[Par-reg] Ki-teyze - Questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Mon Sep 12 04:27:44 EDT 2005
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
PARSHAT KI-TEYZE
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
FOR MEN or FOR WOMEN
1. Review the laws of "eshet y'fat toar" as detailed in the
beginning of the Parsha Ki-teyze (Devarim 21:10-14). In your
opinion, are the purpose of these laws to protect the man
(from marrying someone he shouldn't), or to protect the
feelings and emotions of the captive women.
As you review these psukim, notice how either understanding
would affect the interpretation of each pasuk.
[For example, does the phrase "v'asta et tziporneha" - and
she should 'do her nails' (see 21:12) - imply that she
should cut them or let them grow? And why must she not wear
the clothing that she was taken captive in (see 21:13)?]
In your opinion, how do these laws relate to the fact that
this captive female may become his permanent wife?
2. For examples of each approach, first see Rashi 21:11, and
then carefully study the entire Ibn Ezra on 21:12-13, noting
how his interpretation reflects both of the above directions.
See also Ramban & Chizkuni!
[See also Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim III /41.]
3. Review the last pasuk of this section, i.e. 21:14,
especially the final clause ["lo titamer bah..."]. Which of
the two directions of interpretation (above) does this pasuk
support? What is the logic behind this law? [Note the
translations and the commentators on this pasuk.]
4. If you have additional time, be sure to see Ramban on
21:12-
13, it's quite lengthy, but very worthwhile to study. Note
how Ramban discusses both directions discussed above, and
relates this as well the argument in Sifri between R. Akiva
and R. Eliezer in regard to the meaning of "doing her nails"
["v'asta et tziporneha"].
In your opinion, which of these two directions reflects a
more 'humanistic' approach?
5. Finally, note the underlying topic of 21:1-9 (the laws of
"egla arufa") that precede the topic of "y'fat toar", and the
21:15-17 (the laws relating the rights of the child from the
'unloved wife'). Do these two topics share anything in common
with the laws of "y'fat toar"? Relate your answer to the
above questions.
TZEKDAKA
1. How would you translate the word "TZEDAKA"?
[Was your answer 'charity'? If so, can you suggest any
other possible meaning?]
What is the Hebrew "shoresh" [root] of this word, and
what does it mean?
2. Now, read Devarim 25:13-16, noting 25:15 "even shelayma
v'TZEDEK...". How would you translate the word "tzedek" in
this sentence? Is it the same as above?
Can you recall any other similar uses of the word
"tzedek"?
[For example, relate to Breishit 38:26, Yirmiyahu 22:1-
3,15-16; and Shmuel Aleph 12:7.]
3. Next, read Breishit 18:18-19. How would you translate
"tzedaka" in this sentence? [See commentators!]
How would your translate the word "tzadik"?
Relate to e.g. Breishit 6:9; 18:23-25, Devarim 32:4.
How does this word "tzadik" relate to "tzedek" &
"tzedaka"?
4. Based on the above, can you explain why we refer to
charity as "tzedaka"?! Attempt to relate your answer to
Devarim 8:11-18!
KOSHER 'AFFAIRS'?
1. Read 24:1-4 regarding the laws of a Jewish divorce. Can you
explain why the Torah prohibits the husband to re-marry his
first wife ONLY once she has been married (in the interim) to
someone else? [Had this been permitted, can you identify a
potential halachik 'loophole'?]
Use this to explain why the Torah refers to this in 24:4
as a potential "toeyvah lifnei Hashem..." !
[Use this as well to explain the phrase "v'lo tachtee et
ha'aretz..." in 24:4.]
BETWEEN MISHPATIM & KI-TEYZE
1. Quickly review Shmot chapters 21 thru 23, noting the
similarities (and differences) between that unit and the laws
in Parshat Ki-teyze. Can you explain why they are similar?
Compare, for example:
Shmot 23:24-26 with Devarim 24:10-15 & 23:20-21
Shmot 23:4-6 with Devarim 22:1-3.
Would you say that Ki-teyze is a 'repetition' of the laws
in Parshat Mishpatim or an 'expansion' upon them? Explain
your answer.
2. Are there other mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim that are
'expanded' upon in other Parshiot in Sefer Devarim, or for
that matter anywhere else in Chumash? If so, where?
Compare, for example, Shmot 23:14 -17 with Devarim chapter
16, and Shmot 23:10-11 with Devarim 15:1-7 & Vayikra 25! Can
you find the parallels to Shmot 23:28-29?
Are there any parallels to Shmot 21:12-22:15?
If so, where?
If not, can you explain why not?
3. Are there other mitzvot in Parshat Ki-teyze that had been
mentioned earlier in Chumash in a Parsha other than Mishpatim?
If so, where?
[Note for example 25:15; compare Vayikra 19:36.]
Based on our previous shiurim (on Parshat Mishpatim & the
intro to Sefer Devarim), can you explain the reason for this?
Relate this as well to Devarim 16:20.
PART IIa - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for shiur #1)
1. Recall that the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of Sefer Devarim
(chapters 12-26) contains numerous mitzvot. Scan through the
entire section and attempt to find a correlation between the
progression of these mitzvot and the Ten Commandments.
Note how the MITZVAH section (chapters 6-11) contains
mitzvot that are similar to the first two DIBROT. Can you
explain why?
Note also how the topic of HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM
L'SHAKEN SHMO SHAM relates to God's Name and the third
commandment. [Be sure that you can explain why, i.e. the
connection between desecrating His Name and making His
reputation known.]
Similarly, note that there is a group of mitzvot that
relate to the seven-year shmita cycle and the holidays that
include their own cycles of seven.
Recall also from last week the set of mitzvot that
discussed the leadership of Am Yisrael (and hence leaders who
should be 'honored').
Finally, pay attention to which groups of mitzvot focus
primarily on mitzvot "bein adam la'Makom" and which focus on
"bein adam l'chaveiro" [between man & God; between man and
fellow man].
Use these 'hints' to help you answer this question.
2. There are two other Parshiot in Chumash where we find a
similar collection of a wide range of assorted mitzvot - in
Parshat Mishpatim (Shmot 21-23) & in Parshat Kedoshim (Vayikra
19).
Scan those Parshiot and see if you can identify within
them a progression of mitzvot similar to the progression in
the Ten Commandments.
3. Review Devarim 5:1-7, i.e. the intro to the main speech in
5:1, the topic of "brit Sinai" in 5:2-3, and the presentation
of the Dibrot (in 5:6-18) followed by the story of how the
laws of Sefer Devarim were first given (in 5:20-6:1).
Can you explain how this background may relate to the
parallel between the Ten Commandments and the laws in the main
speech in Sefer Devarim?
4. In your opinion, does the progression of mitzvot in
chapters 22 thru 25 follow a logical order, or do they appear
to be a random collection? Support your answer.
Note the commentary of Ibn Ezra on this section, and his
attempts to show the thematic connection from one section to
the next.
PART IIb - Questions on PARSHANUT for Shiur #2
1. Read 24:8-9. Recall that the detailed laws of "tzaraat" are
first presented in Sefer Vayikra.
Are there any other similar mitzvot from Sefer Vayikra
that are either repeated or summarized in Parshat Ki-teyze (or
for that matter anywhere in Sefer Devarim)?
Now, note the nature of the mitzvot that immediately
follow the mention of "tzaraat" in 24:10-22 (i.e. mitzvot
which are "bein adam la'makom" - between fellow men).
Based on this 'juxtaposition', what can be deduced in
regard to the cause of "tzaraat"?
2. Now see Rashi on 24:8 [He quotes the Gemara in Makkot
22b.] In your opinion, is this Midrash Halacha the simple
pshat of this pasuk? [In other words, is the warning of 24:8
general or
specific?]
If one does hold that this Midrash is not the simple
pshat, would that make the Midrash Halacha incorrect?
Base your answer on the nature of Midrashei Halacha.
3. Now see Rashi on 24:9. How does this relate to your answer
to question #1 above?
4. Next, see Ibn Ezra on 24:9!
Why is Ibn Ezra noting that this pasuk proves a "drash"?
According to Rashi, how closely are psukim 8 & 9
connected?
5. Next, see Rashbam on 24:8-9! [See also Chizkuni, noting how
they are very similar.]
In what manner is his pirush to 24:8 different than
Rashi's?
In your opinion, is Rashbam's pirush closer to the simple
pshat?
[Is this usually the case in Rashbam?]
Now, note how 'elegantly' Rashbam explains 24:9 and its
connection to 24:8!
How (and why) is this different from Rashi's explanation
for the connection between these two psukim?
5. See Ramban on 24:8.
How does Ramban explain the fact that a law from Vayikra
is being repeated in Devarim?
How does he explain why the other laws about "tzaraat"
are not repeated here? [Relate to his introduction to Sefer
Devarim.]
Why do you think that this specific law which Chazal
learn in the Midrash Halacha from this pasuk relates to what a
PERSON in Am Yisrael must be careful not to do, and NOT a
warning for KOHANIM to be careful in their dealing with a
"metzora"?
[Relate to your answer in question #1 above.]
5. See Ramban 24:9. On what point does Ramban disagree with
Rashi? Can you explain why?
How does Ramban prove his point from similar uses of
"zchor" in other mitzvot in Chumash?
In what manner is Ramban's approach here very different
than Rashi's? In what manner is it similar?
6. Be sure to read Ramban on 24:9 until the very end!
Why would you say that it is important for everyone
[students AND teachers] to study this Ramban? [Why do you
think that this Ramban is not as popular as it should be?]
PART III - PARSHANUT
AMON & MOAV - WHAT DID THEY DO?
1. Review 23:4-7, noting the two reasons that the Torah gives
for the prohibition against marrying someone from the nations
of Amon & Moav. [Note as well the general context in 23:1-9.)
In your opinion, do these two reasons apply to both
nations, or do some reasons only apply to one nation. [Base
your answer on what you remember.]
Next, review Bamidbar 22:2-7 and Devarim 2:1-30. Based on
those details, answer the above question once again!
2. First see Seforno on 23:5-7. Can you explain why he makes
this distinction between Moav & Amon?
Then, see Ramban on 23:5, noting how he deals with the above
questions (and sources). It's a lengthy Ramban, as he first
quotes Ibn Ezra's commentary, but its worthwhile studying in
its entirety.
IBN EZRA vs. THE KARITES
1. The logic of the juxtaposition of the first three parshiot
(even though they are comprise three totally different laws)
in Parshat Ki-teyze is well known (see Rashi 21:11). Note also
the Ibn Ezra on 21:20 (the last two lines). This style,
better known as "smichut parshiot", continues throughout
Parshat Ki-teyze. If you have the time, I recommend that you
scan the Ibn Ezra on the entire Parsha, noting how many times
he explains the reason in many instances for "smichut
parshiot", i.e. the reason why one mitzvah follows from the
next. Many of his explanations are very interesting and very
creative.
See for example: 21:10, 22:6, 22:8, 22:9, 22:12 & 13
[Note here how he takes issue with the Karites (Ibn Ezra calls
them "mak'chishim" - those who deny, i.e. they didn't accept
or follow the Oral Tradition of Chazal).
Note how Ibn Ezra quite often quotes their opinion, and
then explains why he disagrees. Can you appreciate why davka
the Ibn Ezra finds it important to argue with them? How does
this relate to his own approach to "parshanut"? See especially
Ibn Ezra on 24:6 as well as on 22:12!]
See also Ibn Ezra 23:16, 23:18, 23:22, 23:25 and 24:6
PROTECTING NATURE?
2. In 22:10, the Torah forbids us to plow a field with a ox
and donkey together. Can you think of any logic behind this
law?
See Rashi, who extends this law to any two 'pairs' of
animals. Based on this pirush, what is the reason for this
prohibition? How does it relate to the laws in 22:9 and 22:11?
Next, see Ibn Ezra on 22:10. How is his pirush different?
What is the reason for this prohibition according to his
pirush?
Next, see Ramban. Is his pirush similar to Rashi or Ibn
Ezra? In your opinion, why does Ramban quote the psukim from
Vayikra 19:19?
Finally, see Chizkuni on 22:10. Note how his pirush
expands upon Ibn Ezra's explanation. Can you explain why
Chizkuni offers two explanations, and what is the difference
between them?
Note how Chizkuni concludes with Chazal's interpretation.
Can you explain why he does there after he explains "pshat"?
CASE LAW
3. Note Ramban's statement in 21:11 - "diber ha'katuv
b'hoveh". This phrase is used quite often to explain why the
Torah often presents a certain law by stating only a 'typical'
case, but the law itself is much more comprehensive. Note for
example the law of "kilaim" in 22:10-11, and the above
question. The classic example would probably be Devarim 14:21.
Can you explain how this style of 'law presentation' can
help us better understand the relationship between Torah
sh'ball peh and Torah sh'bktav - the Written law and the Oral
law?
b'hatzlacha,
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kiteyq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29931 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20050912/961a4dc0/kiteyq-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list