Musings on the Torah

The following is an observation about how the kohen gadol's outfit fundamentally differs from the basic four items of clothing worn by regular kohanim as well and is specially tailored (pun alert!) for his exclusive service The additional items worn by the kohen gadol over those worn by a regular kohen are the ephod, choshen, me'il and the tzitz.  Aside from the sartorial upgrade in terms of materials used (multi-colored wool, gold and linen vs linen only) they also provided other services unrelated to clothing per se which were specific to the kohen gadols unique avodah "לפני ה". All from shemos 28: verses 12, 29-30, 35 and 38 respectively  Ephod: וְשַׂמְתָּ֞ אֶת־שְׁתֵּ֣י הָאֲבָנִ֗ים עַ֚ל כִּתְפֹ֣ת הָֽאֵפֹ֔ד אַבְנֵ֥י זִכָּרֹ֖ן לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְנָשָׂא֩ אַהֲרֹ֨ן אֶת־שְׁמוֹתָ֜ם לִפְנֵ֧י יְהֹוָ֛ה עַל־שְׁתֵּ֥י כְתֵפָ֖יו לְזִכָּרֹֽן׃ Choshen: וְנָשָׂ֣א אַ֠הֲרֹ֠ן אֶת־שְׁמ֨וֹת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל בְּחֹ֧שֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט עַל־לִבּ֖וֹ בְּבֹא֣וֹ אֶל־הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ לְזִכָּרֹ֥ן

Shemos 3:8 focuses on relief from their burdens and taking them to a good land as the main purpose of leaving Egypt וָאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם וּֽלְהַעֲלֹתוֹ֮ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַהִוא֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ טוֹבָה֙ וּרְחָבָ֔ה אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ אֶל־מְק֤וֹם הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי׃ ditto for ibid 3:17 regarding what Moshe should tell the elders וָאֹמַ֗ר אַעֲלֶ֣ה אֶתְכֶם֮ מֵעֳנִ֣י מִצְרַ֒יִם֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץהַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִ֑יאֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ׃ whereas from ibid 29:46 וְיָדְע֗וּ כִּ֣י אֲנִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצֵ֧אתִי אֹתָ֛ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם לְשׇׁכְנִ֣י בְתוֹכָ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיהֶֽם׃ (Altho see Ramban there that the meaning is "you'll know that I'm God who took you out of Egypt when I dwell . .") and vayikra 22:33 הַמּוֹצִ֤יא אֶתְכֶם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִהְי֥וֹת לָכֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִ֑ים אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָֽה׃

The following is an analysis of two distinct opinions regarding the menorahs placement as well as function The Torah, when dealing with the krashim k'la'im etc, consistently discusses the southern side first, then the northern, western and eastern sides, in that order, seemingly granting the southern side preeminence. Conceived of as the right side which is always given prominence—east being face forward. Otoh, as in well known, the highest level of avodah is limited to the northern side of the azarah (tzafon mizbaiyach)—the left. So which is the more important side—south or north? Right or left? I think we need to differentiate between Gods perspective and orientation vs our own. Regarding the mishkan and chatzer, with HaShem as yoshev keruvim facing east, the south is viewed as His right, whereas regarding our avodah—which is performed facing God—our right is north hence its elevated kedusha with regard to avodah. The keilim—which represent our service—are prioritized with th

The following explores a major philosophical dispute regarding the Mishkans purpose which impacts the aron and other keilims relationship to it along with various halachic positions explained in light of it Rambam (sefer hamitzvos asei 20) says that one of the primary purposes of the mikdash is for avodah and that the word “mikdash” connotes, in addition to the structure, the klei hamikdash as well.   היא שצונו לבנות בית הבחירה לעבודה, בו יהיה ההקרבה והבערת האש תמיד ואליו תהיה ההליכה והעליה לרגל והקבוץ בכל שנה. והוא אמרו יתעלה ועשו לי מקדש. ולשון ספרי שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בעת כניסתן לארץ למנות להם מלך ולבנות להם בית הבחירה ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק. הנה התבאר שבנין בית הבחירה מצוה בפני עצמה. וכבר בארנו שזה הכלל כולל מינים רבים שהם המנורה והשלחן והמזבח וזולתם כלם מחלקי המקדש והכל יקרא מקדש Ditto for beis habechira 1:1 מצות עשה לעשות בית לה' מוכן להיות מקריבים בו הקרבנות, וחוגגין אליו שלש פעמים בשנה שנאמר ועשו לי מקדש In ibid 1:6-7 Rambam delineates the klei habayis ie the mizbeiach menor

This article drills down on the ultimate purpose of the Torah's numerous rules and regulations  The Talmud bavli (makkos 24a) recounts that there are 613 commandments and yet as the generations wore on various prophets kept boiling them down to subsequently fewer and fewer core mitzvos (11,6,3,2,1). The first four iterations (11,6,3,2) relate to moral and ethical behavior exclusively. In other words—to use the christian idiom—works. The last and final one—וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה—apparently does an about face, and surprisingly, endorses faith as the yesod vshoresh ha'avodah (unless one interprets emunah as integrity and faithfulness).  How are we to make sense of this apparent 180?  There’s another famous passage in the bavli shabbos 31a where Hillel describes the essence of Judaism as: דַּעֲלָךְ סְנֵי לְחַבְרָךְ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד – זוֹ הִיא כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, וְאִידַּךְ פֵּירוּשַׁהּ הוּא, זִיל גְּמוֹר seemingly distilling the entirety of Torah into virtuous interpers

This observation shows how the Torahs assigned value of a woman's virginity remains constant throughout the Torah, impacting its variegated laws  We find in the Torah (shemos 22:15-16) that if a man takes a woman’s virginity via seduction, he’s required to either marry her or pay her מהר הבתולות if her father doesn’t care for the match. How much does that amount to? Chazal (tb kesuvos 10a) look to the instance of where a virgin is raped where the Torah requires the rapist to pay 50 kesef (devarim 22:29) to determine how much the relatively benign fellow over in parshas mishpatim needs to shell out. Seems that the monetary value of a woman’s virginity was 50 shekalim and therefore whenever a fellow takes them, he needs to pay up. There’s another case (devarim 22:13-21) where a husband accuses his new wife of not being a virgin where if he’s found lying he must pay 100 kesef — twice what the rapist pays. Rambam explains (Moreh 3:49) that the kesubah was valued at 50 kesef and that th

This piece will show that the above is the subject of a disagreement, explore it in light of various passages in Tanach, offer a short analysis of it, and end with a talmudic debate that seems to bear directly on the underlying logic Shemos 21 12 .מַכֵּ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ וָמֵ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת 13 .וַאֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א צָדָ֔ה וְהָאֱלֹהִ֖ים אִנָּ֣ה לְיָד֑וֹ וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י לְךָ֙ מָק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָנ֖וּס שָֽׁמָּה A plain reading suggests that only when the murder is inadvertent is hashgacha brought in to explain how it came to occur (altho see ibn Kaspi and Ralbag that it is another way of expressing chance occurrences) whereas when intentional no explanation is needed as God does not get involved as people are able to do as they see fit even to someone else's detriment and would seem to support the well known position of the ohr hachayim (bereishis 37:21 ויצילהו מידם – פי׳ לפי שהאדם בעל בחירה ורצון ויכול להרוג מי שלא נתחייב מיתה משא״כ חיות רעות לא יפגעו באדם אם לא יתחייב מיתה לשמים, והוא אומרו ויצילהו מי

The following will show that there exists two distinct opinions in the Rishonim as to when judaism, along with its unique way of determining national identity vis a vis all the other nations (matrilineal vs patrilineal), first came on the scene, along with many differences in how to explain various pesukim which are dependent upon these differing conceptions Rambans opinion is that the bris mentioned at sinai is the same bris that HaShem had entered into already with Avraham Shemos 19:5 וטעם ושמרתם את בריתי – הברית אשר כרתי את אבותיכם להיות להם לאלהים ולזרעם אחריהם ( בראשית י״ז:ז׳ ). (Contrast with Chizkuni ad loc that interprets it as referring to the bris later on at sinai ושמרתם את בריתי – היא ברית הדם אשר כרת את בנ״י כדכתיב בפרשת משפטים.) This meshes well with another opinion of his that the avos were already classified as Jews—as opposed to bnei noach—from the time Avraham entered into the bris Vayikra 24:10 ואין דעתי כך, כי מעת שבא אברהם בברית היו ישראל ובגוים לא יתחשבו, וכמו שאמ