Об этом документе

Torah Studies — Ki Sisa 5783

Выпуск: Torah Studies — Ki Sisa 5783. Темы: parsha_commentary. Поисковые термины: недельная глава, парша, parsha, פרשה, פרשת השבוע. ” ʺʮʹʰ ʩʥʬʩʲʬʥ ʤʲʠʩʱʰʢʤʸʹʺʸʮ ʭʤʸʡʠ ʸʺʡ  ʠʸʣʠʢʩʲ ʡʬʰ  ʡʴʹʺ ʤ ʤʡʶʰʺ ” ʩ ʲʱʴʣʰ ʭʤʸʡʠ ʸʤʰʡ ʤʷʡʸʤʸʹʺʸʮ ʢʥʦʥ ʥʩʧʩʹʭʺʧʴʹʮʥ  ‫בענדעטסקי‬   ” Published by: ʺʥʰʩʩʲʮʤʺʶʴʤʬʣʲʥ VA A D LA H A F O T Z A S HA M A Y O N O S Melbourne, Australia VaadMelbourne@gmail.com Thus it is called, in the Sidra’s second verse, a chukah (“ordinance”)—a technical term meaning, “law for which no reason can be given.” Rashi gives this explanation for the word, but his comment has some unusual features which the Sicha first points out, and then explains, showing that it is intelligible only if we distinguish two different kinds of chukah. Rashi’s Comment Analyzed “And the L-rd spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: This is the ordinance (chukat) of the Torah which the L-rd has commanded….”1 Rashi interprets the phrase, “this is the ordinance of the Torah” thus: “Because Satan and the nations of the world provoke Israel, saying, ‘what is the meaning of this commandment to you and what is its reason?,’ therefore it is described as an ‘ordinance’ it is a decree about which you have no right to speculate.” 3 Torah Studies But there are difficulties here: (i) From the words of Rashi—“therefore it is described as an ‘ordinance’”—it is apparent that he intended not to explain the meaning of the word “ordinance” itself—which he has already done previously on many occasions.2 (And even though he has not done so previously in the book of Bamidbar, it is not as if he suspected that readers of his commentary would have forgotten his earlier explanation, because the word “ordinance” occurs earlier in Bamidbar3 and passes without comment from Rashi.) Rather, Rashi wants to explain the fact that it appears to be superfluous, since the phrase “this is the law” would have been sufficient. In earlier comments the agent provocateur is the “evil inclination”; here it is “Satan.” In these earlier places, he is represented as “raising objections”4 or “caviling”5; Here, as “provoking.” And in one earlier comment, one is said to be forbidden to “exempt oneself”6 from the ordinances; here one is forbidden to “speculate about them.” (iii) If our earlier reasoning is correct, Rashi’s comment applies only to the seeming superfluity of the word “ordinance.”

Издание

Torah Studies

Дата

9 марта 2023 г.

Страниц

12

Темы: parsha_commentary