CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS VO'ES'CHANAN 5767 - BS"D
1) Ch. 3, v. 26: "Va'yisa'beir Hashem bi l'maanchem" - And Hashem was angered in me by virtue of you - Rashi says that we find that this is so in T'hilim 106:32, "Va'yaktzifu al mei m'rivoh va'yeira l'Moshe baavurom." Why does Rashi bring this verse and not cite a verse in from Torah itself, Bmidbar 20:12?
2) Ch. 4, v. 34: "O hanisoh elohim" - Or has a power attempted - The Baal Haturim (Yalkut Shimoni remez #273) points out that every letter of the Alef-Beis is present in this verse.
A) There is only one other verse in the Torah that contains all the letters of the Alef-Beis. Which verse is this?
B) In Nach we have another 24. Which are they?
C) Of these 26 verses there is only one that has all 22 letters plus all 5 final letters, MaNTZPaCH. Which of these verses is it?
3) Ch. 5, v. 12: "Kaasher tzivcho Hashem Elokecho" - As Hashem has commanded you refers to where or what?
4) Ch. 5, v. 17: "V'lo sinof" - And do not commit adultery - Rashi writes that "niuf," adultery, is a word reserved for adultery with a married woman only, and not other forbidden unions. Rashi on verse 7 writes that he has already explained the Ten Commandments. If so, why does he explain
"niuf" here, as he has already explained it in Shmos 20:13? (Although we find Rashi offering a few comments on this second account of the Ten Commandments, each one of these comments is on a change from the wording of the earlier text.)
5) Ch. 6, v. 6: "Al l'vo'vecho" - Upon your heart - Should the verse not have said "bilvo'vecho," in your heart?
1) Y'dei Moshe answers that Hashem does not punish on this world for not fulfilling a positive command. The exception is that at a time of Hashem's anger He punishes even for this. Moshe's not striking the rock was only a lack of fulfilling Hashem's positive command. Only the verse in T'hilim tells us that Hashem was angered, "va'yaktzifu."
2) Possibly, this question can be answered very simply. In our verse Moshe states that Hashem was angry with him BECAUSE OF the bnei Yisroel, "l'maanchem." The verse in Bmidbar does not state this, while the verse in T'hilim adds "baavurom." (Nirreh li)
B) Yehoshua 23:13, M'lochim 2:4:39, 2:6:32, 2:7:8, Yeshayohu 5:25, 66:17, Yirmiyohu 22:3, 32:29, Yechezkeil 17:9, 38:12, Hoshei'a 10:8, 13:2, Omose 9:13, Tzefanioh 3:8, Zecharioh 6:11, Ezra 7:28, Nechemioh 3:7, Divrei Ha'yomim 2:26:11, Megilas Koheles 4:8, Megilas Esther 3:13, Daniel 2:45, 3:22, 4:20, and 7:19
C) Tzefanioh 3:8
1) Rashi says that it refers to the command at Moroh (see gemara Sanhedrin 56b).
2) Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni say that it refers to the Ten Commandments in parshas Yisro
3) The gemara Yerushalmi says that the command to keep Shabbos was given in Olush.
4) The Ramban on Vayikra 23:24 writes that the words "yi'h'yeh lochem Shabbosone" teach us that besides the 39 restricted acts of Shabbos transgression the Rabbis were empowered with deciding which acts are also restricted on Shabbos because they take away from the sanctity of the day. This includes business transactions, moving and arranging items in a warehouse, movement of "muktzoh" items, etc. If these acts would be permitted there is the fear that one would take up the day with arranging stock, etc. In the desert this concern had no place, as people were not involved in business activities all week. They had their housing, food, and clothing provided for in a miraculous way. Hence there was no need to warn against such activities. In our parsha, where the new generation of bnei Yisroel that would enter Eretz Yisroel and live a "natural" existence was being addressed, the prohibition against such activities is in place. The Meshech Chochmoh concludes that "kaasher tzivcho" refers to the command "yi'h'yeh lochem Shabbosone" in parshas Emor. (Meshech Chochmoh)
5) Sanctify the Shabbos as Hashem has commanded you, but not in circumstances where He said to over-ride Shabbos, i.e. circumcision on the eighth day, korban tomid, musofei Shabbos and Yom Tov, k'tziras ho'omer, etc. (Nirreh li)
There is a difference between the text here and in parshas Yisro. There the verse says "Lo sinof" without the linking Vov. Here we have "V'lo sinof," connecting it to the previous words "Lo sirtzach." We could possibly misunderstand this to mean that one is prohibited to kill his fellow man, AND if he did kill him, leaving the victim's wife as a widow, he is still prohibited from having relations with her and this is considered "niuf" for the murderer. Therefore Rashi reiterates what he previously said in parshas Yisro, that "niuf" only applies to a married woman, and not to a widowed woman even under these circumstances. (Ro'isi)
1) The Holy Admor of Kotzk answers that not at all times is one in the frame of mind to fully absorb such lofty concepts as love of Hashem. The verse therefore tells us to place these words UPON our hearts so that at any time that there is an opening of the heart to accept these concepts they will fall in.
2) The Luach Erez offers that the verse teaches us that Torah values should be ABOVE the drives of our heart and master over our heart.
A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.
FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM
See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh
V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights