Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Vaetchanan/0/he
נושאים לשולחן שבת – פרשת ואתחנן
מעמד הר סיני – התגלות "פָּנִים בְּפָנִים"?
Though many people assume that the entire nation heard the entire Decalogue (עשרת הדברים) directly from Hashem, many commentators suggest that Moshe might have acted as an intermediary for at least part of, if not the entire, experience. Which verses might provide support for each position?
- אבן עזרא ורשב"ם maintain that the nation heard the entire Decalogue from Hashem, but then fear overcame them and they requested that Moshe step in. According to them, had it not been for the people's fear, Hashem would have given them the rest of the Torah directly rather than via Moshe. How does this reading affect our perception of the uniqueness of the Decalogue? Is it problematic to suggest that Hashem might have a change of plan?
- רמב"ם, לעומת זאת, assumes that Hashem spoke directly only to Moshe. The people listened in on their conversation, but heard merely a Divine voice without being able to decipher His words. Rambam is likely motivated by his belief that indiscriminate prophecy is impossible. Is prophecy really possible only with proper training and preparation, or can anyone reach prophetic levels if Hashem chooses to speak to them? Attempt to bring evidence from other cases in Tanakh.
- What ramifications does this dispute have for understanding the main purpose of the Sinaitic revelation?
להרחבה, ראו עשרת הדברים: ישירות מהקב"ה או דרך משה?
"פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת"
מדוע קורה לפעמים שצדיקים נענשים בזמן שחוטאים יוצאים ללא פגע? נראה כי הפסוק "פֹקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עָל בָּנִים" מרמז כי לפחות בנסיבות מסוימות, ה' עצמו מעניש ילדים חפים מפשע בזמן שהוריהם החוטאים אינם מקבלים כל עונש.
- כיצד דבר זה משקף צדק א-לוהי? האם אפשר להבין את הפסוק בדרך אחרת?
- מתי, אם בכלל, עונש קולקטיבי מהווה כלי ענישה מוצדק? האם אותו נימוק יכול לחול גם על ענישה עקיפה? האם העובדה שהפסוק מדבר דווקא על ענישה בתוך המשפחה מהווה הבדל כלשהו?
- לדיון נרחב, ראו האם ה' פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל בָּנִים?.
אהבת ה'
How should the concept of "love" be defined? What does the commandment to love Hashem entail? Are emotions even subject to one's will? How can one be commanded to feel a certain way?
- Commentators disagree whether the love prescribed is an emotion, a cognitive process, or an action. While רמב"ם views love of Hashem as an emotional longing, comparable to the love between spouses, שד"ל asserts that the commandment is action-oriented and is a metaphoric way of saying that one must be loyal to God and observe His commandments. רמב"ן offers a third possibility, that the mitzvah is one of martyrdom.
- Which of the above approaches is the most compelling? איזה פסוקים בפרשיות "שמע" might support each understanding? How might each exegete apply his interpretation to other directives involving love of another, כמו למשל המצוות לאהוב את הרֵעַ (ויקרא י"ט:י"ח) ואת הגר (ויקרא י"ט:ל"ד)? להרחבה, ראו אהבת ה'.
הבדלים בעשרת הדברים
There are many differences between the formulations of the Decalogue found in Shemot and in Devarim. How should these variations be understood? Were they introduced by Hashem, Moshe, or both? If the latter, what gave Moshe the authority to do so? Do both versions of the Decalogue have equal status, or does one represent the ideal (and which)?
- שד"ל1 suggests that it was Moshe who initiated the changes in the fortieth year and that they related to the nation's imminent arrival in the Land of Israel. לעומת זאת, מלבי"ם asserts that Hashem Himself made the changes in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf. Due to the sin, the people no longer merited a miraculous existence, and the Decalogue was amended to fit a nation now governed by laws of nature. How would each position explain all of the differences between the two versions? Can each account for all of the variations? Which approach do you find more compelling?
- In contrast to the above exegetes,אבן עזרא maintains that the Decalogue in Devarim is simply Moshe's paraphrase of Hashem's words. Though there is variation in the wording, there is no fundamental difference in meaning. He explains, "המלות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות" and thus a change in wording is insignificant. Do you agree? Is word choice meaningful? How might Ibn Ezra account for the seemingly very different reasons given for the commandment of Shabbat? ראו הבדלים בעשרת הדברים בין שמות ודברים להרחבה.
עוד...
לעוד נושאים בפרשה, ראו: רשימת נושאים – פרשת ואתחנן.
