Torah Parallels

  💭 A Thought on the Parsha:   Partner in Crime                         As is most of Sefer Devarim, this mitzva stated in this week’s parsha which commands against fraudulent activity , “You shall not have in your pouch a stone and a stone – a large one and a small one…. A complete and honest stone shall you have….” is a reiteration of what was commanded earlier in the Torah. The requirement for a person to make sure that one's scales are accurate is a mitzva which is fundamental in the Torah because it represents the necessary honesty and truth which must always be exhibited .               The Kli Yakar is bothered that if one takes a closer look at these passukim , one will notice a technical difficulty. What does the Torah mean by “a large stone” and “a small stone”? Our first thought may be to think that they represent measures which would result in giving too much or too little merchandise. The Torah would then be describing a dishonest person who, when taking

  ❓ Question I am pondering:   The Mishna in Berachos states that if someone declares, “Hashem’s rachamim extends to the bird’s nest”, we quiet him. What is so wrong with saying such a statement? What is so inaccurate of such a declaration which would be an understandable observation that one might derive from the mitzva of Shiluach Ha’kein ? 💡 Idea I am thinking about: Second Order Thinking. This concept simply refers to thinking an extra step further to consider possible impacts from a decision as opposed to first order thinking which only considers immediate implications. Although there are much more intelligent examples, here is a simple one: A heavy person is chasing you. There are countless examples of this and actively thinking along second order helps one better think through cause and effect chains. A Rashi in this week’s parsha had me thinking about Second Order Thinking. The pasukim describe the mitzva of doing yibum , and the Torah mentions that in the event the

  Torah Parallels Weekly Parshas Shoftim  A Thought on the Parsha:   Guard Your Gates                         The passuk states “Judges and officers shall you in all your gates, which Hashem, your G-d, gives you – for your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” Rashi explains that this passuk teaches the need to have Jewish courts, as well as officers to enforce its rulings, in each and every city. Although this is certainly the meaning of the passuk on a simple level, many meforshim are bothered by the choice of the singular form “ l'cha ” and “ sh'arecha ” (“to you [singular]” and “your [singular] gates”). If the Torah was speaking to the entire B'nei Yisroel and commanding to institute a judicial system, the Torah should have used the plural forms, “ lachem ” and “ she'areichem ”. Why does it instead use the singular form of “you”?                          The Sh'lah HaKadosh   w

  ❓ Question I am pondering: Rashi (18:10) understands the passuk as forbidding various types of superstitious activities. Two questions: 1. Rabbi Akiva explains “ me’onain ” as people who assign seasons by saying that certain times are more propitious for certain things. Isn’t this something that we do? For example, we say that Adar is a good time to have a court case? 2. Rashi explains “ menacheish ” as one who makes decisions based on occurrences such as bread falling or a deer blocking the road or one’s staff dropping from his hand. Yet the Gemara Berachos relates a story in a mishna of a tanna who would know when his tefillos would be answered based on the fluency it came from his mouth. Was this a form of menacheish ? 💡 Idea I am thinking about: P R N D. These letters may look familiar to you. Where have you seen them before? In your car! The letters stand for Park, Reverse, Neutral, and Drive. The four core functions of the car. As we are in this time of Elul and te

    Torah Parallels Weekly Parshas Eikev 💭 A Thought on the Parsha:   The Bottom Line of Bribery                         In the middle of Moshe’s final speech to the B’nei Yisroel, he reminds them that there is no “cheating the system” because Hashem does not take bribes. Rashi comments that this means that Hashem cannot be appeased with money. How could we begin to understand the hava amina that one might think that one could bribe Hashem?               The S’forno has a different approach and writes that Moshe was relating the following idea: Imagine a person who is a sinner. He knows that ultimately, he will be punished for his sins but he finds it too hard to control himself so does it anyway. However, still uncomfortable with the thought of spending time in gehenom , he reasons that he could just do more mitzvos and as a result diminish the punishment of his aveiros . This logic, the S’forno explains, is that Moshe was

    ❓ Question I am pondering:   Rashi (Devarim 8:1) writes that deeds are attributed to those who complete it. As an example, he brings that although it was Moshe who took charge of bringing Yosef HaTzadik's bones out of Mitzrayim, the deed was attributed to B'nei Yisroel since they were the ones who ultimately brought the bones into Eretz Yisroel. Why is it that the full deed be attributed to the one who completed it despite the difference in proportion of effort put in and time spent, especially in a case like this where Moshe was forced to abandon the task as he died before entering Eretz Yisroel?   💡 Idea I am thinking about:   Easy vs Simple. Just because something is easy does not mean it is simple. In fact, oftentimes the easiest things are easy due to the of the amount of complexity that lies beneath the surface.     💢 Concept I am considering:   Ish Har Habayis . The mishnayos in Middos