Musings on the Torah

This piece suggests a psychological insight in an attempt to clear up a bunch of mystifying statements by Chazal, all related to the sotah We find some strange phenomena associated with the sotah. Firstly, she's rewarded with an easier labor or better looking children if she survives the ordeal (bamidbar 5:28 with rashi from chazal). Additionally, we're told that the husband shouldn't think he's to blame for her death should that come to pass (ibid 5:31 with rashi from chazal).  Seems very odd to be compensating her for her troubles and needing to clear her husband's conscience as after all we're talking about a woman that has acted inappropriately with another man to the extent that her husband felt it necessary to instruct her to stay away from him and she nevertheless secluded herself with him. She seems like far from a saint and any embarrassment or death that accrues is fully on her.  Maybe it can be explained based off of another comment by chazal brought

I don’t think peshuto shel mikrah supports outright charity. Vayikra 25 details the progression and downward spiral from selling ones livelihood (ancestral field) to taking an interest free loan to selling oneself as a slave. No word on handouts. Perek 15 in Devarim discusses graciously giving loans without worrying about shemitah canceling them. There is no mention of charity in the pesukim. (See ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and R DZ Hoffman to verse 8)  Outright (financial) gifts do not seem to be part of the biblical framework The Torah definitely encourages us to share our bounty with the less fortunate on many occasions The highest of the 8 levels of charity for Rambam isn't handouts, rather interest free loans or other intervention that can help a fellow stand on his own two feet I think the word tzedakah in tanach does not refer to handouts, rather to justice/righteousness, it was reinterpreted that way in light of the emphasis on charity, with the added nuance of it even being the ju

B'pashtus sefiras haomer is time sensitive with women not required to count, so holds Rambam (eg סה"מ מצוה קסא). As it relates to Rambans shitah (kiddushin 33b) that sefiras haomer isn't considered time dependent, I recently came across the following Kuzari where he astonishingly writes that maybe the karaim were really right in their understanding of ׳מִמָּחֳרָת הַשַּׁבָּת׳, but that the date of Sunday is arbitrary from a biblical standpoint, as the real trigger for counting is solely the harvest event of ׳מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה׳, which can be on any day, Chazal then went and fixed it on the 16th of Nissan, however, b'etzem, as a matter of biblical exegesis, the karaim were correct. Now, mind blowing thesis aside, I want to extract from it that R. Yehuda Halevi is of the opinion that the mechayev for sefirah is the initial reaping of the barley which isn't even mandated to be done—at least from a deoraisa standpoint—on a specific day. That being the case, he p

The following explores Rambams ideas regarding ethics and if they are primarily inward or outward focused  Rambam writes (deios chapter 1) that when it comes to molding and shaping ones character and personality one should strive for the middle of the road (eg neither stingy nor profligate, not ecstatic nor depressed etc). He finds the source for this in וְהָלַכְתָּ בִּדְרָכָיו: וּמְצֻוִּין אָנוּ לָלֶכֶת בַּדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ הַבֵּינוֹנִים וְהֵם הַדְּרָכִים הַטּוֹבִים וְהַיְשָׁרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כ״ח:ט׳) וְהָלַכְתָּ בִּדְרָכָיו: כָּךְ לָמְדוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ מִצְוָה זוֹ. מַה הוּא נִקְרָא חַנּוּן אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה חַנּוּן. מַה הוּא נִקְרָא רַחוּם אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה רַחוּם. מַה הוּא נִקְרָא קָדוֹשׁ אַף אַתָּה הֱיֵה קָדוֹשׁ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ קָרְאוּ הַנְּבִיאִים לָאֵל בְּכָל אוֹתָן הַכִּנּוּיִין אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר תָּמִים גִּבּוֹר וְחָזָק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁהֵן דְּרָכִים טוֹבִים וִישָׁרִים וְחַיָּב אָדָם לְהַנְהִיג עַצְמוֹ בָּהֶן וּלְהִדַּמּוֹת אֵלָיו

Since time immemorial mankind has struggled to make sense of suffering and evil and how to square it with an omnipotent, omniscient and good God. Leibniz even gave it a name—a theodicy. Many have said that if this world is all there is then its nigh impossible to see divine justice. The immortality of the soul and/or eventual bodily resurrection go a long way towards allowing justice to prevail. R. Saadia Gaon places emphasis on the olam hatechiya whereas R. Yehuda Halevi accentuates hasharas hanefesh. Ramban synthesizes them. R. Yosef Albo writes that the how isn't as important as subscribing to the idea that HaShem will ultimately square accounts one way or another. Rambams position is that one participates in a bodiless afterlife commensurate with ones knowledge of the divine, seemingly not subscribing to traditional notions of s'char/v'onesh (see Ramban in shaar hagemul). Sefer Iyov, wholly devoted to dealing with this issue, does not offer either hasharas hanefesh or t

This piece will show how peshuto shel mikra is the exact opposite of how Chazal read it, with Rambam codifying according to the former Rashbam explains the pasuk in Emor (Vayikra 21:4) לֹ֥א יִטַּמָּ֖א בַּ֣עַל בְּעַמָּ֑יו לְהֵ֖חַלּֽוֹ׃  to mean that a kohen is not allowed to become tamei to his wife שום בעל בעם כהנים לא יטמא לאשתו.  להחלו – שהרי מתחלל מכהונתו  and that according to Chazal it means precisely the opposite  ולפי דברי חכמים (ספרא ויקרא כ״א:ד׳, בבלי יבמות כ״ב:): לא {יטמא} לאשתו פסולה ומחוללת, אבל מטמא לאשתו כשירה. Two pesukim prior (ibid:2) the Torah states כִּ֚י אִם־לִשְׁאֵר֔וֹ הַקָּרֹ֖ב אֵלָ֑יו לְאִמּ֣וֹ וּלְאָבִ֔יו וְלִבְנ֥וֹ וּלְבִתּ֖וֹ וּלְאָחִֽיו׃ which Onkelos renders as אֱלָהֵין לְקָרִיבֵיהּ דְּקָרִיב לֵיהּ לְאִמֵּיהּ וְלַאֲבוּהִי וְלִבְרֵיהּ וְלִבְרַתֵּיהּ וּלְאֲחוּהִי whereas acc to Chazal the meaning is, as Rashi brings, אין שארו אלא אשתו, (see as well targum yerushalmi אלהין לאינתתא דקריבא לגופיה לאימיה ולאבוי ולבריה ולברתיה ולאחוי). Essentially what we have here