Difference between revisions of "Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Behaalotekha/0/en"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Miracles in the Wilderness: The Selav | <category>Miracles in the Wilderness: The Selav | ||
| − | <p>After the nation complains about the tediousness of their diet of manna, Hashem provides them with שליו.  They gluttonously devour it, and with the "meat still between their teeth" Hashem smites them.</p> | + | <p>After the nation complains about the tediousness of their diet of manna, Hashem provides them with שליו.  They gluttonously devour it, and with the "meat still between their teeth" Hashem smites them.</p><ul> |
| − | <ul> | ||
<li>Though most identify the שליו as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish.  What proofs can be brought for each position? How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account?  For elaboration, see <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl</a></li> | <li>Though most identify the שליו as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish.  What proofs can be brought for each position? How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account?  For elaboration, see <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl</a></li> | ||
<li>The nation's complaint of having only manna to eat would suggest that it was their sole source of nourishment.   The Hoil Moshe disagrees, suggesting that the manna served only as a supplement and there were often other food options.  What might be prompting this position?  What does it suggest about the miraculous (or not so miraculous) nature of the Israelite's wandering in the Wilderness? See <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">Life in the Wilderness</a> for more.</li> | <li>The nation's complaint of having only manna to eat would suggest that it was their sole source of nourishment.   The Hoil Moshe disagrees, suggesting that the manna served only as a supplement and there were often other food options.  What might be prompting this position?  What does it suggest about the miraculous (or not so miraculous) nature of the Israelite's wandering in the Wilderness? See <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">Life in the Wilderness</a> for more.</li> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Idle Gossip or a Challenge to Authority? | <category>Idle Gossip or a Challenge to Authority? | ||
| − | <p>How is Miryam and Aharon's critique of Moshe to be understood?  Was this simply idle and misguided chatter, or did they have a fundamental disagreement with his behavior leading them to question his authority as leader?</p> | + | <p>How is Miryam and Aharon's critique of Moshe to be understood?  Was this simply idle and misguided chatter, or did they have a fundamental disagreement with his behavior leading them to question his authority as leader?</p><ul> |
| − | <ul> | ||
<li>The Sifre views Miryam and Aharon as intending no harm, and in fact trying to improve Moshe's family life by encouraging the resumption of normal relations between Moshe and Zipporah.  Modern scholars, in contrast, cast Miryam and Aharon in a negative light, suggesting that they were contesting Moshe's leadership and claiming to be his equals. With whom do you agree?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each position? </li> | <li>The Sifre views Miryam and Aharon as intending no harm, and in fact trying to improve Moshe's family life by encouraging the resumption of normal relations between Moshe and Zipporah.  Modern scholars, in contrast, cast Miryam and Aharon in a negative light, suggesting that they were contesting Moshe's leadership and claiming to be his equals. With whom do you agree?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each position? </li> | ||
<li>R"Y Bekhor Shor offers a different reading of the story, presenting the siblings as bothered by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite. Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history?  Is it a Biblical prohibition at all?  Even if not, was not marrying an Israelite the ideal, and Miryam and Aharon, thus, somewhat justified in their complaint? See <a href="Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage" data-aht="page">Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage</a>.</li> | <li>R"Y Bekhor Shor offers a different reading of the story, presenting the siblings as bothered by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite. Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history?  Is it a Biblical prohibition at all?  Even if not, was not marrying an Israelite the ideal, and Miryam and Aharon, thus, somewhat justified in their complaint? See <a href="Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage" data-aht="page">Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage</a>.</li> | ||
| Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
| − | <category>Chovav, | + | <category>Chovav, Yitro: One and the Same? |
</category> | </category> | ||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> | ||
Version as of 13:13, 5 June 2017
Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Behaalotekha
Second Chances
In Bemidbar 9, several ritually impure people request from Moshe that they be not be left out of participating in the Paschal rite.
- Considering that it is prohibited for the impure to sacrifice, on what basis do they expect Moshe to allow them to participate? Is their request grounded in legal arguments, with the working assumption that the prohibition should not apply to them, or are they asking for a humanitarian measure, that Moshe override the law? Are there any instances in Torah where the law is in fact overridden?
- Why does Hashem allow for "second chances" with regard to the Pesach and not other commandments? Should people always be given a second chance, or are there instances when doing so is not warranted? Why or why not?
Miracles in the Wilderness: The Selav
After the nation complains about the tediousness of their diet of manna, Hashem provides them with שליו. They gluttonously devour it, and with the "meat still between their teeth" Hashem smites them.
- Though most identify the שליו as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish. What proofs can be brought for each position? How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account? For elaboration, see שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl
- The nation's complaint of having only manna to eat would suggest that it was their sole source of nourishment. The Hoil Moshe disagrees, suggesting that the manna served only as a supplement and there were often other food options. What might be prompting this position? What does it suggest about the miraculous (or not so miraculous) nature of the Israelite's wandering in the Wilderness? See Life in the Wilderness for more.
Idle Gossip or a Challenge to Authority?
How is Miryam and Aharon's critique of Moshe to be understood? Was this simply idle and misguided chatter, or did they have a fundamental disagreement with his behavior leading them to question his authority as leader?
- The Sifre views Miryam and Aharon as intending no harm, and in fact trying to improve Moshe's family life by encouraging the resumption of normal relations between Moshe and Zipporah. Modern scholars, in contrast, cast Miryam and Aharon in a negative light, suggesting that they were contesting Moshe's leadership and claiming to be his equals. With whom do you agree? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each position?
- R"Y Bekhor Shor offers a different reading of the story, presenting the siblings as bothered by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite. Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history? Is it a Biblical prohibition at all? Even if not, was not marrying an Israelite the ideal, and Miryam and Aharon, thus, somewhat justified in their complaint? See Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage.
- When is it wrong to speak about another? If your intentions are to help, is it ok? If you find another person's actions troubling, is it problematic to consult a third party about their behavior before approaching the person yourself?
