Difference between revisions of "Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Behaalotekha/0/he"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>נסים במדבר: השְׂלָו | <category>נסים במדבר: השְׂלָו | ||
| − | <p>After the nation complains about the tedious nature of their Manna diet, Hashem provides them with "שְׂלָו".  The people gluttonously gather and devour it and are immediately punished by God.</p> | + | <p>After the nation complains about the tedious nature of their Manna diet, Hashem provides them with "שְׂלָו".  The people gluttonously gather and devour it and are immediately punished by God.</p><ul> |
| − | <ul> | ||
<li>Though most identify the "שְׂלָו" as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish.  How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account?  להרחבה, ראו <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – דג או עוף?</a></li> | <li>Though most identify the "שְׂלָו" as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish.  How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account?  להרחבה, ראו <a href="Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl" data-aht="page">שְׂלָו – דג או עוף?</a></li> | ||
<li>The nation's complaint of "אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ" would suggest that the Manna was their sole source of nourishment.  The <multilink><a href="HoilMosheShemot16-18" data-aht="source">הואיל משה</a><a href="HoilMosheShemot16-18" data-aht="source">שמות ט"ז:י"ח</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' משה יצחק אשכנזי</a></multilink> disagrees, suggesting that the Manna served only as a supplement and that 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 Israelites' wandering in the Wilderness?  להרחבה, ראו <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">החיים במדבר</a>.</li> | <li>The nation's complaint of "אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ" would suggest that the Manna was their sole source of nourishment.  The <multilink><a href="HoilMosheShemot16-18" data-aht="source">הואיל משה</a><a href="HoilMosheShemot16-18" data-aht="source">שמות ט"ז:י"ח</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' משה יצחק אשכנזי</a></multilink> disagrees, suggesting that the Manna served only as a supplement and that 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 Israelites' wandering in the Wilderness?  להרחבה, ראו <a href="Realia:Life in the Wilderness" data-aht="page">החיים במדבר</a>.</li> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
<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 more fundamental disagreement with his behavior, leading them to question his authority as leader? ראו <a href="Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage" data-aht="page">ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית</a>.</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 more fundamental disagreement with his behavior, leading them to question his authority as leader? ראו <a href="Miryam's Critique of Moshe and his Cushite Marriage" data-aht="page">ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית</a>.</p> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><multilink><a href="SifreBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">ספרי</a><a href="SifreBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">י"ב:א'</a><a href="Sifre Bemidbar" data-aht="parshan">אודות ספרי במדבר</a></multilink> 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.  Some modern scholars,<fn>ניתן למצוא היבטים שונים של עמדה זו ב: מ' מרגליות, "אופייה של נבואת משה", בית מקרא כ"ה:ב' (תש"מ): 149-132, J. Milgrom, The JPS Commentary, Numbers (Philadelphia, 1989):70, י' ליכט, פירוש על ספר במדבר יא-כא, (ירושלים, תשנ"א): 35, ר"י מדן, "פרשת בהעלתך",‎ מקור ראשון מוסף שבת ‎( | + | <li><multilink><a href="SifreBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">ספרי</a><a href="SifreBemidbar12-1" data-aht="source">י"ב:א'</a><a href="Sifre Bemidbar" data-aht="parshan">אודות ספרי במדבר</a></multilink> 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.  Some modern scholars,<fn>ניתן למצוא היבטים שונים של עמדה זו ב: מ' מרגליות, "אופייה של נבואת משה", בית מקרא כ"ה:ב' (תש"מ): 149-132, J. Milgrom, The JPS Commentary, Numbers (Philadelphia, 1989):70, י' ליכט, פירוש על ספר במדבר יא-כא, (ירושלים, תשנ"א): 35, ר"י מדן, "פרשת בהעלתך",‎ מקור ראשון מוסף שבת ‎(תש"ע), ור"א בזק, "פרשת האישה הכושית" ‎(תשע"א).</fn> 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><multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar12-1-6" data-aht="source">ר' יוסף בכור שור</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar12-1-6" data-aht="source">במדבר י"ב:א'-ו'</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' יוסף בכור שור</a></multilink> presents Moshe's siblings as being troubled by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite woman.  Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history?  Is it Biblically prohibited?  If not, was marrying an Israelite nevertheless preferred, thus providing some justification for Miryam and Aharon's complaint?</li> | <li><multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar12-1-6" data-aht="source">ר' יוסף בכור שור</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar12-1-6" data-aht="source">במדבר י"ב:א'-ו'</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' יוסף בכור שור</a></multilink> presents Moshe's siblings as being troubled by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite woman.  Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history?  Is it Biblically prohibited?  If not, was marrying an Israelite nevertheless preferred, thus providing some justification for Miryam and Aharon's complaint?</li> | ||
<li>Under what circumstances is it permitted to speak about another person? What if one has positive intentions and is trying to be constructive?  If another person's actions are troubling, is it problematic to consult a third party about their behavior before approaching the person him/herself? </li> | <li>Under what circumstances is it permitted to speak about another person? What if one has positive intentions and is trying to be constructive?  If another person's actions are troubling, is it problematic to consult a third party about their behavior before approaching the person him/herself? </li> | ||
Version as of 11:03, 27 August 2019
נושאים לשולחן שבת – פרשת בהעלתך
הזדמנויות שניות ופסח שני
בבמדבר ט', a group of people who were ritually impure from contact with a corpse petition Moshe to nonetheless permit them to participate in the Paschal rite.
- אופי הבקשה – Given that the ritually impure are generally excluded from partaking in sacrifices, on what basis do the people expect Moshe to allow them to participate? Is their request grounded in strict legal arguments that the prohibition should not apply to them,1 or are they asking for Moshe to override the law as a humanitarian dispensation?2 Or, perhaps, do they simply wish to bring the offering at a different time, as ultimately occurs?3 Which possibility is best supported by the verses? Does Moshe have the power to overrule a Torah prohibition? ראו פסח שני – הבקשה.
- הזדמנויות שניות – Why does Hashem allow for a "second chance" specifically with regard to the Pesach sacrifice, as opposed to other commandments? Should people always be given a second chance, or are there instances when this is not warranted? What does our story suggest about who deserves a second chance and who might not?
נסים במדבר: השְׂלָו
After the nation complains about the tedious nature of their Manna diet, Hashem provides them with "שְׂלָו". The people gluttonously gather and devour it and are immediately punished by God.
- Though most identify the "שְׂלָו" as quail, a minority opinion asserts that it refers to fish. How might each identification illuminate the Biblical account? להרחבה, ראו שְׂלָו – דג או עוף?
- The nation's complaint of "אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ" would suggest that the Manna was their sole source of nourishment. The הואיל משה disagrees, suggesting that the Manna served only as a supplement and that 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 Israelites' wandering in the Wilderness? להרחבה, ראו החיים במדבר.
סתם רכילות או איום על סמכות?
How is Miryam and Aharon's critique of Moshe to be understood? Was this simply idle and misguided chatter, or did they have a more fundamental disagreement with his behavior, leading them to question his authority as leader? ראו ביקורת מרים על משה והכושית.
- ספרי 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. Some modern scholars,4 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?
- ר' יוסף בכור שור presents Moshe's siblings as being troubled by what they perceived as hubris in Moshe's decision to marry a non-Israelite woman. Was intermarriage prohibited at this point in history? Is it Biblically prohibited? If not, was marrying an Israelite nevertheless preferred, thus providing some justification for Miryam and Aharon's complaint?
- Under what circumstances is it permitted to speak about another person? What if one has positive intentions and is trying to be constructive? If another person's actions are troubling, is it problematic to consult a third party about their behavior before approaching the person him/herself?
מיהו חובב?
בפרשתנו, חובב מוצג בפני הקורא כ"חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה". אולם, למרות הפירוט, מפסוק זה לא ברור אם רעואל או חובב היה "חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה". בעוד ששופטים ד':י"א מזהה בבירור את חובב כ"חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה", בשמות ב' זה רעואל, ולא חובב, שמזוהה כאביה של ציפורה אשתו של משה. ועוד מוסיף על בלבול הקורא הפסוק בשמות י"ח, בו יתרו הוא זה שמתואר כ"חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה". מה היחס בין חובב, רעואל, ויתרו? איך כולם יכולים להיות "חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה"?
- The question depends to a large degree on the meaning of the word "חֹתֵן". Does it refer only to one's father-in-law,5 or might it refer also to one's brother-in-law, especially if he also played a role in contracting the marriage?6 להרחבה, ראו חֹתֵן / חֹתֶנֶת.
- מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל שמות סבור שחובב, רעואל, ויתרו are all merely different names of one and the same individual. This is consistent with the general tendency of Rabbinic Midrashim to consolidate characters by identifying different names with the same person. See Identifications for other examples and analysis. In our case, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?7
- אם יתרו וחובב are the same person, why is he still in the Israelite camp in Bemidbar, despite שמות י"ח concluding with Yitro's departure to his own land? Did יתרו/חובב return? אם כן, למה? לדיון, ראו חיי יתרו לאחר שמות י"ח וזהותו הדתית של יתרו.
- For elaboration and other approaches regarding the possible relationship between these three characters, ראו שמותיו של יתרו.
עוד...
לעוד נושאים בפרשה, ראו: רשימת נושאים – פרשת בהעלתך.
