Parshas Vayikra - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

פרשת ויקרא

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1. (1:1) The Baal Haturim writes that the small aleph in “Vayikra” was a compromise between Moshe and Hashem. Moshe only wanted the Torah to say “Vayakar” to express that Hashem only happened to appear to Moshe as the Torah expresses when Hashem went to Billam. So, the compromise was to have the aleph but in smaller font. The question is though: Granted Moshe was the humblest man who ever lived, however, humility does not mean sinking to a low-life level of Billam. The middah of anavah sometimes requires one to utilize his full self esteem and specifically do things to show that he represents the will of Hashem. So, how could Moshe suggest that The Torah recall his encounters with Hashem in the same way it does for Billam?

2. Besides for in this week's parsha by Hashem talking to Moshe by the Ohel Moed, there are two other times in the Torah when Hashem “calls” Moshe before speaking to him. When were they?

3. (1:2) The passuk says, “When a person from among you will bring a karbon...” Rashi comments that the Torah uses the word “Adam” to teach us that just as Adam, the first man, did not bring any offering from that which was stolen since everything was his, so too any person must never bring an offering of a stolen animal. Why would the Torah go out of its way to give such a dramatic example? The idea of not being allowed to bring a stolen animal is one that is already taught in the passuk, and the concept of mitzva ha'ba'ah b'aveira (not being allowed to do a mitzva brought about through a means of doing an aveirah) is already known. So why is this extreme example also necessary?

4. There is a concept in this week’s parsha (Rashi 1:3) as well as many times throughout the Gemara that we sometimes force people to do things against their will until they say “okay, I'll do it”. At that point it is actually considered as if it is indeed their will. How could that be if they were forced to say it?

5. Where is there a hint in the parsha to the concept that an idea becomes a reality and “created” in a sense only when a person speaks out the idea verbally?

6. Why does Rashi repeat multiple times regarding karbon chatas (sin offering) that it must be brought with the intent for the sake of being a sin-offering?

Parshas Ki Sisa - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

פרשת כי תשא

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1.    (30:12) Why must B'nei Yisroel be only counted indirectly by using an object?

2.    (30:13) When the Torah uses an expression of “zeh” (“this”), it means Hashem showed something to Moshe. What was so complicated about the shekel that Moshe needed a prop to visualize it?

3.    (30:18) Why is the kiyur listed in this week's parsha and not in Terumah or Tetzaveh  with the other keilim in the mishkan?

4.    (30:19) Why was it necessary for the Kohanim to be mekadeish their feet with the kiyur?

5.    (31:3-4) Once the Torah already tells us that Betzalel had ruach Elokim, why was it necessary that he have wisdom, understanding, and knowledge? Furthermore, Rashi explains that “da'as” (knowledge) refers to ruach hakodesh. What is the difference between ruach Elokim, which is mentioned explicitly in the passuk, and ruach hakodesh which is hinted to in “da'as”?

6.    (31:18) The passuk and Rashi tell us that Moshe learned the Torah from Hashem Himself, and yet right after he he finished he needed to review it. How could this be? If Hashem, surely the best teacher, was teaching Moshe, certainly the best student, why would it be necessary to already start review immediately after completing?

7.    (32:13) Rashi brings from the gemara Berachos that after Hashem threatened to wipe out klal yisroel and restart with Moshe's family alone, that Moshe argued back that “If a chair with three legs cannot stand, then certainly a chair with one leg cannot stand...” The three legs Moshe was referring to were: Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov...

1.    Moshe came from them as well obviously so whatever zechusim they had to offer would not cease if Hashem would continue B'nei Yisroel with Moshe's family alone. So what was Moshe's argument?

2.    Even if Moshe was arguing that their zechusim would be no longer, still from the fact that Hashem was offering must be that the key qualities in Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov were all in Moshe as well. So what was Moshe's response of being a one-legged chair? That may be true, but perhaps he was a three-in-one with a massive leg just as able to hold up the table.

8.    (32:15) Why is it important that The Torah tells us here about this specific attribute of the luchos?

9.    (32:18) Moshe says to Yehoshua that he does not hear the sound of shouting of might nor the sound of shouting of weakness, rather a distressing sound. The word “a'nos” used to say “distressing” is also part of the first two expressions “kol a'nos gevurah” and “kol a'nos chalusha”. Why did Moshe not just simply say “kol gevurah” and “kol chalusha”?

10. (32:19) When Moshe threw down the luchos, Rashi describes that Moshe thought to himself, if for transgressing on karbon pesach where it says that you can't feed it to a stranger, and that is only one commandment, so certainly the whole torah I cannot give to klal yisroel who are now “strangers” for having sinned with the cheit ha'eigel! What was this kal v'chomer exactly?

11.  (32:34) Rashi tells us that in every bad thing that comes to the world there contains an element of the cheit ha'eigel in it. Why is this 'fair' that we are punished for something done at Har Sinai? Hashem says he does not punish children for their fathers, providing they do not follow in his bad ways?

12.  (33:4, 33:6) The passuk at first says that  each man did not put on his crown, and then one passuk later says that Hashem told Moshe to tell klal yisroel to take off their crowns. Which crowns were being referred to? And how could we resolve this contradiction?

13.  (33:11) Rashi, all the way at the end explains in the passuk that Hashem said to Moshe, “ I am angry at Yisroel and you are angry at Yisroel, who will draw them near to repent....?” Why not answer simply: No one. If they were both furious with klal yisroel, who cares what will ultimately happen to them?

14.  (34:6) Why is Hashem's rachamim (mercy) necessary before a person sins?

15.  (34:27) Why are we forbidden to write down Torah she'ba'al peh? And why do we in fact have it written down?

16.  Where is there a hint in this week's parsha as to what to do if one is lost in the desert                and does not know which day is shabbos?