[Par-reg] Veetchanan - Questoins for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Aug 15 17:02:33 EDT 2005
*************************************************************
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'
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?
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-GOYIM1. 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;
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"?
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. 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
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list