Questions for Bereishis 2026

 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.  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.   I find that it increases attention to Krias HaTorah and is mentally stimulating both for the audience and for me. 

1.  Regarding the word "Yam." If it is dry, if it has no water in it, is it still called a Yam?

Yes, as Rabbeinu Bachay demonstrates in 1:10

וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים. אֵין שֵׁם הַיָּם נִקְרָא עַל הַמַּיִם כִּי אִם עַל הַחֲפִירָה, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אוּנְקְלוֹס: ״וּלְבֵית כְּנֵישׁוּת מַיָּא״, כְּלוֹמַר הַחֲפִירָה, שֶׁהוּא בֵּית הַמִּקְוֶה שֶׁהַמַּיִם נִקְוִים שָׁם. וְכֵן אָמַר הַכָּתוּב (ישעיה י״א:ט׳): ״כַּמַּיִם לַיָּם מְכַסִּים״, כִּי הַמַּיִם מְכַסִּים אֶת הַחֲפִירָה הַנִּקְרֵאת יָם. וְכֵן בְּבִרְכַּת הַדָּגִים אוֹ הַתַּנִּינִים בְּיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי אָמַר: ״וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים״, בֵּאֵר כִּי הַמַּיִם עוֹמְדִים בַּיַּמִּים. וּרְאָיָה עוֹד הַיָּם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה, הוּא שֶׁכָּתוּב (מ״ב י׳) ״וְאֶת הַיָּם הוֹרִיד מֵעַל הַבָּקָר״. וְאָמַר ״קָרָא יַמִּים״ וְלֹא יָם, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם רַבִּים, וְדָרְשׁוּ רז״ל: שִׁבְעָה יַמִּים הֵם:

This means that the word "Yam" means "Basin." 

Rabbeinu Bachay is really not saying that big of a chiddush.  Everyone knows that a pool comes from pooled, and so it means a container for water, and a mikveh is for gathered water, and בית כנישות מיא means water gathering place.  All you can prove is that you call an empty pool a pool, and an empty mikva a mikva, so you could call an empty ocean an ocean. But that is only because they are expected to contain water. If it didn't, you would have to modify it by saying it's empty, because stam ocean of course both connotes and denotes the presence of water, just like the word "pool." If it never contains water, even Rabbeinu Bachay would agree that you can't call it a "yam."

2.  Rashi in 2:5 says that Hashem did not make it rain until a sentient creature could understand how important rain was, and ask for rain, and appreciate it when his prayer was answered.  Rashi:

כי לא המטיר. וּמַ"טַ לֹא הִמְטִיר? לְפִי שֶׁאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה, וְאֵין מַכִּיר בְּטוֹבָתָם שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים, וּכְשֶׁבָּא אָדָם וְיָדַע שֶׁהֵם צֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם, הִתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם וְיָרְדוּ וְצָמְחוּ הָאִילָנוֹת וְהַדְּשָׁאִים:

Tefilla for geshem is the first tefilla in the Torah. It is, in a sense, the אב of tefillos (R' Schwab), and it is so important that if you skip Geshem in Shmoneh Esrei, you have to repeat it. 

What else was only given after Adam realized what vital thing he was missing, so that he could properly appreciate it.

2:20-22   A spouse, an עזר כנגדו. (Taama d'Kra.)

וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. וַיַּפֵּל ה' אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה. וַיִּבֶן  ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם.

3.  Fact:  Ashkenazi is a name far more common in Sefardic lands than in Ashkenazi communities. Only rarely do you find an Ashkenazi Jew living in Europe named Ashkenazi. How does this explain why Adam was given his name?

Because only in Sefardi lands does it make sense to call someone who migrated from Europe Ashkenazi. In Europe, there would be no point of calling someone Ashkenazi any more than Yehudi. So, too, all land creatures were made of earth, but Adam also had a Neshama from the Ribono shel Olam. So he was called Adam because of the incongruity of his origin.

4.  A word in the parsha that means both concealed and exposed.

ערום

2:25

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ.

3:1

וְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה 

Here are some thoughts on the two meanings:

---Radak in 3:1- They are different words, distinguished by cholam in naked and shuruk in cunning.    In other words, you can tell if it's naked by its nikkud.

---ibn Ezra in 3:1- The word has two meanings, and the choice of this dual-meaning word is a poetic device. 

ופי' ערום חכם שיעשה דבריו בערמה, ואל תתמה בעבור היות ערום אחר ערומים, והם שני טעמים, כי באלה הצחות בלשון, כמו "בלחי החמור חמור חמורתים (שופ', טו טז), וכן "על שלשים עיירים, ושלשים עיירים להם" (שם יו"ד ד),

---Targum "Yonasan" in 3:1 is the most surprising of all 

וַהֲווֹ תַּרְוֵויהוֹן חַכִּימִין אָדָם וְאִינְתְּתֵיהּ וְלָא אַמְתִּינוּ בִּיקָרֵיהוֹן

(Whoever wrote Targum Yonasan- and we know it was not the Tanna Yonasan ben Uziel, since the Gemara says he only wrote on Neviim, it is a respected source.) 

Here is what Rav Kook says about the Targum Yonasan, which he explains assumes a dual meaning in the term "Arum"- unclothed, and not "cunning," but instead "purely intellectual":

שו"ת משפט כהן 

 הרה"ג רב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק

 וע"ד הת"י (בראש' ב, כח), נ"ל דה"פ דהוו חכימין שהיו גדולים בכבוד ובחכמה, אלא שהיתה גדולתם עד ארגיעה (משלי י"ב י"ט - ועד ארגיעה לשון שקר)  ולא האריכה להם שעת גדולתם ויקרם, והיינו ולא יתבוששו, דמפרש שלא התעכבו בכבודם. והוא ע"ד המד"ר פי"א דבראשית ע"פ אדם ביקר ולא ילין שלא לן כבודו עמו. וי"ל דהת"י מפרש, דערומים" כולל שני הפי' יחד, לשון חכמה וערמה וגם מלשון ערום בלא לבוש, והם תלויים זה בזה עפ"ד הרמב"ם במו"נ ח"א פ"ב, שמתוך גדולת החכמה בעניני האמת לא הכירו את המפורסמות, ע"כ מתוך שהי' ערומים בערמה העליונה, שהיא חכמת האמת, ע"כ היו ערומים שלא הרגישו כלל בגנות המפורסמות. ושפיר קאמר במנחת שי, שבחכמה שאין בה מובן של ערמות, שכונתה בלא לבוש, חכימין רפין", אבל כשיש בה ג"כ הכונה של ערום בלא לבוש אז מדגישין, ומתקיים הרמז ערטילאין דחיקין", ומתקימת הצחות ע"ד קצירי ומריעי רבנן, ע"כ חכימין רפין, והדחוקין בפרנסתם הם ההולכים ערטילאין, ובשם משותף ודאי הדגוש גובר ומתחבר כדי להבליט את שתי הכונות ביחד.

This is the theme of the Rambam in the beginning of the Moreh: that a purely intellectual being will not comprehend beauty and good or ugliness and bad outside of the dispassionate dichotomy of true/false. Adam before the chet had no sense of מפורסמות, of subjective beauty or good, only of emes and sheker. Because he was perfectly ערום in דעת he was indifferent to the 'shame' of being ערום, physically naked. Because he was ערום he was indifferent to being ערום. The Targum's translation of לא יתבוששו as לא אמתינו is like the Medrash that this state of emotionless perfection of intellect did not last long. 

For what it's worth, and I know it's not worth much at all, I don't understand why the Rambam says that. If a perfect intellect would disdain emotion, Hashem would have given the adam harishon a chavrusa, not a wife. We are created with the capacity for pain and for pleasure, and the ability to perceive and celebrate esthetic beauty and to abhor ugliness, and these faculties must have an essential purpose that is not at odds with or even superfluous to the perfect human.

UPDATE: Thank you to the great talmid chacham whom I am privileged to call a friend, Harav Avraham Wagner, who directed my attention to one of his brilliant sefarim, Naar Yonasan, in which he defends the possibility that Yonasan ben Uziel was indeed the author of our Targum Yonasan, and, to the point here, says the following: which is a much more elegant and succinct way of saying what I said from the Moreh.

כה. חכימין. דרש ערום כמו חכם כדבסמוך וכן (משלי כ"ב ג') ערום ראה רעה.ואולי בא להורות כמש"כ הספורנו וכ"ה במדרה"ג שמחמת גבהות מחשבתן לכן לא הקפידו בגילוי ערותן. 

Here is the Seforno Rabbi Wagner brings. Note that the Seforno does not use the idea to explain ערומים, only to explain ולא יתבוששו. Thק connection to ערומים was made by Rav Kook and להבחל"ח Rabbi Wagner.

עֲרוּמִּים וְלֹא יִתְבּוֹשָׁשׁוּ. כִּי אָז הָיוּ כָּל פְּעֻלּוֹתֵיהֶם וְכָל אֵיבְרֵיהֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנָם בִּלְבַד, לֹא לְהַשִּׂיג תַּעֲנוּגוֹת נִפְסָדוֹת כְּלָל, בְּאֹפֶן שֶׁהָיְתָה פְּעֻלַּת הַזִּוּוּג אֶצְלָם כִּפְעֻלַּת הָאֲכִילָה וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה הַמַּסְפֶּקֶת, וּבְכֵן הָיָה עִנְיַן אֵיבָרִים הָהֵם אֶצְלָם כְּמוֹ עִנְיַן הַפֶּה וְהַפָּנִים וְהַיָּדַיִם אֶצְלֵנוּ.

---Others:  The same Hebrew root signifies both 'naked' and 'subtle, clever, mischievous'. Seeming simplicity is often the most dangerous weapon of cunning. 

(For a lengthy discussion of Hebrew words with two opposite meanings, see this post- 

Contronyms: מילים שיש להם מובנים הפכיים )

5.  Did Chava have a mitzva of Pirya v'Rivya?

Yes, she did. The Mitzva of Pru uRevu was said in the plural. Even though we pasken that women are not obligated to have children, (Yevamos 65:b), Chava was. See Reb Meir Simcha in Meshech Chochma in Noach 9:7 who says that only after childbirth entailed danger and pain were women no longer obligated to bear children and were left to make the personal decision whether to do so. When Chava was created, that was not the case, and so she was obligated no less than Adam.

6.  When does the Torah stop referring to Adam as Ha'adam and begin just calling him Adam, and why.

Only after he had children, in 4:25, is he call Adam, not HaAdam. Until then, he was all of Mankind. After that, he was a man named Adam.  (Taama d'Kra.)

7.  On Hoshana Rabba, we say Hoshana. Most people would say that means "Save us now" or "Save us please." But we also say Hoshana v'Hoshia na. Hoshiah definitely means save us, so הושענא והושיע נא is redundant. Can you suggest another meaning for the word Hoshana based on a word that appears twice in our parsha.

Yes, you can.

4:4-5

וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן וַיִּשַׁע ה' אֶל הֶבֶל וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ. וְאֶל קַיִן וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ לֹא שָׁעָה 

Here, שעה means "pay attention" or "take heed." I think that הושענא comes from שעה and means "hear us, listen to us, take notice of us please."

But not according to Artscroll and Rabbi Avraham Isenberg, who say that both Hosha and Hoshiah mean "save." Rabbi Isenberg brings proof from the Metzudos Tzion in Iyov 30:24 

אַ֣ךְ לֹֽא בְ֭עִי יִשְׁלַח יָ֑ד אִם־בְּ֝פִיד֗וֹ לָהֶ֥ן שֽׁוּעַ׃

who says 

בעי. בקבר העשוי כתל ודגור והוא מל׳ לעי השדה (מיכה א): 

בפידו. ענין שבר כמו ופיד שניהם (משלי כד): 

שוע. מלשון ישועה ונפלה היו״ד וכאשר יאמר בול הרים (לקמן מ) מן יבול: 

But I don't give up. I feel certain that whoever wrote the piyutim had both meanings in mind. It would be a pity to think that a word can only mean one thing at a time.

8.  The Gemara in Bava Metzia 35a says that a person who is entrusted with something has an enforceable legal obligation to know where it is at all times- כל לא ידענא פשיעותא הוא. What is a raya to this from our parsha.

4:9

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל קַיִן אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵר אָחִי אָנֹכִי

9.  Who was the first man who we know married two women.

Lamech. 4;19

וַיִּקַּח לוֹ לֶמֶךְ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָדָה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית צִלָּה

10.  Who named Sheis, Adam or Chava?

4:25

וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹהִים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן.

5:3

וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת.

Chizkuni-

ותקרא את שמו שת. אבל למטה הואיל ובא לו הכתוב לסדר סדר תולדות הדורות נכון לכתוב קריאת השם על אדם.

I think the Chizkuni means that really Chava named him, but in the 'formal list of names," it describes him as being given the name by his father.

11.  Who are the four women named in the Parsha.

Chava;

Adda and Tzila, Lamech's two wives;

Naama, Lemech's daughter from Tzila, who might have been Noach's wife, and if so, the only descendant of the Kayin side of the family that we know of who lived through the mabul.  

Also, if she was Noach's wife, then they weren't makpid on Reb Yehuda HaChasid's warning that mechutanim should not have the same name  ( שני בני אדם ששמותיהם שוים לא יזדווגו יחד בילדיהם). Noach's father was also called Lamech, so a Kayin-ite Lamech was the mechutan of a Sheis-ite Lamech.

Questions for Haazinu 2026

 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.  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.   I find that it increases attention to Krias HaTorah and is mentally stimulating both for the audience and for me. 

1. What is the singular of ענבים

32:14

חֶמְאַת בָּקָר וַחֲלֵב צֹאן עִם חֵלֶב כָּרִים וְאֵילִים בְּנֵי בָשָׁן וְעַתּוּדִים עִם חֵלֶב כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה וְדַם עֵנָב תִּשְׁתֶּה חָמֶר.

2. In Megillas Eicha, isolation is seen as a tragedy. Where in this Parsha do we see that it can also be a positive for Klal Yisrael.

23:9

כִּי מֵרֹאשׁ צֻרִים אֶרְאֶנּוּ וּמִגְּבָעוֹת אֲשׁוּרֶנּוּ הֶן עָם לְבָדָד יִשְׁכֹּן וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב.

3. Find a remez for techiyas

hameisim in the parsha.

Corollary: why is it that we never find explicit mentions of kiyum haneshama, much less techiyas hameisim, in Torah she'biksav, until the time of the Neviim.

32:39

ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא ואין אלהים עמדי אני אמית ואחיה מחצתי ואני ארפא ואין מידי מציל

אבן עזרא

אני אני. ..... ורבים אומרים כי מזה הכתוב נלמוד חיי העולם הבא והעד שאמר בתחלה 'אמית' ואחר כך 'אחיה' וכן ה' ממית ומחיה והעד ה' מוריד שאול ויעל ואחרים אמרו מפסוק ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם גם וצדקה תהיה לנו כי היא חייך בעוה״‎ב ואורך ימיך בעולם הזה למען ייטב לך. 

ורבינו האי ז״‎ל אמר כי לא הוצרך הכתוב לפרש דבר העוה״‎ב כי היה ידוע בהעתק' 

ולפי דעתי שהתורה נתנה לכל לא לאחד לבדו ודבר העוה״‎ב לא יבינו א' מני אלף כי עמוק הוא ושכר העוה״‎ב תלוי בדבר הנשמה והנה הוא חלף עבודת הלב ועבודתו להתבונן מעשה השם כי הם הסולם לעלות בו אל מעלת דעת השם שהוא העיקר והנה גם התורה ביארה למשכיל דבר עץ החיים והנה יש כח לנצח הכרובים והאוכל מעץ החיים וחי לעולם כמלאכי השרת וכן במזמור לבני קרח שמעו זאת כל העמים והסוד אך אלהים יפדה נפשי מיד שאול כי יקחני סלה וכן אחר כבוד תקחני והנה עם שניהם לקיחה כאשר עם דבר חנוך ואליהו ואחר שאמר ויקר פדיון נפשם איך אמר יפדה נפשי והמשכיל יבין:

4. Where do we find that in cases of tortious interference, the malefactor is liable for opportunity cost.  In other words- that where a person wrongly disrupts a relationship between two parties, he is liable for the resulting loss of a benefit.

32:51

על אשר מעלתם בי בתוך בני ישראל במי מריבת קדש מדבר צן על אשר לא קדשתם אותי בתוך בני ישראל

Questions for Nitzavim Vayeilech 2026

 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.  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.   I find that it increases attention to Krias HaTorah and is mentally stimulating both for the audience and for me. 

Nitzavim

1. The Levush in the halachos of Yamim Noraim, brought by the Taz in תרפ'ב, holds that to say מלוך על כל העולם כולו בכבודך is redundant, and you should just say מלוך על כל העולם, or מלוך על העולם כולו. Bring a raya from our parsha that the Torah does use that form.

2. Another language question.   We think of “from x to x” as from beginning to end, like from a to z, from soup to nuts (we would say "from gefilte fish to compot,) or from top to bottom.  But when Avraham told the king of Sedom that he wanted nothing from him, he said מחוט ועד שרוך נעל, from a thread to a leather strap, both trifling items. Apparently, it was used for emphasis, to mean “absolutely nothing,” like gornisht mit gornisht. Where do we find the same expression in this week’s parsha.

3.  The word for master, מר, is a homonym for the word for bitter. Where do we find the same kind of homonym in this week's parsha, where the same word is used for master and for bitter.

4. In last week's parsha, the dikduk of Sefer Torah is feminine. 

28:61, גם כל חלי וכל מכה אשר לא כתוב בספר התורה הזאת

Find where in this week's parsha, Sefer Torah is masculine. 

 5. Only in this parsha are we told that Sedom and Amora had sister cities that were destroyed along with them. What are their names?

6. Pesukim in our parsha that say that if you sincerely resolve to do teshuva, then Hashem will help you do it.

7. A passuk about teshuva in our parsha that hints to the name of the month before Rosh Hashanna.

Vayeilech

1.  There is an opinion among the Rishonim that a Geir is not obligated to come to the Beis HaMikdash for Aliyah l'Regel, because he does not own land from the division of Eretz Yisrael, and the Gemara in Pesachim 8b says that only those who own land are chayav in Aliyah l'Regel. Some Rishonim disagree, and say he is chayav- the Rambam does not bring any such petur and the Meiri clearly says he is chayav. But assuming that he is pattur from Aliyah l'Regel, there is one regel when he has to be in Yerushalayim and one where he has to be in the Beis HaMikdash. What are they?

2. Does the Torah obligate people to go to the Mikdash for Hakhel.

3. Find a remez for techiyas hameisim in the parsha.

Netzavim

1. The Levush in the halachos of Yamim Noraim, brought by the Taz in תרפ'ב, holds that to say מלוך על כל העולם כולו בכבודך is redundant, and you should just say מלוך על כל העולם, or מלוך על העולם כולו. Bring a raya from our parsha that the Torah does use that form.

אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם לִפְנֵי ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם זִקְנֵיכֶם וְשֹׁטְרֵיכֶם כֹּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

טַפְּכֶם נְשֵׁיכֶם וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶיךָ מֵחֹטֵב עֵצֶיךָ עַד שֹׁאֵב מֵימֶיךָ

The passuk itemizes everyone, and it could have skipped כולכם. You see that this is an acceptable style of speech. All of you: x, y, and z.

According to the Rama miPano brought in Reb Akiva Eiger on Chulin 4b, the word "kol," even in Tanach, is not meant to be taken literally. I realized this when working on קרוב השם לכל קוראיו לכל אשר יקראוהו באמת. 

In light of Rosh Hashannah, this is a perfect example of סקירא אחת and כבני מרון. As a group-כולכם.  But equally, an examination of every individual -כל איש ישראל.

 2. Another language question.

We think of “from x to x” as from beginning to end, like from a to z, from soup to nuts (we would say "from gefilte fish to compot,) or from top to bottom.  But when Avraham told the king of Sedom that he wanted nothing from him, he said מחוט ועד שרוך נעל, from a thread to a leather strap, both trifling items. Apparently, it was used for emphasis, to mean “absolutely nothing,” like gornisht mit gornisht. Where do we find the same expression in this week’s parsha.

In 29:10.

טַפְּכֶ֣ם נְשֵׁיכֶ֔ם וְגֵ֣רְךָ֔ אֲשֶׁ֖ר בְּקֶ֣רֶב מַחֲנֶ֑יךָ מֵחֹטֵ֣ב עֵצֶ֔יךָ עַ֖ד שֹׁאֵ֥ב מֵימֶֽיךָ׃

In light of Rosh Hashannah, I think the point is that 

הלא כל הגיבורים כאין לפניך ואנשי השם כלא היו. וחכמים כבלי מדע ונבונים כבלי השכל כי רוב מעשינו תוהו וימי חיינו הבל לפניך ומותר האדם מן הבהמה אין

that every human being stands in judgment before the Ribono shel Olam, from the greatest to the least, all face the same judgment. And who knows who is favored? We can not know from our human eyes. 

האדם יראה לעיניים וה' יראה ללבב

and in Shamayim, in the world of truth, 

עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה. 

The same span we see between a king and a child might exist between the two who we see as the lowest, the chotev eitzim and the shoev mayim.

3.  The word for master, מר, is a homonym for the word for bitter. Where do we find the same kind of homonym in this week's parsha, where the same word is used for master and for bitter.

29:9

אתם נצבים היום כלכם לפני ה' אלהיכם ראשיכם שבטיכם זקניכם ושטריכם כל איש ישראל

29:17

פן יש בכם שרש פורה ראש ולענה

4. In last week's parsha, the dikduk of Sefer Torah is feminine. 

28:61, גם כל חלי וכל מכה אשר לא כתוב בספר התורה הזאת

Find where in this week's parsha, Sefer Torah is masculine. 

29:20, הכתובה בספר התורה הזה

Rashi explains

הכתובה בספר התורה הזה. וּלְמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר "גַּם כָּל חֳלִי וְכָל מַכָּה … בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת"? הַזֹּאת — לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה מוּסָב אֶל הַתּוֹרָה, הַזֶּה — לְשׁוֹן זָכָר מוּסָב אֶל הַסֵּפֶר, וְעַל יְדֵי פִסּוּק הַטְּעָמִים הֵן נֶחֱלָקִין לִשְׁתֵּי לְשׁוֹנוֹת, בְּפָרָשַׁת הַקְּלָלוֹת הַטִּפְּחָא נְתוּנָה תַּחַת בְּסֵפֶר, וְהַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת דְּבוּקִים זֶה לָזֶה, לְכָךְ אָמַר הַזֹּאת, וְכָאן הַטִּפְּחָא נְתוּנָה תַּחַת הַתּוֹרָה, נִמְצָא סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה דְּבוּקִים זֶה לָזֶה, לְפִיכָךְ לְשׁוֹן זָכָר נוֹפֵל אַחֲרָיו, שֶׁהַלָּשׁוֹן נוֹפֵל עַל הַסֵּפֶר:

In the first, it is tipcha meircha. In the second, it is meircha tipcha. Mercha begins a phrase, tipcha is a separator.

אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א כָת֔וּב בְּסֵ֖פֶר הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את

הַכְּתוּבָ֕ה בְּסֵ֥פֶר הַתּוֹרָ֖ה הַזֶּֽה

But this explanation really explains nothing. The difference in trop is a consequence of a difference in meaning. What remains to be seen is why did the Torah change the description of Sefer Torah from Sefer (Torah) to (Sefer) Torah?

I do not know.

 5. Only in this parsha are we told that Sedom and Amora had sister cities that were destroyed along with them. What are their names?

29:22, Adma and Tzevoyim, from the five city axis of  בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם,  בִּרְשַׁע מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה, שִׁנְאָב מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה, שֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צביים,  וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִיא צֹעַר.

Reb Chaim Kanievsky asks why Tzoar was not mentioned here, and he says that it was destroyed in a different manner.

6. Pesukim in our parsha that say that if you sincerely resolve to do teshuva, then Hashem will help you do it.

30:2,

וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ בְּכׇל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכׇל נַפְשֶׁךָ׃

30:6,

וּמָל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְאֶת לְבַב זַרְעֶךָ לְאַהֲבָה אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ לְמַעַן חַיֶּיךָ.

 Ramban-

וּמָל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ, זֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (שבת קד) הַבָּא לִטָּהֵר מְסַיְּעִין אוֹתוֹ, מַבְטִיחֲךָ שֶׁתָּשׁוּב אֵלָיו בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ, וְהוּא יַעֲזֹר אוֹתְךָ.

7. A passuk about teshuva in our parsha that hints to the name of the month before Rosh Hashanna.

30:6,

וּמָל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְאֶת לְבַב זַרְעֶךָ לְאַהֲבָה אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ לְמַעַן חַיֶּיךָ.

True, the name of the month is not lashon hakodesh and has no more kedusha than Yom Rishon being called Sunday. But I think that simanim were put into the Torah in anticipation of the name the Jewish People will actually use, no less than references to individuals who would be born and named thousands of years later or countries that did not exist at the time of Mattan Torah. Also, once you know that the names of Malachim also came from Bavel, it should be obvious that they have true significance, no less than מנצפ'ך. As the Satmarer says in his Tshuvos Divrei Yoel (OC 15)

ובמ״ר שם ר"ל אומר אף שמות המלאכים עלו מבבל ונראה קצת דבחדא מחתא מחתינהו שמות המלאכים ושמות החדשים ושמות המלאכים בוודאי אינו אלא "התגלות" משמים

In light of Rosh Hashannah, it's kedai to remember how the Kitzur organized them.

קיצור שלחן ערוך קכ״ח:א׳

עוֹד אָמְרוּ דּוֹרְשֵׁי רְשׁוּמוֹת, וּמָל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְאֶת לְבַב זַרְעֶךָ, רָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת אֱלוּל. 

וְכֵן אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי לִי, רָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת אֱלוּל. 

וְכֵן אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים רָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת אֱלוּל. 

רֶמֶז לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, שֶׁהֵם, תְּשׁוּבָה, תְּפִלָּה וּצְדָקָה, שֶׁצְרִיכִין לְהִזְדָּרֵז בָּהֶם בְּחֹדֶשׁ זֶה.  וּמָל ה' וְגוֹ' רוֹמֵז לִתְשׁוּבָה. אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְגוֹ' רוֹמֵז לִתְפִלָּה, שֶׁהִיא רִנַּת דּוֹדִים. אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים, רוֹמֵז לִצְדָקָה.

I would only add וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה מקום, the reference to Arei Miklat, in that the month of Elul and the Yamim Noraim are the refuge for one who wants to be saved from his terrible fate.

Vayeilech

1.  There is an opinion among the Rishonim that a Geir is not obligated to come to the Beis HaMikdash for Aliyah l'Regel, because he does not own land from the division of Eretz Yisrael, and the Gemara in Pesachim 8b says that only those who own land are chayav in Aliyah l'Regel. Some Rishonim disagree, and say he is chayav- the Rambam does not bring any such petur and the Meiri clearly says he is chayav. But assuming that he is pattur from Aliyah l'Regel, there is one regel when he has to be in Yerushalayim and one where he has to be in the Beis HaMikdash. What are they?

He has to be in Yerushalayim on Pesach. All but one Rishon, Tosfos in Pesachim 2b mei'alyah, say that land is not necessary for the chiyuv korban.  

From our parsha - 31:12. He has to be in the Beis HaMikdash on Sukkos in the year of Shemittah, for Hakhel. The Torah says clearly וגרך אשר בשעריך that Geirim do have to be there. (Taama d'Kra.)

It is true that the Rambam (3 Chagiga 2) says כל הפטור מן הראיה פטור ממצות הקהל חוץ מן הנשים והטף והערל and does not mention Geirim, but that is because he holds that Geirim are chayav in R'iyah. 

2. Does the Torah obligate people to go to the Mikdash for Hakhel.

The pesukim say (31:11-12)

 תקרא את התורה הזאת נגד כל ישראל באזניהם 

הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף וגרך אשר בשעריך למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו 

Some people see this as a machlokes Rambam saying it's only an obligation on the king and the leaders to gather the people, and the Chinuch who says every person is obligated to pay attention. Rambam Asei 16-

היא שצונו להקהיל את העם ביום השני של סכות במוצאי שמטה ולקרוא קצת פרשיות ממשנה תורה באזניהם 

Chinuch 612-

שנצטוינו שיקהל עם ישראל כלו אנשים ונשים וטף, במוצאי שנת השמטה בחג הסכות

I don't accept that the Rambam means that. Why would he argue on the Gemara in Kiddushin 34 that says that women would be pattur because of Zeman Grama if not for the explicit obligation. Also, how can it be that the king has an obligation to teach, but the people have no obligation to be taught.  There is no reason to say something when it is so obvious. It's kal vachomer bigger than למה לי קרא, סברא הוא.

The same question would apply to Birkas Kohanim. The Kohanim definitely have a mitzvah. Do the people have a mitzva to be present? Same issue.

Whatever you feel about this question, some want to relate this to the question about our Krias HaTorah, whether it is a personal obligation for individuals- Biur Halacha 146:2 dh יוש מתירים and Igros OC IV:23, or an obligation on the Tzibur as a whole that Krias HaTorah must take place in a minyan- Rosh Brachos 1:7 and Tzitz Eliezer 18:5, that as long as a minyan is paying attention, you can be maavir sedra or do the daf.

On this topic, there is a Chasam Sofer who strongly emphasizes that the Mitzva of Hakhel requires that you pay attnetion to every single word. In the Drashos page 26 he asks that bringing the children is good for the children, but the fathers are going to try to explain what the king is saying to their children, and they won't be able to pay proper attention to their own mitzva. They might hear it, technically, but it will be מתעסק, and they will not be yotzei. He learns this is the Gemara's question of טף למה הן באין. 

Here is his answer:

אמנם כן הוא בטבע בני אברהם אבינו כ''א מתאוה וחושק להעמיד בנו לעמוד חזק ביראת השם ותורתו כדכתיב באאע''ה כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו אחריו ושמרו ואע''פ שעי''ז הוא מפסיד לעצמו מ''מ כאשר בוער בו תשוקה זו ללמוד לבניו תורת ה' ויראתו ובאמת מפסיד מ''ע של עצמו דכוונת מצות חינוךמפסיד כוונת מצוה של עצמו אך לעומת זה שכרו של האב גדול יותר ויותר על שהפסיד לעצמו כדי להעמיד בן צדיק ות'''ח, והיינו כדי ליתן שכר למביאהם 

Yes, he won't be yotzei. But it's worth it to lose this once in seven year national gathering mitzvah of Torah b'Rabbim in order to be mechaneich your children.

 3. Find a remez for techiyas hameisim in the parsha.

31:16, הנך שוכב עם אבותיך וקם from San 90b.  

But it depends on the punctuation, whether the וקם ends the first phrase or begins the next one, וקם העם הזה וזנה. We hold that since the word וקם is אין לו הכרע, the pshat in the pasuk is correct either way so it is a raya to techiyas hameisim (Maharsha there in Sanhedrin.) The minim held that it's either/or, and only one is correct, so it's no raya.

שאלו מינין את רבן גמליאל מניין שהקדוש ברוך הוא מחיה מתים אמר להם מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים ולא קיבלו ממנו מן התורה דכתיב (דברים לא, טז) ויאמר ה' אל משה הנך שוכב עם אבותיך וקם. אמרו לו ודילמא וקם העם הזה וזנה.

ה.

Questions for Ki Savo 2026

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. In the parsha of Bikkurim, we mention that we were saved from two threats to our existence. These were not the only enemies we had faced- we do not mention Eisav, or Amalek. What is the common denominator of these two, an aggravating factor that makes what they did particularly relevant to Parshas Bikkurim. 

2.  In the language of the Torah, would borei pri haadama be an acceptable bracha on tree fruit? For people who are learning Daf Yomi, what about borei pri haadama on wine?

3.  Where do we find in the parsha a Haggada that is the matrix for our Haggada shel Pesach.

4.  Our parsha begins with two recitations involving agricultural mattanos. The first is called Mikra Bikkurim and the second Chazal call Viduy Maaser. The Gemara in Sotah says that one should be declaimed, loud and clear, and the other recited in a soft voice. Which and why.

5.  The Mishna in Sotah lists those recitations that can be in any language and those that must be in Hebrew. (For example: Krias Shema, any language. Birkas Kohahim- only in Lashon HaKodesh, to the extent that some poskim say that a person who mesora is the Ashkenazi pronunciation should try to hear duchening from Ashkenazim.) In our Parsha, we find the three such recitals: Mikra Bikurim, Viduy Maaser, and the national oration at Har Grizim and Har Eival. Chazal say that two of these must be said in Lashon HaKodesh, and one can be said in any language.  This halacha is based purely on drashos. פשוטו של מקרא, the simple reading, does not show anything.  Can you suggest a סברא that would explain why two of these are different than the third? Bikkurim, Maaser, and Grizim v’Eival.

6.  The UAE, the United Arab Emirates, is so named for the seven emirates that formed a federation. An Emirate is synonymous with a Sheikdom, and refers to an area ruled by a Sheik, or an Emir. Where do we find this term used in our Parsha.

7.  Usually, no punishment for intention to do an aveira. Avoda Zara is the exception. Where do we see this in the parsha.

8.  The Gemara in Megilla says that a person who wears Kosher Tefillin with the right Kavana will cause fear in his enemies who see him.

תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש (מגילה טז:)

(This is only true where the person does the mitzva perfectly without exception, and that the tefillin and his head form one indivisible unit, such as was the case with the Vilner Gaon.) Where do we see this idea in the parsha?

9.  Is a person allowed to marry a centaur or a mermaid.

10.  Just as humility is closely related to empathy, so too arrogance goes hand in hand with cruelty. Where do we see the connection of arrogance with cruelty in this parsha. 

11.  An object mentioned four times in our parsha and nowhere else in Tanach. According to some, it is the same Gematria as the number of masechtos in Shas.

1. In the parsha of Bikkurim, we mention that we were saved from two threats to our existence. These were not the only enemies we had faced- we do not mention Eisav, or Amalek. What is the common denominator of these two, an aggravating factor that makes what they did particularly relevant to Parshas Bikkurim.  

Both Lavan and the Egyptians owed us hakaras tov, and instead of being grateful, tried to destroy us.  Lavan admitted that he became wealthy because of Yaakov, and Chazal say that he knew that it was in Yaakov's zechus that he had sons- נִחַשְׁתִּי וַיְבָרְכֵנִי ה' בִּגְלָלֶךָ. Egypt survived the famine and became fantastically wealthy because of Yosef. But their unwillingness to be makir tov degenerated into murderous hatred. The theme of Bikkurim is Hakaras HaTov. The lesson here is that the absence of gratitude is not indifference. It is hatred. (Based on Rav Shmuel Birnbaum in Tiferes Shmuel.)

(As excellent as this is, you have to be prepared for someone to bring the Mechilta in Beshalach 25 that calls Amalek Kefuyei Tov:

אחרים אומרים: יבוא עמלק כפוי טובה, ויפרע מעם כפוי טובה.

Reb Shmuel actually did not mention Amalek, but that doesn't really help.

2.  In the language of the Torah, would borei pri haadama be an acceptable bracha on tree fruit? For people who are learning Daf Yomi, what about borei pri haadama on wine?

Bikkurim were brought from the Shivas Haminim, most of which are tree fruit, and the Torah calls them  (26:2)  מראשית כל פרי האדמה

Can you make a borei pri haadama (or ha'etz) on wine? The fact is that this is a machlokes haposkim brought in the Mishna Berura 208:sk70. It could be argued that this depends on the drasha that allows you to bring wine for bikkurim. Coincidentally, in 2026 this question is discussed in the daf for Friday August 28, Chulin 120b. The Gemara says that the word "Pri" by Bikkurim excludes juice, but "תביא" is a ribui to tell us that if you designated grapes and olives as Bikkurim and you later processed them into wine or oil, they are fit to be brought as Bikkurim. Mashma that the pashtus of the word Pri excludes wine or oil. 

(The recently found Ritva on Hilchos Brachos 3:11 says from the Re'ah that you are yotzei with ha'aetz and ha'adama on wine.)

You have to keep in mind that the language of the Torah and the language of Chazal are not the same. Even if "pri" in the Torah means davka the original fruit, it's pashut that the word "pri" in Chazal means "the object the tree was planted for." That is why the Chazon Ish (OC 33:5), speaking about that Gemara in Chulin, says that the proper bracha on orange juice (and apple juice) is Peri Ha'Etz, not shehakol.

3.  Where do we find in the parsha a Haggada that is the matrix for our Haggada shel Pesach.

26:3

וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי בָאתִי אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ.

The fact that the majority of the Hagada is based on the parsha of Bikkurim is in Pesachim 116a, Mishnayos 10:4, מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּם בְּשֶׁבַח, וְדוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֲרַמִּי אוֹבֵד אָבִי, עַד שֶׁיִּגְמֹר כֹּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כֻלָּהּ.  The parsha of Bikkurim also says וענית ואמרת לפני ה' אלהיך ארמי אבד אבי, which the Yerushalmi learns to mean literally responsively, that the Kohen speaks and you respond, which is like the responsive character of the Hagada shel Pesach.

So you see from there that the question/answer structure and the מתחיל בגנות elements are dinim in והגדת, not in תספר, in hagaddah, not sippur.

4.  Our parsha begins with two recitations involving agricultural mattanos. The first is called Mikra Bikkurim and the second Chazal call Viduy Maaser. The Gemara in Sotah says that one should be declaimed, loud and clear, and the other recited in a soft voice. Which and why.

26:5, Bikkurim, וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ, loud.

26:13, Maaser, וְאָמַרְתָּ, soft.

Sota 32b

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם אוֹמֵר שִׁבְחוֹ בְּקוֹל נָמוּךְ וּגְנוּתוֹ בְּקוֹל רָם. שִׁבְחוֹ בְּקוֹל נָמוּךְ — מִן וִידּוּי הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. גְּנוּתוֹ בְּקוֹל רָם — מִמִּקְרָא בִּיכּוּרִים

Rashi

שבחו - לא עברתי ממצותיך ולא שכחתי (דברים כ״ו:י״ג) היינו שבח עצמו: 

בקול נמוך - מדלא כתיב ביה ענייה: 

וגנותו - כגון ארמי אובד אבי היינו גנותו שמתודין שאביהן לבן הארמי היה רשע:

5.  The Mishna in Sotah lists those recitations that can be in any language and those that must be in Hebrew. (For example: Krias Shema, any language. Birkas Kohahim- only in Lashon HaKodesh, to the extent that some poskim say that a person who mesora is the Ashkenazi pronunciation should try to hear duchening from Ashkenazim.) In our Parsha, we find the three such recitals: Mikra Bikurim, Viduy Maaser, and the national oration at Har Grizim and Har Eival. Chazal say that two of these must be said in Lashon HaKodesh, and one can be said in any language.  This halacha is based purely on drashos. פשוטו של מקרא, the simple reading, does not show anything.  Can you suggest a סברא that would explain why two of these are different than the third? Bikkurim, Maaser, and Grizim v’Eival.

Bikkurim and Har Grizim ve'Har Eival are davka in Hebrew. Maaser is in any language.

The simplest explanation is that Har Grizim ve'Har Eival is a national event, and Mikra Bikkurim is the Jewish People speaking through individuals in a recapitulation of the nation's history. Viduy Maaser, on the other hand, is purely personal. לשון הקודש may not be the language of the individual, but when Klal Yisrael speaks, it speaks in לשון הקודש.

6.  The UAE, the United Arab Emirates, is so named for the seven emirates that formed a federation. An Emirate is synonymous with a Sheikdom, and refers to an area ruled by a Sheik, or Emir/Amir. Where do we find this term used in our Parsha.

26:17-18

את ה' האמרת היום להיות לך לאלהים וללכת בדרכיו ולשמר חקיו ומצותיו ומשפטיו ולשמע בקלו

וה' האמירך היום להיות לו לעם סגלה כאשר דבר לך ולשמר כל מצותיו

This word is also the idea behind the Eimurim of Korbanos and the piyut אנו מאמירך ואתה מאמירנו.

7.  Usually, no punishment for intention to do an aveira. Avoda Zara is the exception. Where do we see this in the parsha.

27:15, אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה even if he plans to do it. All the others are lashon hoveh, if he does it or if he did it.

8.  The Gemara in Megilla says that a person who wears Kosher Tefillin with the right Kavana will cause fear in his enemies who see him.

תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש (מגילה טז:)

(This is only true where the person does the mitzva perfectly without exception, and that the tefillin and his head form one indivisible unit, such as was the case with the Vilner Gaon.) Where do we see this idea in the parsha?

28:9-10

יְקִימְךָ ה' לוֹ לְעַם קָדוֹשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָךְ כִּי תִשְׁמֹר אֶת מִצְוֹת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ בִּדְרָכָיו: וְרָאוּ כָּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה' נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ וְיָרְאוּ מִמֶּךָּ

Tosfos in Brachos 6a says this is the Shel Rosh and the letter Shin on it. The Maharshal says the letter is both a reference to the Sheim Shakkai and also the number of days in the year that we wear tefillin (If and only If you wear tefillin on Chol Hamoed.)

Story, as written by Ozer Alport in his Parsha Potpourri:

The Vilna Gaon was once lodging at an inn when he heard loud cries and screams for help coming from the innkeeper’s room. Although the Gaon was in the middle of the morning prayers, he quickly ran to the aid of a fellow Jew. He threw open the innkeeper’s door and discovered a non-Jew mercilessly beating him. The attacked looked up at the door, and upon seeing the Gaon wearing his tallis and tefillin, was overcome with terror and promptly fainted.

After pulling himself together and recovering from the shock of the incident, the innkeeper expressed his tremendous gratitude to the Gaon for coming to his rescue. He added that while he was certainly appreciative, he was also curious as to the Gaon’s “magic weapon” which had inspired such fear in the heart of his attacker. The Gaon replied by citing the aforementioned Gemora and explaining that the sight of him adorned in his tefillin had caused the non-Jew to faint. The innkeeper asked for clarification, as he himself had been wearing his tefillin prior to the attack, but they had clearly proven ineffective.

The Gaon pointed out that the Gemora uses a peculiar expression. It doesn’t interpret the verse as referring to the tefillin which are on one’s head but rather to the tefillin which are in one’s head. He explained that merely placing the tefillin on one’s body is insufficient. Rather, one must contemplate the message of the portions contained therein until they are internalized. While the innkeeper had not yet done so, the Vilna Gaon was clearly on such a level, and when the non-Jew perceived his spiritual loftiness, he was overcome with dread to the point of fainting – exactly as promised by the Gemora!

(Also- they say that Reb Chaim Brisker said that the ability to know if tefillin are kosher by looking at them is easily attained and that he himself already possessed it at the age of 6 or 7.)

9.  Is a person allowed to marry a centaur or a mermaid.  

or a satyr or a manticore or a minotaur or a siren or a sphinx. 

No, sorry. 28:21,

אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם כׇּל בְּהֵמָה וְאָמַר כׇּל הָעָם אָמֵן.

even half human-half animal is assur. (Taama d'Kra. I am not making this up.)

Lechoira you shouldn't need this passuk because we would know it is assur from the fact that a half eved can not marry a half shifcha, because their ben chorin side is prohibited from the eved side of the other, אתי צד עבדות ומשמש בצד חירות. 

On the other hand, when it comes to issurim in the Kilayim family, we look at it as a whole, and there is no issur of אתי צד.

This see this in Tosfos BB 13a dh Kofin 

דהשתא נמי אתי צד עבדות ומשתמש בצד חירות ולא דמי לפרדה דאמר בפרק אותו ואת בנו (חולין דף עט. ושם) דמרביעין עליה מינה ולא אמר דאתי צד חמור ומשתמש בצד סוס דהתם כלאים כתיב דמשמע שני מינים דומיא דשור וחמור דחרישה ופרדה מין אחד בפני עצמו ומטעם זה מותר לרכוב עליה

and more from Tosfos Chulin 79a dh Mahu by ח'ע אסור בח'ש 

מהו דתימא אתי צד סוס ומשתמש כו' קמ"ל - לא דמי לחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין (חגיגה דף ב:) דאסור בחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין משום דאתי צד עבדות ומשמש בצד חירות דהכא כלאים אמר רחמנא דוקא תרי מיני וכל פרדות הבאין מסוס וחמור מין אחד הוא:

who distinguish between chasnus by chatzi eved and kilayim of choreish with chatzi beheima, that even if kilayim doesn't apply, chasnus is assur.  

(There is one rare case where the issur kilayim applies even to a halfling, but that is because of a special limud - the din in Makkos 22a that

 אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא הַמַּרְבִּיעַ שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים לוֹקֶה שְׁנַיִם אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק הַמַּנְהִיג בְּשׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים לוֹקֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּף אֶחָד הוּא וַעֲשָׂאוֹ הַכָּתוּב כִּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִים)

So: if שוכב עם כל בהמה is in the parsha of arayos, you shouldn't need any special limud. If it is in the parsha of kilayim, you would, because you would say that a chatzi beheima is called one thing, a מין בפני עצמו, and now you have to decide whether that one thing is a person or an animal, so you need our passuk of כל to say it is assur. 

If you think about it for a minute, it will make sense that the issur Shochev im b'heima is an issur kilayim, not ervah.

Here's a nice mareh makom. The Toras Kohanim in Shmini 3:3:7 says that a mermaid (a Siren) is not metamei b'ohel. The Raavad there says that you might think it has a din of a human, ka mashma lon. 

And at the risk of ועל דא אפקוהו לרבי ירמיה מבי מדרשא: Would a Jewish centaur be allowed to marry another centaur? If שוכב עם כל בהמה is a din of arayos, it would be a problem, just like חצי עבד. If it follows the lomdus of kilayim, it would be muttar, just like פרידה ופרידה. 

10.  Just as humility is closely related to empathy, so too arrogance goes hand in hand with cruelty. Where do we see the connection of arrogance with cruelty in this parsha. 

28:50-51

גּוֹי עַז פָּנִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשָּׂא פָנִים לְזָקֵן וְנַעַר לֹא יָחֹן. וְאָכַל פְּרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יַשְׁאִיר לְךָ דָּגָן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַד הַאֲבִידוֹ אֹתָךְ

11.  An object mentioned four times in our parsha and nowhere else in Tanach. According to some, it is the same Gematria as the number of masechtos in Shas.

Teneh.  26:2 and 4 by Bikkurim, and 28:5 and 17 by the Brachos and Klalos.

Shas stands for ששה סדרי משנה. But the Ohr Hachaim in 26:5 uses it as a a remez for the original sixty masechtos in Shas, until they were redivided into 63, by separating the Bavos and separating Sanhedrin from Makkos. טנא בגימטריא ס.  

After pointing out that the Torah is called ראשית, the Ohr HaChaim says

ואומרו ושמת בטנא. ירמוז שצריך כל מפעלות הטובות שעשה יהיו על פי דבריהם, כאומרו (לעיל י"ז י"א) על פי התורה אשר יורוך ועל המשפט וגו', והתורה והמשפטים ביארו אותם חכמים בס' מסכתות כמנין טנא, שזולת זה הגם שיעשה כל מצות שבעולם ישרף הוא והם.

Also 

מדרש שיר השירים רבה (וילנא) פרשה ו, ב ר' יצחק פתר קרייה בפרשיותיה של תורה, ששים המה מלכות, אלו ששים מסכתיות של הלכות

According to the Ohr HaChaim, the Torah is the true and the original cornucopia.

(I bought several of these prutos from Hendin.)

The cornucopia was a Hellenistic motif long before the Chashmonaim adopted it. But they didn't simply adopt it, they adapted it and infused it with Jewish meaning, particularly by placing the pomegranate between the two cornucopias.  To the Jewish people, it symbolized the mitzva and bracha of the Bikkurim and the Mikra Bikkurim of Jewish history. .