High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
PARSHAS
S
HLACH
חלש
SELECTIONS
From Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein
EXTENT OF TEFILLAH
ו ,די קרפ רבדמב:םהֶידֵגְִ ערְקָ ץרֶאהָ-תֶ םירִָהַ-ןמִ הנֶפֻיְ-ןֶ בלֵכָוְ ן-ןִ ַשֻהיְ
ב/די ףד תיעת תכסמעוהי הליפב ןרהו המ הליפב לכה לו העירקב לכה ל רזעל 'רםהיפ לע ןרהו המ לפיו ביתכד הליפב ןרהו המ העירקב בלכוםהידגב וערק הפי ןב בלכו ןו ןב עוהיו ביתכד העירקב בלכו עוהי
Moshe & Aharon “fell on their faces” while Yehoshua and Calev tore their clothes. The petition of “falling on one’s face” is a lesser form than the petition of tearing one’s clothes. Therefore, one whois closer to HaShem, would need only to plea with a lesser format. Since their status was not thesame, Moshe & Aharon (who were closer to HaShem) prayed by “falling on their faces”, whileYehoshua and Calev employed the stronger form of prayer of “tearing their clothes.” (One opinion isthat Yehoshua and Calev did both forms of supplication).Later after the death of Moshe, Yehoshua rose to a position equated with Moshe, and “falling on his face”was a sufficient petition (similar to the concept that a leader like Yiftach in his generation is equatedwith Shmuel in his generation). See Yeshoshua 7,10 where G-d told Yeshoshua that why did he fallon his face, implying that that alone (and not tearing clothes) was enough for him at that time in that position of leader.One should understand that the above differences apply when one is petitioning on behalf of thecongregation. However, when the congregation is petitioning they need only use the format of “falling on their faces”, since additional merit is not needed. Also, when one petitions on one’s own behalf, then “falling on one’s face” is sufficient (per O.C. 131)
THE WOOD GATHERER (MEKOKASH)
בל ,וט קרפ רבדמב:תָשַׁהַ םיְ םיצִֵ ששֵקמְ שיִ צְמְִוַ רָדְִַ לֵרְָ-יֵבְ יהְִוַ
הכלה ה קרפ ב/דכ ףד ןירדהס ימלורי םומ ו לות םומ בייחימ ימ םומ וקמ ל דמג רב הייח 'ררצוק
One is able to explain the word ששוקמ in two ways. One is an explanation is that of a gatherer. Thesecond explanation is extracting or removal of an item from its source. This Gemara understands that just gathering items on Shabbos is not prohibited, thus, the interpretation involves the action of detaching branches from the tree which conforms according to the second explanation.The Gemara (Shabbos 96b) mentions two opinions on the prohibited action performed by the Mekokash.One opinion is that the prohibited action was carrying four amos in a public domain, and other opinion was the prohibition of רמעמ (bringing into a pile). Thus, these opinions must have understoodinfo@PARSHAPAGES.com www.parshapages.blogspot.com
PARSHAS
S
HLACH
חלש
SELECTIONS
From Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein
the word ששוקמ as gatherer, and since no such prohibition, each offered other opinions as the natureof the prohibited action done on that Shabbos.info@PARSHAPAGES.com www.parshapages.blogspot.com
PARSHAS
S
HLACH
חלש
SELECTIONS
From Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein
ב ,גי קרפ רבדמבןְַַ ץרֶֶ-תֶ רתֻיָוְ םישֲִָ ךָלְ-חלַשְ
Rashi points out that the story of the spies follows immediately after the story of Miriam (at the end of Beha'alosecha), since both sections involve lashon hara.It is not clear to Rabbi Epstein why Rashi has to point this out. There are many sections of the Torah thatwe never ask about the reason for their juxtaposition, so why does Rashi need to say anything here?Perhaps we can say that this juxtaposition requires particular explanation, based on the Gemara (Shabbos116a) that it is not correct to put two bad topics next to each other. Here we have the tragedy of thespies immediately after the tragedy of Miriam, and thus, this requires explanation. Therefore, Rashiexplains that both sections deal with the same topic of lashon hara.
זט ,גי קרפ רבדמב-תֶ רתלָ השֶמ חלַשָ-רשֲֶ םישֲִָהָ תמשְ הֵֶ
:ַשֻהיְ ן-ןִ ַשֵהלְ השֶמ רָקְִוַ ץרֶאהָ
We must point out that every time in the Torah and Nach that the word 'ben' appears, it has three dots(segol) under the 'beis'. However, every time it says Yehoshua's name there is only one dot (chirik),so that it is read as 'bin'. This is strange. There must be a special reason for this unusual vocalization.There is only one other time that the word 'bin' (with a chirik) is used, and that is in Mishlei (30, 1),“These are the words of Agur, son of (bin) Yakeh...” where the 'beis' also has a chirik. [There is alsoanother time in Parshas Ki Tetzei, Devarim 15; 2, but there it doesn't mean 'son', so perhaps that iswhy the author doesn't mention it.] The Sages have discussed this vocalization in the midrash, andexplained it aggadically (metaphorically) in Shemos Rabba Parshas Va'era section 6. However, thatexplanation has no relevance to the verse here. The Sages appear to say nothing at all about our case. Nor have any of the commentaries discussed it, and this is extremely strange.Perhaps we can explain based on the Gemara (Sanhedrin 107a) and midrashim that say that the 'yud' thatwas taken from the name Sarai (when it was changed to Sarah) complained about being removedfrom the Torah. It was only consoled when Moshe took the letter ‘yud’ and added it to Hoshea's nameto make Yehoshua. In this way the 'yud' that was removed from Sarai was replaced later in the Torah.This Gemara still leaves a difficulty. Even though Moshe ‘found the yud' to add to Hoshea's name, wheredid he find the vowel to go under it? The 'yud' from Sarai had no vowel under it, whereas the 'yud' of Yehoshua has a 'sheva', which is two dots. We know that the number of dots in the Torah is preciseand exact, so how could Moshe add these two dots to the 'yud'? Therefore, Moshe had to remove thetwo dots from the 'beis' of 'ben' and replaced the 'segol' with a 'chirik'. This left two dots availablewhich he transferred for the 'yud'.Even though this explanation is subtle and unusual, nevertheless, because of the uniqueness of thevocalization of this word you should accept it.(This doesn't explain why he was called Hoshea 'bin' Nun before Moshe added the 'yud' (verse 8) – perhaps the 'segol' was already removed in advance of the name change?)info@PARSHAPAGES.com www.parshapages.blogspot.com
Add a Comment