Kashas on the Parsha

From the Pasuk that Coffee Addict mentioned it seemed to me that obviously Leah didn’t know. There are Midrashim about Leah answering Yaakov Avinu in the morning that she learned from him how to trick people, but such Midrashim might be conveying an implied conversation rather than a real conversation. The Medrash says that he had in mind to divorce her but when she had children he kept her. In the end, he agreed to it as it says ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????.

The reason Rachel went along with it was not to embarrass Leah. According to this understanding, that Leah wasn’t aware of this being a trick, the embarrassment would be tenfold.

With this we come to understand another topic. Chazal tell us that when Rachel gave away a night to Leah in return for a plant, she lost her opportunity to be buried with Yaakov. “She made light of being with the Tzaddik so she wasn’t buried with him.” The question is, why indeed did she give up being with him for a flower?

However, now we can understand. Leah told her, not only you took my husband you also want to take what my son brought me? This can only be said by someone who really thought she was cheated of what was rightfully hers. Rachel went through her life acting as if it was she who cheated her sister. Now, faced with an accusation of attempting to cheat her again she had to think to herself how someone who is actually guilty of that would respond. Therefore, she answered, tonight can be your turn.

The ???? ???’ ????? ???”? ?? ?”? ??”? writes that the first ??????? was ????? but he remarried her. According to this, he asks, when he married her a second time, she was a ?????, and therefore should only have ???? ??? ???? as opposed to the normal 7 of a ?????. T (???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???”? ????? ?????? ???? ???”? ??”?)

The ???”? ?? ????? brings from ?”? that ???? was ???? for ???s trickery, and therefore had ??? that if it would be ??? he wanted to be ???? her. (Although that is contradictory to the ???? that he gave ?????? to ??? so that he shouldn’t trick – but it could be this was different – if he was anyways having the ????, he wouldn’t want it to be a ???? ???? and therefore wanted the ??????? (see HaLevi before))

??? ??????? ?”? says that we learn from ??? that one should not marry off his younger daughter before his older daughter.

The question is: Why do we learn from ??? because he gave ??? – We should learn from ????, because he wanted to marry ??? even though she was younger!?

The ???? says that ??? and ??? were twins – therefore ???? was ?????? because last week he says that the younger twin is older because the creation is first even though the birth is last; therefore even he agreed that one cannot marry before older siblings, ??? was older!!!

Yekke, your last post is obviously the basic answer, especially since we can say that in Chutz La’aretz he didn’t do Kedushin, as the Ramban writes regarding all other Mitzvos.

Also, even if we find that the Avos kept the Mitzvos, it’s not like they were Bar Chiyuva. It was more like an Inyan. In more Halachic terms, their Kedushin probably had the status Kedushei Ketana and Maamar.

The other answers are more like Afilu Im Tirtze Lomar…

I don’t think anybody has answered Baalhabooze’s question about Lavan’s cheshbon. The best I can come up with is that he solved two problems by switching Leah for Rachel: the “shidduch crisis” and the fact that it’s hard to find good shepherds who are willing to sign a 14-year contract.

Here’s my question about Vayetze: Why did Rachel steal the teraphim? Rashi says she wanted to encourage Lavan to give up idolatry, but it hardly seems that a diehard idolator wouldn’t just go out to his local idol store and get new ones. Also, since it’s forbidden to possess idols, Rachel should have destroyed or hidden them rather than steal them.

Ramban says teraphim weren’t really idols, they were used to tell time, but some people (like Lavan) used them for divination. But that doesn’t explain why Rachel stole them. Since Lavan had worshipped them, why didn’t they become assur to Rachel? And why did she need them?

___________________________________________________

PARSHAS VAYISHLACH:

Why did Yackov bow “7” times to Eisav? What is the significance of the number 7?

I once heard an amazing explanation: ???? has the numerical value of 182, which is 7 X 26 (????). This corresponds to seven levels of ????? he had. ???? has the numerical value of 208, which is 8 X 26. When he gave the ?????, he gave over 7 levels of ????? to Yackov (whatever that means), keeping one for himself. ??? came in and asked for ONE BROCHO – getting the remaining level which ???? originally intended on keeping for himself. Therefore – ??? is 376, which is 50 (???) X 7 [350], + 26 (1 X ????).

When ??? came to kill ????, ???? bowed 7 times, using his 7 powers of ????? to fight ???s 7 powers of ????, leaving ??? with only 1 level of ?????. [According to the ??? that ???s intentions when he hugged ???? were not pure, you have to say that his plan didn’t work]

(I might have heard this ??? the ???? ????, but I am not sure)

Why was ???? scared to kill ??? (Rashi says that ???? refers to killing others) — there is a ??? of ??? ????? ???? ?????, that if one comes to kill you, can kill him first?

One cannot answer that one is only allowed to kill a ???? if it is impossible to save him through disabling him somehow [and therefore ???? was scared that he would kill even if he wouldn’t need to], because the ???? and the ???”? hold that this law applies only to a bystander; the victim himself is permitted to kill the ???? even if it is possible through other means to save himself?

There are those who answer that ??? came to kill ????s family, not ???? himself (because ??? promised not to kill ???? while ???? was still alive), and therefore he didn’t have the ???? of killing; he was considered like a bystander, and therefore was not permitted to kill without trying to disable first.

(There are those who explain this ??? of the ???? because he is ???? (confused, not thinking straight), which comes under the category of ????. I don’t understand this, because the ???? of ???? does not apply to the 3 Cardinal Sins of ????? ???, ????? ???? ?????? ?????, which are ????? ??? ?????? One could answer that the ???? does not create a ???? to kill, but rather changes the circumstances so that it isn’t ???? ?????? ???? ??????.)

yekke2- “Q. Did Yaackov actually split them into two groups? It was supposed to be part of the plan but we don’t see it ever carried out?”

That’s a great kasha that bothered me for years. I will quote to you this vort that was in Parsha Potpourri 2010 by R’ Oizer Alport:

PARSHAS VAYEISHEV

Yehuda suggests not to kill Yosef.

?????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????

Rash”i says,” ?? ??? ” to mean,” ?? ????”, what monetary gain is there if we kill him!

What does MONEY have to do with Yosef’s verdict?? If he deserves to die, kill him. If not, let him live. Was Yehuda trying to make a fast buck??

Yekke, why do you say it wasn’t carried out? It says Vayachatz. That’s not a plan, that’s action. The problem with the Vort Baal Habooze quotes is that the Pasuk repeats Vayachatz after the incident with the Malach.

If you look you should notice that when they approached Esav to bow to him first it says Vatigashna Hashfachos, then it says, Vatigash Gam Leah. This is because they were not together. First the first group bowed, then the next group also approached and bowed.

This might be a Kasha on the Brisker Rav, too. Why did he continue to take caution if he already won? Perhaps, though, he was still afraid of what the Gid Hanashe injury, that the Malach scored, could represent. It turns out, as Chazal say, it was in the future.

The ???? ??? ????? ?”? says that ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????. This is why ??? didn’t announce Yehudahs partnership in the story.

????? ???? in ???? ????? that the ????? is because of ????????? ??????, which is ????? ??? ?????. The question is that ????? was now giving her the death sentence (wrongly), and therefore was a ???? – she had the rights at least to embarrass him pub lically!! (???? ???? ?”? ??’ ??”?)?

The ?????? ?? ?”? ??”? asks this by all ???? ?????? we should say you can kill them ???? ????? (See ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ? who discuses this at length)

Even though ?????s role here finished after he sentenced her, the ???? ?? ??? is a ???? – according to the ??? in ?”? ?”? that ?? ???? ???? ????? when the ???? is a ????, then ????? is still a ?????

Even according to ??? ?”? ?”? that ??? ???? ???? ????? even when the ???? is a ????, there is a ??? of ???? even by a ???? ????? (See ???? ?????? ?? ?”? ??? ? and ???? ??? ?? ? ???”? and the ?????? above), and therefore ????? is causing her to be killed?

However – the ???? ??? says that this ???? of ???? ????? only applies by a Jew, because in a every ???? there are two parts: A) The ???? ???? of the ???? and B) ???? ????? (Saving the victim. This ??? of ???? ????? is only in the saving of the victim, not as a ???? ???? on the ????, and by a ?? ?? the ???? isn’t so worried about ????.

According to this, one can answer with the ??? of the ???? ????? ???? ? ?’? – where proves that ??? held like those that they were all ??? ?? before ??? ???? (whereas ????? said they had ???? ?????), and therefore she didn’t have this ???? of ???? by ????.

However, if they were ??? ??, the ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?”? says that every ??? has ?????? to another ???, and will also have the ???? of ?? ???? ???? ????? – and therefore we don’t need to come onto the ??? of ????!!

(See ???? ?????? ?? ?”? ???”? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ?”? ?”? ??”? ??”? ??”?; See also ????? ?”? ??”? and ????? ???? ??”?)

The ???? ????? asks ?? ??”? ??”? – according to those who hold that ?? ???? ???”? by ????, why does the ???? ??? ??? need to go to ???? if he kills by mistake [when he is ????? ????? ???] – it should be the ??? ??? because of ??????? *

The ??? ???? brings from ?’ ????? ?????? that once ??? ??? have paskened, they are no longer involved, and anybody can carry out the ????? or the ????, and therefore the ???? ??? ??? is not ?????? ?????? – it would come out that ????? is only a ???? ???? which is ???? by a ?? ??.

* I don’t understand why the ???? is a ???? when he is ????? ????? ???, because he is finished his job, so the ????s ???? doesn’t really start.

(???? ?????? taken from ????? ????? ??”? by ?’ ????? ??????)

PARSHAS BESHALACH

When the Bnei Yisroel approached the Yam Suf, the medrash tells us that the sea originally didn’t want to split, because it was created on the 3rd Day and mankind on the 6th Day of creation. It was only because of Yosef, or because of (fill in the blank), and countless other medrashim and chaza”ls, that tell us what zechus the yidden had that it actually did split.

Q. Why now of all times do we find the Sea arguing to do something shelo kederech HaTevah, something we have not heard any other segment of creation tayna (claim) until now, despite the occurance of the 10 incredible makkos in Mitzrayim (ex: We never found the Nile argue not to turn to blood, etc.)?

To baalhabooz:

The split second of chatzos is when Macas Bechoros BEGAN. Paroh was nervous because he though since he was a bechor, he would die any second (just like his son).

1) We find that creations don’t always listen, if it makes sense, to HKB”H – every tree was supposed to taste like the fruit it bore, and only Esrog bark when boiled tastes the same as the esrog fruit,

2) The Moon ‘taynad’ that the sun should be made smaller, and then the moon itself was diminished.

What this means, I don’t understand, but we DO find it.

So someone wanted to answer for Parshas Bo an answer that I liked.

It’s brought down b’sheim R’S.Z. Aurbach, that he asks a stirah. In the morning we say first ?? ??????? ?????….i ?????? ??????and in the evening we say ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? so which came first? So it’s brought down in mesechta (?) that the Mitzriyim were actually struck at midnight but they remained like a goysis (half-dead) till after the yidden left the land. So we can answer the stira, that they takeh were struck with a makka, but they didn’t die immediately, only after the yidden were redeemed and left.

This answers our original question that the bechor animals could have died anytime between chatzos and when the yidden left Mitzrayim.

Agav I was thinking maybe that could be one reason why it’s called Makkas bechoros and not necessarily Harigas Bechoros. Because for many hours the Bechorim were struck with a Makka that suspended them into this state, of hanging between life and death.

KASHA,

Why did Hashem tell Moshe to lie to Paroah that they were only going to leave for 3 days? Why not just demand to leave? To put it differently, wasn’t Paroah right to chase after the B’nai Yisroel when they didn’t return? If so, why was he punished?

WIY,

But doesn’t that justify Pharoah in chasing after them? Also is that really a reason to lie?

Parshas Yisro

Here are fundamental questions in the story of Matan Torah.

Why didn’t Hashem present us the torah with a Sefer Torah? What do the Luchos accomplish? What is the tachlis of the Luchos? What is it with these specific 10 Mitzvos, that they deserve its prestigious place as part of the Luchos, more than all the other 613?

BaalHabooze,

There wasn’t a complete sefer torah until the end of the 40 years.

The 10 commandments include all 613 mitzvos.the 10 are major headings. like allthe mitzvos of yom tov and Shabbos are included in zachor. all arayos are included in lo tinaf, etc.

BaalHabooze, we were presented at Har Sinai with the Aseres Hadibros, not the Luchos.

Haleivi:

BaalHabooze is asking the same question that perplexed me after I watched ‘the ten commandments’

HaLeivi – yeah, but still, it’s one and the same. The Aseres Hadibros that we heard by Har Sinai, we eventually got in written form (Luchos) 40 days later.

yekke2 – That is true, very true.

So how do you understand what the Aseres Hadibros are all about?