Parshas Beshalach - Parsha Stumpers

פרשת בשלח

Parsha Stumpers and Something to Think About

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

4. The Rambam writes that it is assur to attribute any physical charachteristics 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. Rashi (17:12) 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?

8.  The Torah (16:20) refers to two “anashim” (men) who left over from the manna. Rashi explains that the Torah is refering 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)

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

10.  Rashi (17:9) 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 explainig 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?

11.  Rashi (17:9) [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.