Parshas Mishpatim - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

  משפטיםפרשת 

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1. The Ba'al Ha’turim sees a remez (hint) in the parsha to the fact that a Jewish judge must first try to create a compromise between two fighting parties before judging the case. Why is this true though? Shouldn't we focus on getting the correct judgment rather than settling on a compromise which is definitely not the truth?

2. The Jewish slave who decides to stay by his master must get his ear peirced. The mechilta (34) comments that this is because he became a slave by not listening to the commandment at Har Sinai not to steal. Why then should the ear be pierced more here than by one who does any other aveirah?

3. Rashi writes that even if non-Jews judge regarding certain matters as Beis Din, still one should not go to them to judge even in such a case. Why is this? Why would this be considered giving chashivus to avodah zarah if it is well known that the Torah's perspective is the same as society's perspective in this area?

4. Why does the Torah interrupt between the passukim of hitting and cursing one's parents with “וגנב איש ומכרו...מות יומת” ?

5. The passuk in Perek 22 Passuk 17 says, “מכשפה לא תחיה”. Sorcery is against the Torah and is taken seriously.

                   a. What is fundamentally wrong with sorcery?

                   b. Why is the mitzva worded as “The sorcerer you should not let live”.                             Instead of: “Don't practice sorcery” or “If you practice sorcery, you                           will be put to death”, or at least. “One who does sorcery, you should                              kill”?

                   c. I am not sure if this would fall under “כשוף" , but what is the origin of                Avada Kedavra [והמבין יבין ]?

6. Rashi (22:24) says that every word אם in the Torah implies a voluntary act – except for in three places. What are these three places? And is there a connection between them?

7. Rashi (23:7) writes that one could not accept a bribe even to judge correctly. What is this case? Is someone offering a bribe to judge correctly? Is a bribe being offered to judge one way which the judge feels is correct? Either way, why not take the bribe? It shouldn't even be considered a bribe in such a case but more like an incentive to judge correctly?

8. Which mitzva in this week's parsha was neglected by the Jews during the time of ירמיה הנביא?

Parshas Yisro - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

יתרופרשת 

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1. What did Yisro hear that no one else did?

2. According to the one who holds that Yisro was attracted by the fact that B'nei Yisroel won the war against Amalek, what was so special about it? Granted they were untrained, but still the B'nei Yisroel had an army of 600,000 men between 20 and 60. Certainly it couldn't have been such a tremendous surprise that they won.

3. Rashi writes that Yisro had 7 names. One of them was Yeser – which became Yisro after he converted. If so, didn't Yisro really only have 6 names at any given time?

4. Yisro is called Choveiv because of his love for the Torah. Why did Yisro receive such a name any more than Moshe, Aharon, or any of Bnei Yisroel in the midbar?

5. (18:2) Rashi sounds good in the broad sense but what specifically was Aharon worried about? Moshe’s wife and children would not have become slaves? Moshe was from shevet Levi?

6. Yisro came over to Moshe and asked “What are you doing?” Moshe responded, “Judging the people and helping them with their questions.” Yisro then clarified and said that he meant why is Moshe the only one judging instead of creating a system of ranks where more people could be helped at a time. What was this conversation between Moshe and Yisro? And why didn't Moshe think of this himself?

7. Where did Yisro get his “da’as Torah” from which seems to have been good enough to match Moshe?

8. (18:21) Where did Yisro get his qualifications from that he suggested be requirements for people to judge k’lal Yisroel?

9. When describing Moshe's two sons the Torah writes “Shem Ha'echad Gershom...” and “Shem Ha'echad Eliezer...” The Torah refers to them both as “The first” even though Gershom was older because Eliezer was named for an earlier event that Moshe experienced. What is the significance behind each of their names? And why did Moshe name his first son for a later event and his second son for the earlier one?

10. The Aseres Hadibros are a Pangrammatic Lipogram (consists of all the letters in Hebrew Aleph Beis except for one). Which letter is missing? Why? [See archive D’var Torah: Parshas Yisro - The Ten Commandments: A Pangrammatic Lipogram]

11. The Aseres Hadibros in this week's parsha are slightly different from the ones found in Parshas Va'eschnan. What are the differences? Why are there differences?

12. (20:5) We see that Hashem is referred to as a “jealous G-d”. How could we understand Hashem’s “jealousy”?

13. There are many examples throughout chumash that one should knock on a door before entering, as to not startle those inside. Where is there an example in this week's parsha?

14. Rashi (18:7) writes that he does not know who bowed to who but when the passuk says “ish”, we figure out that it refers to Moashe....How could Rashi be so sure? Yisro too is called an “ish” by the torah (see Shemos 2:21)?

15. Why in the aseres ha'dibros does Hashem refer to Himself as the one who took us out of Eretz Mitzrayim, and not the One Who created the world?

16. How could Hashem give us such a commandment not to desire something? How is it possible to control our emotions to the point of not having a feeling of wanting something?

17. Why wasn't the Torah given in Eretz Yisroel?

Parshas Beshalach - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

 בשלח פרשת 

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1.  How could Hashem use ba'al-tzefon as a reference point if it is an avodah zarrah?

2. Rashi (14:15) writes that because of zechus avos and B'nei Yisroel's belief in Hashem after leaving Mitzrayim, they merited to have kriyas Yam Suf. How do zechusim work? Certainly zechus avos could not have been exhausted at that point that they would have to utilize the zechus of their emunah, because zechus avos is something we still depend on today. So how do zechusim get calculated to figure out what different zechusim could do, how much power they have, and to what extent they could be used in various circumstances?

3. (15:15 – Rashi) What is so significant and great about recognizing that Hashem was able to kill the horse with its rider?

4. The Rambam writes that it is assur to attribute any physical characteristics to Hashem. Yet, we find that the Torah does so a number of times in this week's parsha. What are these references and how could we understand them?

5. There is a concept that for Tzadikim, Hashem uses added punishments in this world in order to better reward in the next world. Similarly, for reshaim, Hashem increases reward in this world in order to give far worse punishment in gehenem. However, in this week's parsha, Rashi (16:5) points out the not-as-bad mitzriyim had a relatively quick death in the yam suf – as they drowned like a stone in water; while the reshaim gamurim were tossed around like straw – suffering a long painful death. Shouldn't it have been the other way around?

6. There is a concept of zechus avos where a nation merits things because of its forefathers – for example, Avraham, yitzchak, and Yaakov, By goyim, we see the exact opposite by Moav, Amori, Mitzriyim, and Amalek, where their descendents got punished based on the errors and sins of their forefathers. How could we understand this general concept why a whole nation should be rewarded of suffer based on what its ancestors accomplished or did?

7. Were preparations needed for the manna or not?

8. (17:12) Rashi writes that Moshe's hands became heavy because he erred by not going to battle with klal yisroel against Amalek. What was his calculation why he didn't? And why was he wrong?

9. (16:20) The Torah refers to two “anashim” (men) who left over from the manna. Rashi explains that the Torah is referring to Dasan nd Aviram. Why does the Torah call them “anashim”, which is a term reserved for tzadikim? (For example, see Parshas Shelach by the meraglim when Moshe picked them out)

10. (17:8) Rashi implies that Amalek coming to attach B'nei Yisroel was no accident, it was deliberate from Hashem because B’nei Yisroel had become lax in their belief. If so, what did Amalek do wrong?

11. (17:9) Rashi asks how do we know that a Talmid (student) must fear his rebbe like Hashem, and answers from a passuk where Yehushua said to Moshe: “My master, Moshe, make an end to them...” where we see that Yehoshua felt that those who rebelled against Moshe should be punished by death because it is as if the rebelled against Hashem Himself. If Rashi holds that this is a good answer to his question ,then what does Rashi do with the following: The Gemara Kiddushin (57a) mentions that Shimon (or Nechemiah) Ha'amunsi gave an explanation for what every “es” in the Torah was coming to teach. When he came to “es Hashem Elokecha tirah” - and Hashem your G-d you shall fear. He stopped because how could the “es” in that passuk be coming to include fear for anyone on the same level as Hashem? However, the Gemara continues that when Rabbi Akiva came along, he resolved it by explaining that it is coming to include talmidei chochomim who teach the derech ha'torah. It is just as important to fear them because they are representing and advocating Hashem's Torah. However, if this is something that Rashi in our parsha already knows from a different passuk, then this “es” should be re-opened and therefore no “es” could be used to learn things out from to include?

12. (17:9) Rashi [in his second explanation] writes that Yehoshua needed to select men for battle who would be able to “neutralize the sorcery of Amalek”. What would constitute such qualifications?  We would probably think that it would simply mean people who fear Hashem, but that cannot be because that is what Rashi explains in his first explanation. 

Parshas Bo - Parsha Stumpers

~ Something to Think About ~

בא תשפר

Parsha Stumpers

By: Daniel Listhaus

1. (10:7-11) Pharoah’s advisors told him to let the men go, and Pharaoh himself was willing to let the men go. If so, why did he ask Moshe “mi va’mi ha’hol’chim – who is going?” Why not just tell them at the onset that he as only willing to let the men go?

2. (10:17) Why by this makka did Pharaoh ask Moshe to daven to remove it “from me”?

3. (10:22) Rashi writes that during choshech – the wicked who did not wan to leave mitzrayim were killed. Who were these wicked who did not want to leave and why would they want to stay? Why did their wanting to stay warrant labeling them as reshaim?

4. (10:26) The Torah is unclear what would have happened oif Pharaoh would have let the B’nei Yisroel go? Would they have come back after “they went to serve Hashem”?

5. Why didn't Dasan and Aviram die during makkas choshech ?

6. After Pharoah tells Moshe, “Never come back...”, Moshe says, “You have spoken well, I will never come to you again”. How could Moshe say this? How did he know that Hashem wouldn't command him to back to Pharoah?

7.     Throughout the Torah and Gemara we find many examples where the Hashem or tzadikim go out of the way to ensure that no appearance will be given off that could mislead others to think erroneously. For example, when Hashem was going to destroy s'dom, Avraham argued that if there is even one righteous person, then Hashem must save the whole city because otherwise people will think that Hashem does not rule with justice. Additionally we find this concept a few times in this week's parsha. For example, there is a reference when Pharoah tells Moshe that he sees “ra'ah” will be with them in the midbar (desert)....later in the Torah by the eigel ha'zahav when Hashem was going to wipe out klal yisroel, Moshe argued that Hashem could not do that because then perhaps the Mitzriyim will say that it was  “ra'ah” that did it. Also, there is a famous rashi and gemara berachos regarding Moshe switching the lashon to “כחצות” instead of  "בחצות” to ensure that the mitzriyim would not accuse him of being a liar if the makas bechoros wouldn't occur precisely at midnight. Another example is the gemara in shekalim which discuss that the kohanim could not have cuffs on their pants or have pockets lest them be accused of taking money from the beis hamikdash. It seems from all these examples that even in extreme circumstances we are so careful to make sure to give off a proper appearance even when it means making an exception to dong the right thing. Considering all this, how will we deal with the following rashi in this week's parsha: Rashi mentions that by makas bechoros every house had many people who died. Rashi goes so far as to say that the mitzriyim started saying, “this is not like the other decrees/makkos of Moshe because here he said that only the bechorim would die and yet everyone seems to be dying!” Why in this circumstance did Hashem do the “correct” thing and kill the bechorim despite the fact that it looked like He was killing random mitzriyim? Why suddenly was He not afraid that Moshe would be called a liar? When do we use this principle of remaining נקי and when should we put that aside?

8. In the introduction to meseches s'machos, R' Yochanan says that although Hashem “hit” the bechorim of Mitzrayim at night, they did not really die until the next morning. Where in davening is there a רמז to this?

9. What is significant about the dogs not barking?

10. Who killed the bechorim? Why was it necessary to have something to differentiate between the Jews and mitzriyim more than by any other makkah?

11. How do we know to wear Tefillin on the left hand? What is the significance of wearing it on the left hand?

12. Two of the four parshiyos in out Tefillin could be found in this week's parsha. What are they? And what is so significant about them that they should be in the tefillin alongside Shema?

13. If the reshayim of Bnei Yisroel died during makkas choshech, why didn't Dasan and Aviram die then as well?