechem until shimon swore to marry her. This has a din of Pikuach nefesh since dina staying among the Goyim equals shmad which has a din of pikuach nefesh. Since a ben noach does not have a din of yehareg v’al ya’avor it was mutar for shimon to marry dina. Even though they had a din of b’nei noach, leaving their special belief system had a din of shmad. This is actually a very broad subject but this forum does not allow for lengthy discussions kemuvan.
What color is ???? and what color is ????? I always thought of ???? as blue (to remind us of the sea and the??? ????? and ????) and ???? as green. But Rashi says at the beginning of ????? that ???? is ????. I think I saw someone saying it was blueish-greenish. Can anybody add to this? Thanx.
Yes, it seems to be a dark green with a blue-ish tinge. The Yerushalmi adds some more connections. Techeiles Doma Leyarok, Asavim, Yam, Rakia.
Whens the last time you saw the sky green or even blue-green? I’ve only ever known it either grey or blue.
Each one is similar to the next one. That is why it doesn’t say Techeiles Doma Lakisei Hakavod.
*Bump*
Help me understand this, please, anyone.I had a question today regarding the Ben Sorer u’Moreh. The torah in its profound wisdom perceives this boy as a potential robber and eventual murder in his future. The torah therefore paskins that it is better for him to die clean now, then to die as an adult murderer later, sparing untold future crimes and catastrophic consequences.
My question is why does he deserve, though, to be killed in the harshest way: skilla i.e. stoning? Alright we should kill him now, but he technically didn’t do anything yet? why shouldn’t sayif or serayfa be sufficient? why sekillah?
BH: V’chol Yisrael Yishm’u V’yirau.
The Maharal explains that he is worse than a murderer who is killed for a single, specific murder. He is being killed Al Sheim Sofo. That means we see in him now his actions of the future.
You can still ask that he technically didn’t deserve it. The Gemara in Sanhedrin asks this and answers that it will never happen.
I think this was once discussed here before, in the days of mod80.
R Yehoshua Leib diskin ztl deals with the problem, and gives 2 answers. one is short so ill write it. one isnt, so look it up. he says that although hes getting killed for sofo lihastim es habrios, whick lechoira means killing, and therefore shouldnt be subject to skilah, he will also be oiver chamuros like chillul shabbos, which one gets skila for. Ay, then why are we killing him now for that, wait for him to be michallel shabbos. he says that the torah is chas on the lives of klal yisrael. therefore, we’ll kill him now so he cant kill anone, but we’ll give him the oinsesh for the chamuros he wouldve committed.
HaLeiVi: We did have this discussion before, and I still hold that we don’t Pasken by the Shittah that it never did and never will happen. I think the Gemara is pretty Mefurash that we don’t hold that way, actually.
thanks for the replies everyone.
Toi- I saw on Shabbos that the sifsay chachomim says that pshat too.
coffee addict- yw, i figured this is a good thread that can be used every week, so i bumped it.
Sam, the Maharal explains that Gemara about Veyashavti Al Kivro. He says that it is referring to Yerushalayim, where Hashem applied the logic of Ben Sorer Umorer and Ir Hanidachas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.