[Par-reg] VEETCHANAN - questions for self study

[Menachem Leibtag]

************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

PARSHAT VA-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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20100718/cb45fe89/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veetq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50447 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20100718/cb45fe89/attachment-0001.pdf