[Par-reg] Veetchanan - Questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Aug 11 10:10:48 EDT 2008
********************************************************
*****
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****
PARSHAT Ve-ETCHANAN
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
REWARD FOR 'SPECIFIC' MITZVOT
1. Review 5:16, noting how the commandment to honor
one's parents includes the promise of reward. Note the
words that the Torah uses to describe that reward.
Are you familiar with any other specific mitzvot
in the Torah that promise reward; if so, what are they,
and in what book are they recorded?
In your opinion, is this reward (that the Torah
promises) for the individual or for the entire nation?
2. Review the story in 5:20-30, noting how Moshe tells
the story of how God first gave him the mitzvot that he
is about to teach Bnei Yisrael in his speech. Then,
carefully study 5:28-30, noting how Moshe promises
reward to the nation, should they keep these laws (that
he is about to teach).
How does the wording of this reward (see 5:30)
similar to the reward that God promised in 5:16 (in
relation to honoring one's parents)?
Review 6:1-3, noting how it reltates directly to
5:28-30; then note how the reward that Moshe promises in
6:2-3 in similar to 5:16 and 5:30!
Based on these textual parallels, could one
reach the conclusion that the reward promised in 5:16
may relate to keeping ALL of the laws of "brit Sinai",
and not just "kibud horim"? If so, can you explain the
logic of this conclusion?
3. Review 4:40 (the last line of Moshe Rabeinu's first
speech), noting how it relates to 4:1, and to same
mitzvot that Moshe discusses in 5:1 and 5:28 and 6:1.
Relate this pasuk (4:40) to your answer to the
previous question!
In your opinion, is the reward promised in 4:40
(and 5:30 and 6:2-3) for the individual or for the
entire nation. [What does the word "adama" refer to in
all of these psukim?]
4. Review Devarim 22:6-7, noting how we find a specific
mitzva that appears to promise reward. Note how the
Torah's wording of this reward is similar to 5:16, 5:30,
and 6:2-3!
Are there any other textual or thematic
parallels between 5:16 and 22:6-7? Does it make any
sense that specifically this mitzvah includes reward, in
contrast to so many others (in Sefer Devarim) that do
not?
Finally, note 25:13-16, noting yet another
example of the promise of reward.
Could the reward promised in 25:16 and 22:7 be
considered reward for all the mitzvot that are included
in Moshe Rabeinu's speech, and not necessarily
specfically these mitzvot? If so, can you explain why
this [general] reward would be mentioned specifically
together with these specific mitzvot?
[See also the last mishna & gemara of Mesechet Chulin
142!]
5. If indeed the reward mentioned for 'honoring parents'
in 5:16 relates to general reward for the entire nation
for keeping loyal to "brit Sinai" – why do you think
that it would be mentioned at the conclusion of the
fifth commandment, and not after the tenth commandment?
What is the thematic connection between honoring
one's parents and dedication to God? [What is common to
both relationships?] See Ramban on Shmot 20:12
("kabed...").
A LAW FOR EVERY SITUATION
1. Even though there are many laws in the Torah, it is
impossible for any law-code to provide a precise
guideline for every situation.
With this in mind, review Devarim 6:16-19,
noting especially 6:17-18. In your opinion, how does
6:17 relate to 6:18?
According to 6:18, how is someone supposed to
know what is considered "ha'tov v'hayashar" [what is
good & straight in the eyes of God]?
Would you consider this pasuk a 'mitzvah' in itself,
a 'guideline' in itself, or a 'guideline' for all
mitzvot? [Iin your answer, relate to why God punished
the generation of the Flood, even though no laws had
been given to man!]
For a very interesting [and important]
interpretation of this pasuk, see Ramban on 6:18.
VE-ZOT HA-TORAH & 'HAGBAHA'
1. Review 4:44-45, noting how the pasuk "ve-zot
ha-torah..." - the pasuk that we recite each time when
the Torah is lifted for 'hagbaha' - is found in this
week's Parsha.
In your opinion, what does the word "torah" in
this pasuk refer to?
- the entire 5 books of Chumash;
- just Sefer Devarim;
- just the first speech (that just finished
/chap. 1-4);
- just the mitzvot of the (upcoming) main
speech?
[i.e. chapters 5
thru 26]
As you answer this question, be sure to study
4:44-47 in relation to 5:1 (and the main speech of Sefer
Devarim that follows - as discussed in last week's
questions/shiur).
See Rashi on 4:44-45. How would Rashi answer
the above questions? See also Chizkuni on 4:45.
Now see Seforno on 4:44-45. How would Seforno
answer the above questions? Explain the logic behind
this commentary.
2. When we recite this pasuk for "hagbaha", are we
using it in the same context or a wider one?
Can you explain why we quote this pasuk for
"hagbaha"?
Note, that we add a phrase to this pasuk. What
phrase do we add, where is it from, and why do you think
that we add it?
In your answer, relate to 5:1-5, and the story
in 5:20-28, especially 5:5 & 24! [In other words, what
is the original source of these laws?]
See Bamidbar 4:37 & 4:45, noting their context.
Did you find the 'missing phrase' from "hagbaha"?
Attempt to identify a thematic connection between the
topic of Bamidbar chapter 4 and the statement of "v'zot
ha'torah"?
3. Finally, study Sefer Nechemia 8:1-8, noting
especially 8:5.
How do these psukim relate to our custom of raising
the Sefer Torah so that everyone will see it?
Based on these psukim in Nechemia, would it make
more sense to perform "hagbaha" before we read the Sefer
Torah in public - or after it has been read?
See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim siman 134
(#2). Note the two minhagim, and attempt to explain
their source.
OR LA-GOYIM
1. Review Devarim 4:5-8, in the context of 4:1-8.
Note how the phrase "chukim u'mishpatim" in 4:5
relates to the identical phrase in 4:1!
Then review 5:1, i.e. the opening sentence of the
main speech, noting how this very same phrase - "chukim
u'mishpatim" - introduces the laws of the main speech.
Also note this same phrase in 26:16, which just so
happens to be the summary pasuk of that speech. Note
this phrase in 11:31-12:1 as well. [See intro shiur to
Devarim www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.txt ]
Based on these obvious textual parallels, how does
the primary topic of 4:5-8 relate to the laws that Moshe
is about to teach to Bnei Yisrael in the main speech?
In your answer, relate to 26:16-19, esepcially to
26:18-19 and its textual and thematic parallel to Shmot
19:5-6.
2. How do these psukim relate to the biblical theme of
God's choice of Am Yisrael's in order that they become
an 'or la-goyim' [a light (or model) for other nations]?
[Recall that this theme has been discussed numerous
times in previous shiurim.]
Relate your answer to Yeshayahu 42:5-6 (which
just so happens to be the first two psukim of the
Haftara for Parshat Breishit). Review as well Shlomo
Ha-melech's prayer when he dedicates the bet ha-mikdash
in Melachim Alef 8:41-43, and the visit of the Queen of
Sheba in 10:1-9!
See also Tehillim 105:1-12, 72:1-16 and Divrei
Ha-yamim Alef 16:8-36, noting especially 16:24-26 and
16:35.
BETWEEN THE DIBROT IN SHMOT & DEVARIM
1. As most everyone is familiar, the wording of the Ten
Commandments in Parshat Veetchanan (Devarim 5:6-18) is
slightly different than their wording in Parshat Yitro
(Shmot 20:1-14). For example, in regard to the
commandment of shabbat [the fourth commandment] - one
version begins with the word "zachor", while the begins
with the word "shamor".
[As we sing in the "lecha dodi"]
Compare the mitzvah of shabbat in each source, and
make sure that you can identify all of the other
differences. Relate to both the laws of shabbat, as
well as to the reason that the Torah gives for why we
are commanded to keep it - according to each version.
Can you relate the different reasons in each version
to the meaning in Hebrew of the words "zachor" and
"shamor"?
Be sure to note the reason for Shabbat according to
Shmot 23:9-12, and how it relates to reason for shabbat
in Devarim.
Note how this relates to the phrase "v'zacharta ki eved
hayita..." in Devarim 5:15, in relation to its context
in Devarim 16:12 & 24:17-22.
2. In your opinion, do these two 'versions' contradict
- or complement - one another? Explain your answer.
Can you relate the different reasons in each version
to the concept of "mitzvot bein adam la'Makom /
la'chaveiro"?
Assuming that the recording of these two different
reasons for shabbat was intentional, can you suggest any
underlying thematic message that Torah may be alluding
to in this manner of presentation?
3. Another difference between the Dibrot in Yitro vs.
Va-etchanan is the additional phrase 'ka-asher tzivcha
Hashem Elokecha' (see Devarim 5:12 & 16).
Can you explain the addition of this phrase in
Parshat Veetchanan based on the fact that Moshe is
quoting the dibrot as part of his speech (as discussed
in last week's shiur)?
Why do you think that this phrase is found
specifically in the dibrot of Shabbat & 'kibbud av', and
not in the others. [Relate to 5:4-5.]?
Relate these two mitzvot as well to Rashi's
opinion in regard to which mitzvot that were given at
Mara (see Shmot 15:25). Can this information provide a
different reason for the use of this phrase specifically
in regard to these two mitzvot?
4. Finally, note the slight differences in regard to the
wording of the Tenth Commandment ["lo tachmod"]. What
lesson do you think one can learn from these
differences?
For an interesting discussion, see Ibn Ezra,
Ramban, and especially Chizkuni (note his concluding
remarks in regard to the reason for the two versions) on
Devarim 5:17.
AVODA ZARA LE-SHEM SHAMAYIM
1. Read 4:15-20, noting how these psukim include a very
detailed warning against idol worship.
Then, review 4:9-14, noting how these psukim discuss
what happened (and what didn't happen) at Har Sinai.
Note especially 4:14, noting how this pasuk relates to
the main speech of Sefer Devarim/ compare with 4:1, 4:45
& 5:1.
Can you explain how the warnings in 4:15-20 relate
to the topic of 4:9-14? In other words, what form of
idol worship [an image of 'another god' or an image of
the real God] is Moshe Rabeinu worried about, and how
does this fear relate to what Bnei Yisrael saw [or
didn't see] at Har Sinai?
2. Review 4:15-20 once again, this time noting the
various examples of forms of idols that are forbidden.
Examine this list carefully, noting the use of the word
'tavnit', and compare this list to the first chapter of
Sefer Breishit. Can you identify a pattern?
Can you explain why?
Note the only other use of the word "tavnit" in
Chumash is found in Shmot 25:8-9 - in relation to the
mishkan! Relate this to the purpose of the Mishkan,
i.e. what it represents (see especially Ramban on Shmot
25:1).
In your opinion, does the warning against avoda
zara in chapter 4 relate to someone with 'good
intentions' or 'bad intentions'? Explain your answer,
relating to 4:12-16.
3. What is the symbol of God's presence in the mishkan
itself? [Relate to Shmot 25:20-22.] Could this relate
in any manner to 'keruvim' that are mentioned in
Breishit 3:24?
Relate this to your answer to the above
question.
=====
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST SPEECH [shiur #1]
1. In last week's introductory shiur, we discussed how
chapters 5 thru 26 form the main speech of Sefer
Devarim. With the conclusions of that shiur mind, study
4:44-46 carefully.
Note the word 'zot' in 4:44, as well as the word
'eileh' in 4:45. In your opinion, do they refer to what
'was' [in the previous chapter] or to what 'will be' [in
the chapter to follow]?
Or in other words, do these psukim relate to the
speech that just finished (chapters 1 thru 4), or the
one coming up, or both?
See how both Rashi & Chizkuni interpret these
words.
[Review 4:45 once again, noting how it supports our
conclusion in last week's shiur that the mitzvot of the
main speech were first given at Har Sinai.]
2. To appreciate the meaning of the word Torah in 4:44,
and how it relates to the main speech, review 27:1-8,
paying special attention to the word Torah in 27:3 and
27:8. In your opinion, what does the word Torah refer
to in these two psukim?
In your answer, relate once again to the fact that
chapters 5 thru 26 form the 'main speech' (of mitzvot)
in Sefer Devarim.
How does your conclusion help you understand the
meaning of Torah in 4:44?
3. Now, note the phrase 'chukim u-mishpatim' in 4:45 as
well. Relate it to the same phrase found in 5:1, 5:28,
and 6:1.
How does this relate to the same phrase in 4:1 &
4:5?
To verify your answer, see if chapter 4 includes
any chukim u-mishpatim that would qualify 4:1 to be
their 'header'.
In your opinion, could 4:1 & 5 be understood as an
introduction to the chukim u-mishpatim that are found in
the main speech? If so, why would this header be in
chapter four, and how does it relate to the content of
this chapter?
[Note as well 4:14 in its context!]
4. Attempt to summarize the main points that Moshe
makes in his speech in chapter 4?
To do so, we suggest the following
'methodology'.
First, attempt to divide the chapter into
paragraphs. Then, give each paragraph a short title,
and list those titles (vertically) on a sheet of paper.
Finally, study your list, and attempt to turn that list
into an outline, by grouping together the paragraphs
that share a common topic. Give a title to each section
of your outline, and if possible, one for the entire
outline.
After you have finished, answer the following
questions:
5. Considering that chapters 1 thru 4 is one speech,
nonetheless, chapter 4 is quite different than chapters
1 thru 3. Attempt to define how these two sections are
different.
In your opinion, why does Moshe Rabbeinu include
chapter four as part of his first speech, and how does
it relate to his explanation of why forty years have
passed (in chapters 1) and his 'pep-talk' (in chapters
2-3)?
6. Indeed, we do find certain mitzvot in chapter four.
In your opinion, what is special about them, and how do
they relate to the mitzvot that will be found in the
main speech?
Also, how does that fact that Moshe is about to die
(and hence no longer be their leader / see 4:21-24)
relate to the content of chapter 4?
THE FIRST TWO PARSHIOT OF KRIYAT SHEMA [shiur #2]
1. Recall from last week's shiur how the story in
chapter five explained when the mitzvot (that begin in
chapter six) were first given. In that context, review
once again 5:28 and 6:1, noting how they describe the
mitzvot of the main speech. As you study those psukim,
note the distinction between the words "ha-mitzva" and
the "chukim & mishpatim". How does the word
"ha-mitzva" differ from the word "mitzvah"?
Note how (and where) we find similar phrases in
earlier introductory psukim - see 4:1, 4:5, and 4:44-45
and 5:1.]
In your opinion, do all of these different words
describe the same thing, or does each word describe a
different type of commandment? If so, what does each
word refer to?
2. It is possible to divide the main speech into two
sections based on this distinction between ha-mitzva and
the chukim & mishpatim.
To identify the ha-mitzva section, carefully study
6:4-9 in relation to 11:22-25, noting the word "ha'
mitzvah". Note as well 8:1 in this context.
Then, study 11:31- 12:1 in relation to 26:16-19,
noting how these parallel psukim can help you identify
the chukim & mishpatim section. Note as well how this
parallel relates back to 5:1 and to 5:28 & 6:1.
Next, briefly scan the mitzvot of the main speech
(i.e. chapters 6-26), noting the difference in the
nature of the mitzvot found in between chapters 6-11 in
contrast to the mitzvot found in between chapters 12-26.
[This question may take you a long time to answer, but
it is important, for it will be helpful towards
understanding the basic structure of the main speech.]
3. Review 6:4-9 & 11:13-21, noting that these are the
two parshiot of daily kriyat shema. Pay attention to
their respective locations within the main speech of
Sefer Devarim, especially in regard to the ha-mitzva
section, noted above.
Based on the division of the main speech into
two sections (as discussed in the questions above), can
you suggest a reason why Chazal choose these two
parshiot for the daily kriyat shma?
In your answer, relate to the word
've-shinantem' in 6:6. Relate as well to the Mishna in
Sota VII:8 in regard to what is read at Hakhel.
SOMETHING OLD, OR SOMETHING NEW?
4. Recall once again that the mitzvot of the main
speech were first given to Moshe Rabbeinu during his
first forty days on Har Sinai, and he had taught them to
the people numerous times - and now, in the fortieth
year - he is teaching them on last time.
With this in mind, review all of the 'parshiot'
between chapters 6 thru 11, and try to determine which
sections appear to be 'quotes' from the mitzvot that
were first given forty years ago, and which sections of
the speech are 'added' by Moshe Rabbeinu now in the
fortieth year. In your answer, relate to the fact that
some parshiot contain mitzvot, while others contain
rebuke.
As you answer this question, pay attention to
how the events of the Exodus are described, paying
special attention to 6:16, 6:20-23, 7:17-19, & 11:10-12.
In your opinion, would it make sense for Moshe
to talk to the people in this manner in the fortieth
year?
Note also the opening psukim of chapter 8! Does
this appear to be an 'add-on' by Moshe Rabeinu, or part
of the original set of mitzvot? Explain why.
Finally, compare 7:6-9 with 9:4-7. Attempt to
explain the reason for what appears to be a
contradiction!
5. Review once again 4:44-45, noting how these psukim
introduce the main speech that begins in chapter five.
Then note how there appears to be a contradiction in
4:45 in regard to when these mitzvot were given – forty
years ealier when Am Yisrael left Egypt, or now, in
Arvot Moav!
Explain this pasuk based on your answer to the
above question!
6. Suggest a reason why it may be meaningful for Moshe
to present these laws to the people in the fortieth
year, worded in the same manner as they were given when
the first generation left Egypt. In your answer, relate
to 5:2-3!
[See also "Parshanut" section below.]
====
'HAR AVARIM' & 'TRANSITION' - [for shiur #3]
1. In the beginning of the Parsha, Moshe pleads with
God to allow him to enter Eretz Canaan (see 3:23-29).
In your opinion, does Moshe also want to remain
the leader of Bnei Yisrael, or does he just want to
enter as regular citizen [what we would call today a
'rabbi emeritus'], while allowing Yehoshua to lead the
nation?
In your answer relate to both 3:28 and Bamidbar
20:12 [& our conclusion in regard to this topic in our
shiur on Parshat Chukat].
Does God explain to Moshe why His answer is no? If
not, can you explain why He doesn't? Can you suggest a
reason for why God does not allow Moshe to enter the
land, even though he is no longer their 'official'
leader?
2. Note the Torah's use of the 'shoresh' [root]
ayin.bet.reish. in 3:25, 3:26 and 3:28. Does this
shoresh have the same meaning in each of these psukim,
or different meanings? Explain.
Now read Bamidbar 27:12-14 (see also 27:15-23).
In your opinion, is this the same story or a
different one?
How do these two accounts complement each
other?
See Rashi & Chizkuni on 27:12.
Now, note again the name of the mountain that
Moshe is instructed to ascend -'har ha-avarim'. Note
again the shoresh ayin.bet.reish!
What is the 'real name' of this mountain - see
Devarim 32:49! Based on the above questions, why do you
think that the Torah refers to it as "har ha-avarim"
instead of 'Har Nevo'?
Is there a geographical reason as well for this
name?
See Ramban 27:12.
[Note also the use of ayin.bet.reish. in Bamidbar
27:6-11! Note also the use of verb 'latet' - to give -
both in 27:7 and 27:12! (cute?)]
PART III - PARSHANUT
WHAT DOES 'WHAT' MEAN?
1. Read 6:20 (and ONLY 6:20, i.e. don't read on). Even
though this pasuk may sound familiar to you from the
Seder [the wise son's question] - read it again, by
itself, and attempt to translate it.
How did you translate the word "mah" in this
pasuk?
Before you read 6:21, how would you answer this
question?
2. Now, read from 6:21-25. Based on this answer, what
does the word "mah" in 6:20 seem to imply?
See Rasag, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno on
6:20, noting how each commentator offers a slightly
different way to translate the word "mah".
Try to identify what how the translation by each
commentator of the word "mah" - is affected by a certain
point in 6:21-25.
3. Finally, how did you translate the word "tzedaka" in
6:25? Does it mean 'charity', or 'just & upright'?
Based on its context in this pasuk, notice how difficult
it is to translate.
See Ibn Ezra, noting how offers three
interpretations! Relate them to the various classic
translations of the word "tzedaka".
Review 4:5-8, noting again how it relates to 5:1
(and the laws of the main speech). How (and why) does
Ibn Ezra's third interpretation relate to those psukim?
See Ramban (at the conclusion of his commentary
to 6:20-25). Note how he explains why he considers
"tzedaka" as reward. [See also Seforno - noting how it
is similar.]
Finally, see Chizkuni - noting his two
interpretations, and how they relate to 6:20!
A COVENANT FOR ALL GENERATIONS
1. Review 5:1-3, noting what is so problematic about
the statement that Moshe makes in 5:3. Then, note how
almost every commentator adds a word to 5:3.
[For example, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rasag, Chizkuni.]
What is that word and why do you think that everyone
agrees that it must be added?
Then see Seforno on 5:3. Does Seforno agree to
the addition of this word? In what manner is Seforno's
interpretation different than all the others?
Most commentators assume that this 'missing'
word is implicit. Nonetheless, would it not have made
more sense to say it explicitly? Can you suggest any
thematic reason for Moshe Rabeinu to have left this word
out, considering that he is speaking to the next
generation?
Can you find any other examples in this section
of main speech where Moshe speaks to the new generation
as though they were the first generation?
If so, can you explain why does this so often?
AZ YAVDIL MOSHE / When & Why?
Recall from last week's shiur, that the end of chapter
4 (4:41-49) is written in 'third person', and serves as
a buffer between Moshe's introductory speech (chapters
1-4), and Moshe's main speech - ne'um ha-mitzvot - which
begins with chapter 5.
Before continuing, read these nine psukim,
noting that they are indeed written in third person,
noting how they divide into two distinct sections -
4:41-43 and 4:44-49. Then, try to understand how each
section relates to either the previous speech, or to the
speech that follows.
Then, pay attention to the first topic - i.e. the
setting aside of three cities of refuge in Transjordan
(4:41-43).
In your opinion, why is this topic recorded
here?
Does it relate in any way to the first speech?
If so, how?
Does it relate in any way to the main speech
(which follows)? If so, how?
How does this parshia relate to Bamidbar
35:9-14?
Does it belong there? If so, why is it
here?
Relate also to Devarim 19:1-10, especially
19:8-9!
How does 4:41-43 relate to 19:8-9?
Are these three additional cities (i.e.
a total of 9)?!
[see
commentaries on 19:8-9]
Finally, how should one translate the first two
words of 4:41, in past tense, or future tense? What is
the difficulty?
After contemplating these above questions, study
the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban,
Chizkuni, & Sforno on 4:41, and then answer the
following questions:
A. Which of the above problems does Rashi deal with?
How does he solve it? What additional 'mussar'
does Rashi's commentary teach us?
B. Rashbam's peirush deals with three of the problems
listed above. How does he explain them?
[Note how concise & comprehensive his commentary
is!]
C. What problem does Ibn Ezra try to solve?
Why does Ramban disagree?
Can you explain their argument based on
their respective understandings of this parshia as
either a completion of the first speech or an
introduction to the main speech?
D. Later in the Ramban, he also quotes the same peirush
as Rashi. Attempt to explain why.
Then, Ramban continues by explaining how this
section connects to the beginning of the main speech.
How does his commentary relate to his opening
explanation concerning the nature of the main speech of
Sefer Devarim (in 1:1)?
E. Chizkuni clearly connects this parshia to the first
speech. Carefully study his commentary - does he
suggest that 4:41-43 should be read in first person
instead of third person?
If so, can you explain why?
Does the continuation of the parsha support this, or
not? How does Chizkuni relate this parshia to Bamidbar
chapter 35?
How does he explain the reason for its
repetition?
F. What problem in pshat does Seforno deal with? How
is his peirush similar to Rashi's? How (and why) is it
different?
Would you say that Seforno disagrees with Ramban
as well in regard to when these cities actually became
official (i.e. functional) cities of refuge?
be-hatzlacha,
menachem
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.0 - Release
Date: 8/8/2008 12:00 AM
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veetq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50448 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20080811/58b467fc/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list