Our Parsha Questions are crafted to be challenging even to Talmidei Chachamim but answerable by anyone who pays careful attention to the Krias HaTorah. I saw this practiced in Marlboro, NJ. I find that it increases attention to Krias HaTorah and is mentally stimulating both for the audience and for me. They are meant to be presented before Krias HaTorah and answered afterwards, giving everyone the chance to show the answer chapter and verse. I usually include some that are simple so that everyone can participate.
1. When Hagar and Yishmael were evicted from their home, Yishmael was dying of thirst, and Hashem was about to reveal water to Hagar so he would live. The malachim said, Ribono shel Olam, this person, Yishmael, will bring such death and suffering to your people, and you are saving him? Hashem answered that He judges him באשר הוא שם, as he is now, not what he will be in the future. We mention this on Yom Kippur as well, and ask that Hashem judge us as we are right now when we are doing teshuva- not as we were, and not as we might be in the future. In this parsha we see the opposite. Where do we see this, and how would you distinguish between the two.
2. The word קדש means holy. We say נקדש את שמך בעולם, and אשר קדשנו במצוותיו, and אין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה. In this parsha, find this word used once in its usual sense, and twice meaning the exact opposite.
3. The issur of certain people to marry a ישראל כשר; is that because the marriage is an offense against the kedusha of that individual or because it is a sin against the kedusha of the nation as a whole.
4. Simlah is not gender specific. Examples: ואהב גר לתת לו לחם ושמלה and שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה. So why in 24:5 does it say לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה, a woman should not carry a man’s kli and a man should not wear a woman’s simlah? Aren’t they both words for clothing?
5. Which unique mitzva is only rewarded if it happened by accident?
6. In this parsha, four mitzvos of memory. . In two, remembering is a mitzva. In one, not remembering is a mitzva. In another, remembering is a mitzva and forgetting is a lo saaseh.
7. What type of object may one not take as collateral?
8. Two neviim mentioned in the Parsha, a man and a woman.
9. Three examples of the Torah’s discouragement of the mistreatment of animals, צער בעלי חיים.
10. Three halachos mentioned in our Parsah that occur at sunset or nightfall.
11. The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel from the Lomzer Rov and others write that calling a child a name which is used by the opposite gender (like naming a boy 'Sue,') violates the prohibition (22:5) of lo yilbash. Rav Chaim Kanievsky lists 79 names in Chazal and Tanach which are used for both men and women. (The ones who asser, I assume, are talking about cases where the name is used exclusively for one gender.) How many can you identify that are currently used for both genders? (Taima D’Kra)
12. 22:19 seems to mean that a woman can be married to a man who tried to have her murdered.
וענשו אתו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה כי הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ולו תהיה לאשה לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו
Is this really true?
13. What is the military consequence of indecency, pritzus.
14. A part of the body found on men and women that is mentioned or even referred to only one time in Tanach, in our parsha.
15. It is very important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah. Why would the Irish Rebellion and the troubles that followed have never occurred if only Henry the Eighth had paid attention to the Krias Hatorah of Parshas Ki Seitzei.
16. How many mitzvos are there in the Parsha of Amaleik.
1. When Hagar and Yishmael were evicted from their home, Yishmael was dying of thirst, and Hashem was about to reveal water to Hagar so he would live. The malachim said, Ribono shel Olam, this person, Yishmael, will bring such death and suffering to your people, and you are saving him? Hashem answered that He judges him באשר הוא שם, as he is now, not what he will be in the future. We mention this on Yom Kippur as well, and ask that Hashem judge us as we are now when we've done teshuva and not as we were are might be in the future. In this parsha we see the exact opposite. Where do we see this, and how would you distinguish between the two.
Ben Sorer Umoreh, who is subject to capital punishment not for anything he has done, but for the crimes his inexorable trajectory will lead to.
Why are they different? In my experience, people prefer explanations they come up with, and just don't like explanations they are told. So you're on your own. I, and my mother זכרונה לברכה, preferred the Mizrachi's explanation with a very important modification. Baasher hu sham is only for the בית דין של מעלה PLUS tefilla, Hagar's tears.
2. The word קדש means holy. We say נקדש את שמך בעולם, and אשר קדשנו במצוותיו, and אין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה. In this parsha, find this word used once in its usual sense, and twice meaning the exact opposite.
22:9
לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן־תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם׃
23:18
3. The issur of certain people to marry a ישראל כשר; is that because the marriage is an offense against the kedusha of that individual or because it is a sin against the kedusha of the nation as a whole.
It is because of the sin against the nation as a whole. Six times the Torah uses the expression "בקהל השם", and they are all here by issurei kiddushin.
Even if you did not have the passuk, it would be obvious that it is not to protect the kedusha of the yachid, because the issur is only on a marriage that is recognized by the court, not simply living together. Marriage is an issue that relates to Klal Yisrael, not just individuals. That's why the Mishna in Megilla includes Birkas Chasanim among דברים שבקדושה.
This (except the sentence about davar shebikdusha) is based on Reb Yaakov's Emes L'Yaakov on 23:3, where he says
ובהכרח שענין הנישואין אצל בני ישראל אינו ענין פרטי הנוגע לשני הצדדים ומשפחתם בלבד, אלא הוא נוגע לקהל כולו, שעל ידי נישואין נכנס הבחור לקהל ישראל ונהיה חלק מהציבור.
4. Simlah is not gender specific. Examples: ואהב גר לתת לו לחם ושמלה and שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה. So why in 24:5 does it say לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה, a woman should not carry a man’s kli and a man should not wear a woman’s simlah? Aren’t they both words for clothing?
Because men often carry or wear non-clothing items that are associated with men only, such as a sword. Such items that are associated exclusively with women are carried in equal part for their decorative qualities, such as a purse, or a wrist watch, which includes them in in Simlah. (In other words, a woman will carry an empty purse and a wrist watch that is not working.) (Taama diKra) I have to think about מחט נקובה in במה אשה.
There are some who believe that wearing a tie is a problem for a man, because it is only decorative and non-functional. Some argue on the basis of the reference to men wearing earrings in the story of the Eigel: Shemos 32:2-3,
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאׇזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי׃
וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כׇּל־הָעָם אֶת־נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאׇזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אַהֲרֹן׃.
But the ibn Ezra there says this was a habit some picked up in Mitzrayim, not a Jewish behavior:
ויאמר פרקו. על משקל ברכו מהבנין הכבד הדגוש. מנהג מצרים היה לשום נזמים באזניהם. וככה כתוב במדינים כי ישמעאלים הם
5. Which unique mitzva is only rewarded if it happened by accident?
שכחה. Rashi says this clearly here: 24:19
למען יברכך. וְאַעַ"פִּ שֶׁבָּאת לְיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְמִתְכַּוֵּן, קַ"וָ לָעוֹשֶׂה בְמִתְכַּוֵּן. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה נָפְלָה סֶלַע מִיָּדוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ עָנִי וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ — הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְבָּרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ (ספרי):
Some argue and say that the mitzva is really to leave it there after you remember. But that is not true. It says
כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ
Also, this is clear in many meforshim, such as the Mizrachi here and the Gur Aryeh. Additional examples:
Aruch Hashulchan Ha'asid Hilchos Peah 9:1
ומשונה מצוה זו מכל מצות שבתורה שכל מצות שבתורה אין באים אלא על ידי זכירה כדכתיב וזכרתם את כל מצות ד' ועשיתם אותם ואם נשכח לא נעשה המצוה ומצוה זו היא להיפך שא"א לקיים המצוה רק ע"י שכחה והקב"ה זיכהו במצוה זו
Tosefta Peiah 3:13
מעשה בחסיד אחד ששכח עומר בתוך שדהו, ואמר לבנו צא והקריב עלי פר לעולה ופר לשלמים. אמר לו אבא מה ראית לשמוח בשמחת מצוה זו [יותר] מכל מצות שבתורה? אמר לו כל מצות שבתורה נתן [להם המקום] לדעתנו, זו שלא לדעתנו. שאילו [עשינוהו ברצון לפני המקום לא באת מצוה זו לידינו. [אלא] הרי הוא אומר (דברים כד) כי תקצור וגו' קבע לו הכתוב ברכה. והלא דברים קל וחומר, מה אדם שלא נתכוין לזכות וזכה מעלין עליו כאילו זכה, המתכוין לזכות וזכה על אחת כו"כ.
It happened with a certain pious person that he forgot a sheaf in his field, and he said to his son, “Go and sacrifice in my name a bull for Korban Olah and a bull for Korban Shlamim.” He said to him, “Father! What have you seen in this commandment to rejoice more than all [other] commandments that are mentioned in the Torah?” He said to him “All commandments in the Torah have been given to us by God consciously. [But] this unconsciously, because if we would have done it willingly in front of God, this commandment would not be counted for us.” He said [back] to him , “It says, ‘When you will harvest your harvest in your field and you will forget a sheaf in the field, do not go back to take it. It shall be [left there] for the Non-Jewish resident, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that Hashem, your God, will bless you with all the deeds of your hand.’ (Devarim 24:19) The verse has granted him a blessing. Is not it a Kal Vechomer? Just like someone who did not intend to do something good, but he [ended up] doing something good [anyway], the verse considers him as if he has done something good, so for sure someone who intended to do something good, and [ended up] doing something good how much more so?”
6. In this parsha, four mitzvos of memory. In two, remembering is a mitzva. In one, not remembering is a mitzva. In another, remembering is a mitzva and forgetting is a lo saaseh.
The story of Miriam’s lashon hara, Miriam, 24:9. That you were an eved in Mitzrayim, 24:18. Shikcha, 24:19 ; Amalek, 25:17.
7. What type of object may one not take as collateral?
24:6 - Utensils used to process food, such as a flour mill.
לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל
8. Two neviim mentioned in the Parsha, a man and a woman.
23:5-6, Bilaam. Lehavdil, 24:9, Miriam.
9. Three examples of the Torah’s discouragement of the mistreatment of animals, צער בעלי חיים.
22:7, Shiluach Hakan.
22:10, Lo Sachrosh beshor vechamor yachdov.
25:4, Lo Sachsom shor bedisho.
10. Three halachos mentioned in our Parsah that occur at sunset or nightfall.
23:12, a person or an object that was tovel becomes fully tahor. (tzeis.)
24:13, you have to return to the borrower his clothing you took as collateral. (Shkiyah.)
24:15, you have to have paid your laborer his day’s wages (CM 339:3.) (Shkiyah.)
11. The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel from the Lomzer Rov and others write that calling a child a name which is used by the opposite gender (like naming a boy 'Sue,') violates the prohibition (22:5) of lo yilbash. Rav Chaim Kanievsky lists 79 names in Chazal and Tanach which are used for both men and women. (The ones who asser, I assume, are talking about cases where the name is used exclusively for one gender.) How many can you identify that are currently used for both genders? (Taima D’Kra)
Yonah, Simcha, Zissel, Shimmy, Yoel, Michal, Micha, Seruya.
12. 22:19 seems to mean that a woman can be married to a man who tried to have her murdered.
וענשו אתו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה כי הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ולו תהיה לאשה לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו
Is this really true?
כי ה' אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך להצילך ולתת איביך לפניך והיה מחניך קדוש ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך
צפרנים
21:12
וְגִלְּחָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְעָשְׂתָה אֶת צִפׇּרְנֶיהָ.
It does say צפורן שמיר in Yirmiahu 17:1, חטאת יהודה כתובה בעט ברזל בצפרן שמיר חרושה על לוח לבם ולקרנות מזבחותיכם, but it doesn’t mean fingernail there. It means a sharp pointed inscribing instrument, like hammer and nails. So the צפרנים in our parsha still counts as a one time word.
15. It is very important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah. Why would the Irish Rebellion and the troubles that followed have never occurred if only Henry the Eighth had paid attention to the Krias Hatorah of Parshas Ki Seitzei.
Henry wanted to marry his brother, Arthur's, widow, Catherine of Aragon, in 1509, but was told he could not because she had been married to his brother. They accepted the issur of a woman once married to a brother, but did not accept the mitzvah of Yibum that we find in this week's parsha. So he called up the Pope, and said "Pope, can you annul Catherine's marriage to Arthur? It was never consummated." And the Pope said, "ok, fine, I'll grant a dispensation." Henry married her. Catherine didn't have male children and he wanted to get rid of her and formalize his relationship with his mistress, Anne Boleyn. The problem was that the Church did not allow divorce at all, even though it's in this week's parsha. He called the Pope again. He said "Good Yontif, Pontif. It's Henry. I'd like for you to annul the marriage to Catherine." The Pope said, "What are you talking about? I did that like twenty five years ago!" Henry said, "No, I mean the marriage between me and her." The Pope said, "What, this also wasn't consummated? So where did Bloody Mary come from? Stop bothering me. No more dispensations, and forget about any annulments." So Henry went and created the Anglican church, his Archbishop annulled their marriage, and he married his paramour, Anne Boleyn. (This marriage was also sub-optimal.)
England became Anglican, Ireland remained Catholic, the Anglicans treated the Irish Catholics terribly, and this all led to the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the endless trouble that followed.
The point is, that if had done Yibum, he could have had Katherine without calling the Pope, and when he wanted to move on to Anne Boleyn, he could have simply divorced her. There would have been no need to found the Anglican Church. From here we see that it is important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah.
16. How many mitzvos are there in the Parsha of Amaleik.
According to the Rambam, three. Zachor, Timcheh, and Lo Sishkoch. Also according to the Ramban and the Smag and the Sefer HaChinuch.
Zachor- To read the parsha once a year.
Timcheh- To destroy.
Lo Sishkoch- To never forgive, not to let the passage of time weaken our wrath for their atrocities.
Rav Saadiah Gaon and the Bahag only count #1. See Rav Yerucham Fishel P for his discussion, especially the ibn Ezra that he brings. It boils down to the idea that there is one mitzva: destroy them. The others are just for emphasis, to stress how important Timcheh is.
שאלה: האם צריך השומע להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה שבקריאת פרשת זכור?
תשובה: יש מי שכתב שצריך להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה, ויש שכתבו שמספיק להבין הענין של פרשת זכור.
מקורות: עיין מועדים וזמנים להגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א [ח"ב סי' קס"ה] דיש ליזהר להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה שבפרשת זכור דאם אינו מבין אינו יוצא ידי חובה לדעת התוספות וסיעתם הסוברים שהשומע ברכה מחבירו [אפילו בלשון הקודש] אינו יוצא מדין שומע כעונה אלא אם כן מבין השומע כל מילה ומילה, וכוותיהו פסק המחבר בסי' קצ"ג ס"א. ואף דנהגינן להקל כשיטת רש"י שיוצאים בשמיעה מדין שומע כעונה אף אם אינו מבין פירוש המילים [עיין משנ"ב סי' קצ"ג ס"ק ה'] מיהו לכתחילה ראוי ליזהר ולחוש לדעת התוספות וסיעתם [כדמשמע שם במשנ"ב],
ועל כן יש לעורר ולהזהיר על הדבר משום שמצוי שאין השומע מבין כל מילה ומילה כגון "ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים אחריך" שרבים אינם יודעים פירוש הדברים, וכן "אשר קרך", וכן בפסוק "ולא ירא אלוקים", שאין הכל יודעים שהכוונה על עמלק ולא על ישראל כמבואר בפרש"י על התורה עכ"ד. אמנם משמיה דהגרי"ש אלישיב זצ"ל מטו שהעיקר להבין את הענין ולא צריך להבין כל מילה ומילה (פסקי שמועות סי' תרפ"ה), וכ"כ בספר אגרת הפורים (להגרי"ד ספטימוס שליט"א) בשם הגר"נ קרליץ זצ"ל והגר"ח קניבסקי זצ"ל שמסתבר שמספיק להבין העניין של פרשת זכור ואין צריך להבין כל המילים עיי"ש
קרך-happened upon you
ויזנב- tailed you, cut down the people in back
הנחשלים=הנחלשים- the weak or the stragglers.
Amaleik. - ולא ירא אלוקים
