Parshas Shoftim - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

    שופטים  פרשת

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1. (16:21) The Medrash Rabbah says that Shlomo HaMelech's throne had 6 steps leading up to it. On each step was one of six consecutive לא תעשה found in this week's parsha. What are they and what is the connection between them? (see Kli Yakar)

2. (17:18) There are three important dinim pertaining to a melech. What are they and where is there a remez to them in the word כסא – as if to say that a king who keeps these three things will merit to stay on the כסא ? (see Kli Yakar)

3. (16:22) Rashi explains that Hashem despises things which goyim use for avoda zarah. If this is so, why are we allowed to have a mizbe'ach? Why are we allowed to pray? Where do the liens get drawn?

4. (17:6) Rashi writes that if three witnesses come to testify, they do not become eidim zomemin until all three of them become zomemin. Why should this be true?

5. How could we even understand the din of eidim zomemin? They never even completed the evil they intended to do!?

6. (17:11) Rashi comments on the passuk that we must listen to the chachomim even if he says right is left and left is right. If I know that right is indeed not left, then why should I listen to the words of the chochom? What is the fundamental difference between this law and the one regarding not following a navi sheker (18:22)?

7. (18:10) Rashi understands the passuk as forbidding various types of superstitious activities. (a) Rabbi Akiva explains “me’onain” as people who assign seasons by saying that certain times are more propitious for certain things. Isn’t this something that we do? For example, we say that Adar is a good time to have a court case? (b) Rashi explains “menacheish” as one who makes decisions based on occurrences such as bread falling or a deer blocking the road or one’s staff dropping from his hand. Yet the Gemara Berachos relates a story in a mishna of a tanna who would know when his tefillos would be answered based on the fluency it came from his mouth?

8. (18:20) Rashi writes based on the passuk that it is assur to say things in the name of a different god even to permit something which is permitted according to Torah or to forbid something which the Torah itself forbids. (a) What is wrong with doing this? Why can’t it just be a creative way to motivate people to keep the mitzvos?  (b) Rashi gets this from the mishna in Sanhedrin (89a) however, for some reason the example that the mishna offers is that this is assur even if one is saying something is pure (tahor) which actually is tahor, or tamei what is in fact tamei. Why does Rashi change the example in chumash from what the mishna states? (c) As a historical example, the gemara on 89a says “Such as was with the neviei ha’ba’al” – referring to those in navi who claimed to be prophets of a “god baal”. Why would the gemara bring such a case in point if in that is not a case of saying a correct halacha from an invalid source? (d) The Ramban, seems to address all these questions by saying that the issur referred to here in the Torah  is merely to prohibit calling a different entity a “god”. If so why do we need the wordiness and examples of the mishna and gemara in sahnedrin? And how is this issur different than the classic issur of not serving avodah zarrah which would presumably include this?

9. (20:3) Rashi points out that the Torah lists four times not to be afraid of an enemy during war based on the noise it makes – whether it be the collision of shields, the stamping of the horses hooves and their neighing, the sound of their horns, and the enemy’s shouting. Why does the Torah need to write four warnings to include each of these specific scary noises? Why not just tell us not to be afraid?

10. (20:8) Rashi brings down a machlokes ta’naim regarding who the Torah is referring to when it mentions someone who is “fearful and fainthearted” of going to war. R’ Akiva holds that it refers to someone who can’t stand in war and see a sword drawn in front of him or have to hit someone. R’ Yose Haglili holds that it refers to someone who did aveiros and is therefore afraid that by entering war he is likely to die. (a) Why is the Torah’s response to such a person that he doesn’t have to go to battle? He should do teshuva and then go to battle? Why does the torah have rachmanus on someone who must not only realize that he sinned but also understands the severity and the hashkafa that “it isn’t the sword which kills but rather the sin that kills”. ? (b)  According to R’ Yose Haglili, Rashi has a good follow up explanation as to why the Torah allows someone who just started a house, business, or family to be patur from war – in order to be a distraction for the sinner not to be embarrassed and singled out. However, Rashi doesn’t explain why these three categories of people were arbitrarily chosen as opposed to all butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers? (c) According to R’ Akiva, what reason is there at all for these people to be pattur?