BS”D
Parashas Shelach Lecha Trivia 5778
R' Yehudah bar R' Chiya taught: G-d is not like a human doctor. When a human doctor prescribes a medicine, it will help one part of the patient's body, yet it may be harmful to another part. But G-d gave the Torah, which is a medicine that gives life to the whole body -- as it says, "And they heal his whole body." (Eruvin 54a)
FOR THE TEACHINGS OF THE TORAH ARE LIFE FOR SOMEONE WHO FINDS THEM, AND THEY HEAL HIS WHOLE BODY. (Avos 6:7)
This week’s Parasha Trivia is dedicated to the refuah of all Cholei Yisrael and in the merit of Devorah Brown, עמו"שׁ, who inspires us with her Torah Game on Facebook.
1. To whom does the expression סר צלם in 14:9 refer?
2. How many men comprise an עדה?
3. Why is the mitzvah of challa different from all the other mitzvos pertaining to Eretz Yisrael?
4. Does the Torah and Rabbis specify the minimum amount of challah to be given to a kohen?
5. Where is the sin of avoda zarah hinted to in this week’s parasha?
6. Why does the parasha of chillul Shabbos follow after the parsha of avodah zarah?
7. What are the SIMILARITIES between the episodes of the mekoshesh (wood gatherer) and the blasphemer (in Parshas Emor)?
8. What are the DIFFERENCES between the episodes of wood gatherer and the blasphemer?
9. Who received the Meraglim’s portion in Olam Haba?
10. Why did Hashem reward Yehoshua more so than Kalev?
IY”H, answers will be provided Motzaei Shabbos! Thank you for your participation on FB’s Virtual Beis Midrash for Women
1. To whom does the expression סר צלם in 14:9 refer?
Rashi on 14:9 Their protection is removed from them: Their shield and strength, their virtuous ones have died- [namely,] Iyov, who protected them [See Rashi on Sotah 35a, B.B. 15a]. (Another interpretation: The shade [protection] of the Omnipresent has departed from them.)
2. How many men comprise an עדה?
לעדה הרעה וגו'
Rashi on 14:27 this evil congregation: This refers to the spies; [we derive] from here that a congregation numbers [a minimum of] ten. — [Meg. 23b]
3. Why is the mitzvah of challa different from all the other mitzvos pertaining to Eretz Yisrael?
Verse 15:18 Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them, When you arrive in the Land to which I am bringing you,
15:19 and you eat from the bread of the Land, you shall set aside a gift for Hashem.
Rashi on Verse 15:18 When you arrive in the Land: Heb. בְּבֹאֲכֶם [lit., when you come to the Land] This ‘coming’ differs from all the other ‘comings’ in the Torah. For with the others, Scripture say,“when you will come” [in the singular] (כִּי תָבֹא) or [plural] (כִּי תָבֹאוּ); therefore, all of them learn [a particular law] from each other. Since in one of their cases, Scripture specifies that it applies only after inheritance and settling [in the Land], it therefore applies in all cases. But here it uses the term בְּבֹאֲכֶם as soon as they arrived there and ate from its bread, they were obligated to separate a portion of the dough. - [Sifrei Shelach 21]
Conclusion: The obligation to observe other mitzvos linked with Eretz Yisrael started only after the acquisition and partitioning of the Land. The mitzvah of challah was obligatory immediately upon entering the Land.
4. Does the Torah and Rabbis specify the minimum amount of challah to be given to a kohen?
Verse 15:20 The first portion of your dough, you shall separate a loaf for a gift; as in the case of the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you separate it.
The first portion of dough is terumah, whereas the gift of the threshing floor refers to challah.
Rashi on 15:20 - as in the case of the gift of the threshing floor: in which no amount is specified, but unlike the gift taken from the tithe [given by Levites to kohanim] for which an amount is specified. However, the Sages did specify an amount-for a householder, one twenty-fourth [of the dough] and for a baker one forty-eighth. - [Challah 2:7]
Conclusion: No fixed amount is stated by the Torah. Rabbinic Law requires a household to give 1/24 and a baker to give 1/48.
5. Where is the sin of avoda zarah hinted to in this week’s parasha?
Verse 14:4 They said to each other, "Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt!"
Rashi on Let us appoint a leader: Heb. נִתְּנָה רֹאשׁ. As the Targum renders, “Let us appoint a head.” Let us appoint a king over us. Our Sages, however, explained this as a term referring to idolatry. - [Mechilta Beshallach (Vayassa 1:22), Othioth d’Rabbi Akiva p. 398, Midrash Tannaim p. 2, Midrash Lekach Tov]
From verses 15:22-31
In verses 15:22 And if you should err and not fulfill all these commandments, which the Lord spoke to Moses.
Rashi on 15:22 And if you should err and not fulfill: Idolatry was included in “all the commandments” (Lev. 4:13) for which the community brings a bull [as a sin-offering], but here Scripture removes it from that category to apply to it the law of a bull for a burnt offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering. - [Sifrei Shelach 22]
Verse 15:31 For he has scorned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off for its iniquity is upon it.
Rashi on 15:31 the word of the L-rd: The warning against idolatry was [heard directly] by the word of the Divine; the rest was by the word of Moses. - [Hor. 8a]
6. Why does the parasha of chillul Shabbos follow after the parsha of avodah zarah?
The parasha on avodah zarah ends on verse -15:31
The parasha on chillul Shabbos begins 15:32 “When the children of Israel were in the desert, they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day.”
We derive from here that one who desecrates Shabbos is likened to one who worships idols.
The Gemara in Eruvin (69) discusses the status of a Mumar Le'chilul Shabbat, a person who knowingly violates the Shabbat, and records one view that likens Shabbat desecration to Avoda Zara (idolatry). Meaning, violating Shabbat is tantamount to the complete abandonment of the religion. The obvious question arises, why should this be the case? Why should the violation of Shabbat be treated with the same severity as Avoda Zara – a complete rejection of the Jewish faith?
The Chafetz Chayim (Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, Poland, 1839-1933) suggested an explanation by way of an analogy to a shopkeeper who leaves on vacation and leaves a sign on the door informing his customers that he has left temporarily. People seeing this sign will realize that the store has not gone out of business, and is rather closed for a brief period. But when people come to the store and find it closed without any sign on the door, they will know that the store has gone out of business and will not reopen.
Shabbat observance, the Chafetz Chayim explained, functions very similarly to the shopkeeper's sign. The Torah describes Shabbat as "an eternal sign" that the Almighty created the earth in six days and ceased His work of creation on the seventh. A Jew's observance of Shabbat serves as a sign that he is still "in business," that he is within the fold. Even if he might temporarily "leave," when he does not observe the Mitzvot as he should, his Shabbat observance expresses the fact that he still remains loyal to the covenant with G-d. But desecrating Shabbat is tantamount to removing the sign, it signifies that the individual has "gone out of business," has left the faith, and not merely "gone on vacation." This transgression, therefore, is understandably equated with idolatry.
This notion should drive us to reinforce our commitment to the study of the laws of Shabbat. Without the knowledge of these laws, one is very likely to transgress Shabbat, albeit unknowingly. Realizing the unique importance of this Mitzva, its function as a "sign" of our overall devotion, we must ensure to familiarize ourselves with the intricate laws of Shabbat so that we can observe them meticulously, down to the very last detail.
Source: http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=1077
7. What are the SIMILARITIES between the episodes of the mekoshesh (wood gatherer) and the blasphemer (in Parshas Emor)?
The parasha of the mekoshesh (wood gatherer):
Bamidbar 15:(32) "While Benei Yisrael were in the desert they found a man gathering wood on the Shabbat day. (33) Those who found him gathering wood brought him before Moshe and Aharon and all the congregation. (34) They placed him in custody, for it had not been declared what should be done with him. (35) Then God said to Moshe, "The man shall surely die; let the entire congregation stone him outside of the camp." (36) So the entire congregation took him outside of the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died, as God had commanded Moshe."
The parasha of the blasphemer:
Vayikra 14:11. And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. 12. They placed him in the guardhouse, [until his sentence would] be specified to them by the word of the Lord. 13.Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 14. Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and all who heard [his blasphemy] shall lean their hands on his head. And the entire community shall stone him. 15. And to the children of Israel, you shall speak, saying: Any man who blasphemes his God shall bear his sin. 16. And one who blasphemously pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.
Each of the stories describes a different sin, but in both cases, when the sinner is brought to Moshe, he is placed in custody until the punishment to be meted out is made clear. In both cases God tells Moshe that the sinner is deserving of the death penalty, which is to be carried out outside of the camp by means of stoning at the hands of the entire congregation. Both stories conclude with a description of the execution of the punishment by Benei Yisrael: "They took the blasphemer outside of the camp and stoned him with stones, and Benei Yisrael did as God had commanded Moshe" (Vayikra 24)[5]; "The entire congregation took him outside of the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died, as God had commanded Moshe." (Bamidbar 15).
Source: http://etzion.org.il/en/law-blasphemer#_ftnref5
8. What are the DIFFERENCES between the episodes of wood gatherer and the blasphemer?
Rashi on Bamidbar 15:34 since it was not specified what was to be done to him: With which method he should be executed. But they did know that one who desecrates the Sabbath is put to death. — [Sifrei Shelach 57]
Rashi on Vayikra 14:12 They placed him: [Since Scripture does not say, “they placed (וַיִּשִׂימוּ or וַיִּתְּנוּ) him in the guardhouse,” but rather, “they left him (וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ) in the guardhouse,” which means that they left him] alone, and they did not leave the one who gathered wood [on the Sabbath] with him (see Num. 15:32-36), for these two [episodes, namely, of the wood gatherer and the blasphemer,] occurred at the same time. Now, they knew that the wood gatherer was liable to death, as is stated “those who profane it shall be put to death.” (Exod. 31:14) The mode of death, however, had not yet been specified to them [by God]. Thus it says (Num. 15:34), “for it had not [yet] been specified what should be done to him”-while in the case of the blasphemer [here], Scripture says לִפְרשׁ לָהֶם, [lit., “to specify for them,” namely to specify his sentence], for they did not know whether or not he was liable to the death penalty [at all, and if he would be placed together with the wood gatherer, it might have caused him unnecessary fear, since he could assume thereby that he was on death row. Therefore, at that point he had to be kept separately]. — [Be’er Basadeh, Torath Kohanim 24:237]
Conclusion: Moshe knew that the mekoshesh etzim was liable for the death penalty, but not which specific means of death. Regarding the blasphemer, Moshe didn't know if he was liable for the death penalty.
9. Who received the Meraglim’s portion in Olam Haba?
Answer: Yehoshua was awarded the portions in Olam Haba that had been reserved for the 10 meraglim. The letter Yud, whose gematria is 10, was added to his original name, Hoshea, to imply that he merited the spiritual reward of the 10 meraglim. (Bamidbar Rabbah, Tiferes Tzion)
10. Why did Hashem reward Yehoshua more so than Kalev?
The magnitude of the reward is in proportion to the severity of the temptation. Kalev descended from Yehuda, who was in control of his tongue. He was therefore naturally inclined to resist lashon hara, without having to exert himself greatly. Nevertheless, he davened for Siyata d’shmaya at the kevarim of the Avos, because he was in the company of reshaim, which is perilous even for a tzaddik.
Yehoshua, on the other hand, was a descendant of Yosef, who had spoken lashon hara. He therefore had an inherent weakness regarding that sin. Since he fought temptation, his reward was accordingly great. (Tiferes Tzion)