Thursday, August 27, 2026

Ki Savo 2026

 1.  How do you know that borei pri haadama is an acceptable bracha on tree fruit?

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

3.  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.

4.  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 speaks Ashkenazi 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.

5.  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.

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

7.  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, and no one of our time can rely upon it.) Where do we see this idea in the parsha?

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

9.  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. 

10.  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.  How do you know that borei pri haadama is an acceptable bracha on tree fruit?

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

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

26:3

גוּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי בָאתִי אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהֹוָה 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.

3.  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:

4.  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 speaks Ashkenazi 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 recap 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.

 5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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, and no one of our time can rely upon it.) 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.)

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

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.  

(On the other, there is one rare case where the issur kilayim applies even to a halfling - 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. 

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. 

9.  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

10.  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. .

Thursday, August 20, 2026

Ki Seitzei 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.  When Hagar and Yishmael were evicted from their home, Hashem was about to reveal water to Hagar so that Yishmael should not die of thirst. The malachim said, Ribono shel Olam, this person, Yishmael, will bring such death and suffering to your people, and you are saving him? Hashem answered that He judges him באשר הוא שם, as he is now, not what he will be in the future. We mention this on Yom Kippur as well, and ask that Hashem judge us as we are right now when we are doing teshuva- not as we were, and not as we might be in the future. In this parsha we see the opposite. Where do we see this, and how would you distinguish between the two. 

2. The word קדש means holy. We say נקדש את שמך בעולם, and אשר קדשנו במצוותיו, and אין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה. In this parsha, find this word used once in its usual sense, and twice meaning the exact opposite. 

3. The issur of certain people to marry a ישראל כשר; is that because the marriage is an offense against the kedusha of that individual or because it is a sin against the kedusha of the nation as a whole.

4.  Simlah is not gender specific. Examples:  ואהב גר לתת לו לחם ושמלה   and  שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה.  So why in 24:5 does it say לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה, a woman should not carry a man’s kli and a man should not wear a woman’s simlah? Aren’t they both words for clothing?

5.  Which unique mitzva is only rewarded if it happened by accident?

6.  In this parsha, four mitzvos of memory. . In two, remembering is a mitzva.   In one, not remembering is a mitzva. In another, remembering is a mitzva and forgetting is a lo saaseh.

7.  What type of object may one not take as collateral?

8.  Two neviim mentioned in the Parsha, a man and a woman.

9.  Three examples of the Torah’s discouragement of the mistreatment of animals, צער בעלי חיים.

10.  Three halachos mentioned in our Parsah that occur at sunset or nightfall.

11.  The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel from the Lomzer Rov and others write that calling a child a name which is used by the opposite gender (like naming a boy 'Sue,') violates the prohibition (22:5) of lo yilbash. Rav Chaim Kanievsky lists 79 names in Chazal and Tanach which are used for both men and women. (The ones who asser, I assume, are talking about cases where the name is used exclusively for one gender.) How many can you identify that are currently used for both genders? (Taima D’Kra)

12.  22:19 seems to mean that a woman can be married to a man who tried to have her murdered. 

וענשו אתו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה כי הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ולו תהיה לאשה לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו

Is this really true?

13.  What is the military consequence of indecency, pritzus.

14.  A part of the body that is mentioned or even referred to only one time in Tanach, in our parsha.

15.  It is very important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah. Why would the Irish Rebellion and the troubles that followed have never occurred if only Henry the Eighth had paid attention to the Krias Hatorah of Parshas Ki Seitzei.

16. How many mitzvos are there in the Parsha of Amaleik.

17. There's a common linguistic phenomenon called 'metathesis' or 'שיכול אותיות'.  This is when the letters in a word are exchanged. In English, you have ask/aks, nuclear/nucular, jewelry/jewlery. In Lashon HaKodesh, you have keves/kesev. (Some, like the Malbim, say they are slightly different, but they are still almost synonymous.) Find two words in the parsha that illustrate this.



1.  When Hagar and Yishmael were evicted from their home, Hashem was about to reveal water to Hagar so that Yishmael should not die of thirst. The malachim said, Ribono shel Olam, this person, Yishmael, will bring such death and suffering to your people, and you are saving him? Hashem answered that He judges him באשר הוא שם, as he is now, not what he will be in the future. We mention this on Yom Kippur as well, and ask that Hashem judge us as we are right now when we are doing teshuva- not as we were, and not as we might be in the future. In this parsha we see the opposite. Where do we see this, and how would you distinguish between the two. 

Ben Sorer Umoreh, who is executed not for anything he has done, but for the crimes his inexorable trajectory will lead to. 

Why are they different? In my experience, people prefer explanations they come up with, and just don't like explanations they are told. So you're on your own. I and my mother זכרונה לברכה preferred the Mizrachi's explanation with a very important modification. Baasher hu sham is only for the בית דין של מעלה PLUS tefilla, Hagar's tears. Without my mother’s addition, just to say “Beis Din shel Maalah is different” seems farkert from seichel hayashar.

It's a harsh thing to say, but the mussardikkeh way to say it is "Without tears, the judgement on Yom Kippur will not be באשר הוא שם."


2. The word קדש means holy. We say נקדש את שמך בעולם, and אשר קדשנו במצוותיו, and אין דבר שבקדושה בפחות מעשרה. In this parsha, find this word used once in its usual sense, and twice meaning the exact opposite. 

23:15
כִּי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ  בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ וְלֹא־יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ׃ 

22:9 

לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן־תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם׃ 

23:18

לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃

As Rashi says in 22:9, the word kodesh essentially means "designated for a use that renders it untouchable."

3. The issur of certain people to marry a ישראל כשר; is that because the marriage is an offense against the kedusha of that individual or because it is a sin against the kedusha of the nation as a whole.

It is because of the sin against the nation as a whole. Six times the Torah uses the expression "בקהל השם", and they are all here by issurei kiddushin. 

Even if you did not have the passuk, it would be obvious that it is not to protect the kedusha of the yachid, because the issur is only on marriage, not simply living together. Marriage is an issue that relates to Klal Yisrael, not just individuals. That's why the Mishna in Megilla includes Birkas Chasanim among דברים שבקדושה. 

This (except the sentence about davar shebikdusha) is based on Reb Yaakov's Emes L'Yaakov on 23:3, where he says 

ובהכרח שענין הנישואין אצל בני ישראל אינו ענין פרטי הנוגע לשני הצדדים ומשפחתם בלבד, אלא הוא נוגע לקהל כולו, שעל ידי נישואין נכנס הבחור לקהל ישראל ונהיה חלק מהציבור.

4.  Simlah is not gender specific. Examples:  ואהב גר לתת לו לחם ושמלה   and  שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה.  So why in 24:5 does it say לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה, a woman should not carry a man’s kli and a man should not wear a woman’s simlah? Aren’t they both words for clothing?

Because men often carry or  wear non-clothing items that are associated with men only, such as a sword. Such items that are associated exclusively with women are carried in equal part for their decorative qualities, such as a purse, or a wrist watch, which includes them in in Simlah. (In other words, a woman will carry an empty purse and a wrist watch that is not working.) (Taama diKra) I have to think about מחט נקובה in במה אשה. 

There are some who believe that wearing a tie is a problem for a man, because it is only decorative and non-functional. Some argue on the basis of the reference to men wearing earrings in the story of the Eigel:  Shemos 32:2-3,

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאׇזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי׃

וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כׇּל־הָעָם אֶת־נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאׇזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אַהֲרֹן׃.

But the ibn Ezra there says this was a habit some picked up in Mitzrayim, not a Jewish behavior:

ויאמר פרקו. על משקל ברכו מהבנין הכבד הדגוש. מנהג מצרים היה לשום נזמים באזניהם. וככה כתוב במדינים כי ישמעאלים הם

and the Radal in Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer, where the Mishna (45:5) says 
רָאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלוּ הַנָּשִׁים לִיתֵּן אֶת נִזְמֵיהֶן לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן, וְעַד אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הָיוּ הַנְּזָמִים בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂה הַמִּצְרִיִּים וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה הָעֲרָבִים, וּפָרְקוּ אֶת נִזְמֵיהֶם שֶׁבְּאָזְנֵיהֶם
says (45:23)
 כמעשה המצרים וכמעשה הערביים. ר"ל שהן קיבלו מנהג זה מן המצריים שהיו נוהגים כערביים שהן הישמעאלים שכתוב עליהן במקרא [שופטים ח] כי נזמי זהב להם כי ישמעאלים הם (אבל בשאר כל האומות אין נוהגים האנשים לשום נזמים באזניהם רק הנשים,

 

5.  Which unique mitzva is only rewarded if it happened by accident?

שכחה.    Rashi says this clearly here: 24:19

למען יברכך. וְאַעַ"פִּ שֶׁבָּאת לְיָדוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְמִתְכַּוֵּן, קַ"וָ לָעוֹשֶׂה בְמִתְכַּוֵּן. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה נָפְלָה סֶלַע מִיָּדוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ עָנִי וְנִתְפַּרְנֵס בָּהּ — הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְבָּרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ (ספרי):

Some argue and say that the mitzva is really to leave it there after you remember. But that is not true. It says

כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא תָשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ

As soon as you forgot it, it becomes the property of the poor. Not going back and stealing it is no reason for a bracha. It must be that the bracha and the mitzva is for forgetting it. (Reb Yaakov.)

Also, this is clear in many meforshim, such as the Mizrachi here and the Gur Aryeh. Additional examples:

Aruch Hashulchan Ha'asid Hilchos Peah 9:1

ומשונה מצוה זו מכל מצות שבתורה שכל מצות שבתורה אין באים אלא על ידי זכירה כדכתיב וזכרתם את כל מצות ד' ועשיתם אותם ואם נשכח לא נעשה המצוה ומצוה זו היא להיפך שא"א לקיים המצוה רק ע"י שכחה והקב"ה זיכהו במצוה זו

Tosefta Peiah 3:13

מעשה בחסיד אחד ששכח עומר בתוך שדהו, ואמר לבנו צא והקריב עלי פר לעולה ופר לשלמים. אמר לו אבא מה ראית לשמוח בשמחת מצוה זו [יותר] מכל מצות שבתורה? אמר לו כל מצות שבתורה נתן [להם המקום] לדעתנו, זו שלא לדעתנו. שאילו [עשינוהו ברצון לפני המקום לא באת מצוה זו לידינו. [אלא] הרי הוא אומר (דברים כד) כי תקצור וגו' קבע לו הכתוב ברכה. והלא דברים קל וחומר, מה אדם שלא נתכוין לזכות וזכה מעלין עליו כאילו זכה, המתכוין לזכות וזכה על אחת כו"כ.

 

6.  In this parsha, four mitzvos of memory. In two, remembering is a mitzva.   In one, not remembering is a mitzva. In another, remembering is a mitzva and forgetting is a lo saaseh.

The story of Miriam’s lashon hara, Miriam, 24:9.  That you were an eved in Mitzrayim, 24:18. Shikcha, 24:19 ; Amalek, 25:17.

 

 7.  What type of object may one not take as collateral?

People think that 24:6 לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל prohibits taking any utensils used in food preparation as collateral. According to all but one Rishon, this is only when the loan is past due and you are seizing his property to press him to pay the debt.   But when he is first asking to borrow money, he can collateralize whatever he wants. If he can sell his pots and pans, he also can use them as a mashkon.   The one and only Rishon that says it applies even when the loan is made is the Rambam in Malveh v'Loveh 3.  

The same is true in the case of בגד אלמנה in 24:17. See CM 97:14.


8.  Two neviim mentioned in the Parsha, a man and a woman.

23:5-6, Bilaam.  Lehavdil, 24:9, Miriam.

 

9.  Three examples of the Torah’s discouragement of the mistreatment of animals, צער בעלי חיים.

22:7, Shiluach Hakan.

22:10, Lo Sachrosh beshor vechamor yachdov.

25:4, Lo Sachsom shor bedisho.

 

10.  Three halachos mentioned in our Parsah that occur at sunset or nightfall.

23:12, a person or an object that was tovel becomes fully tahor. (tzeis.)

וּכְבֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָבֹא אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה׃

24:13, you have to return to the borrower his clothing you took as collateral. (Shkiyah.)
הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת־הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ 

24:15, you have to have paid your laborer his day’s wages (CM 339:3.) (Shkiyah.)

בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא־תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ

21:23, לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, sounds like it might be another. But the Poskim say it is only to leave the body unburied all night. There's a difference between כבוא השמש and לא ילין. See Pischei Teshuva YD 357:1 from the Radvaz-

 בתשו' רדב"ז החדשות סי' שי"א שכתב דדוקא אם מלין את מתו כל הלילה עד הבוקר עובר בלאו אבל מקצת הלילה אינו עובר ואפילו איסורא ליכא אלא כדי להיות משובח יש למהר להוציא מתו כדלקמן סעיף ב' ע"ש


 11.  The Shu”t Divrei Malkiel from the Lomzer Rov and others write that calling a child a name which is used by the opposite gender (like naming a boy 'Sue,') violates the prohibition (22:5) of lo yilbash. Rav Chaim Kanievsky lists 79 names in Chazal and Tanach which are used for both men and women. (The ones who asser, I assume, are talking about cases where the name is used exclusively for one gender.) How many can you identify that are currently used for both genders? (Taima D’Kra)

Yonah, Simcha, Zissel, Shimmy, Yoel, Michal, Micha, Seruya, Ariel/Arielle.


12.  22:19 seems to mean that a woman can be married to a man who tried to have her murdered. 

וענשו אתו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה כי הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ולו תהיה לאשה לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו

Is this really true?

No. אין אדם דר עם נחש בכפיפה אחת.   My assumption is that he, contemplating a miserable and expensive future, will pay her to accept a get- the present value of everything he'll have to spend to keep her, plus the benefit of not having her sneering at him and poisoning his home atmosphere for his whole life.


13.  What is the military consequence of indecency, pritzus.

23:15, Hashem abandoning us when we face our enemies.

כי ה' אלהיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך להצילך ולתת איביך לפניך והיה מחניך קדוש ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך


14.  A part of the body that is mentioned or even referred to only one time in Tanach, in our parsha.

צפרנים

21:12

 וְגִלְּחָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְעָשְׂתָה אֶת צִפׇּרְנֶיהָ.

It does say צפורן שמיר  in Yirmiahu 17:1,  חטאת יהודה כתובה בעט ברזל בצפרן שמיר חרושה על לוח לבם ולקרנות מזבחותיכם, but it doesn’t mean fingernail there. It means a sharp pointed inscribing instrument, like hammer and nails. So the צפרנים  in our parsha still counts as a one time word.


15.  It is very important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah. Why would the Irish Rebellion and the troubles that followed have never occurred if only Henry the Eighth had paid attention to the Krias Hatorah of Parshas Ki Seitzei.

Henry wanted to marry his brother, Arthur's, widow, Catherine of Aragon, in 1509, but was told he could not because she had been married to his brother. They accepted the issur of a woman once married to a brother, but did not accept the mitzvah of Yibum that we find in this week's parsha. So he called up the Pope, and said "Pope, can you annul Catherine's marriage to Arthur? It was never consummated." And the Pope said, "ok, fine, I'll grant a dispensation."  Henry married her. Catherine didn't have male children and he wanted to get rid of her and formalize his relationship with his mistress, Anne Boleyn. The problem was that the Church did not allow divorce at all, even though it's in this week's parsha. He called the Pope again. He said "Good Yontif, Pontif. It's Henry. I'd like for you to annul the marriage to Catherine." The Pope said, "What are you talking about? I did that like twenty five years ago!" Henry said, "No, I mean the marriage between me and her."   The Pope said, "What, this also wasn't consummated? So where did Bloody Mary come from? Stop bothering me. No more dispensations, and forget about any annulments." So Henry went and created the Anglican church, his Archbishop annulled their marriage, and he married his paramour, Anne Boleyn. (This marriage was also sub-optimal.)

England became Anglican, Ireland remained Catholic, the Anglicans treated the Irish Catholics terribly, and this all led to the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the endless trouble that followed.

The point is, that if had done Yibum, he could have had Katherine without calling the Pope, and when he wanted to move on to Anne Boleyn, he could have simply divorced Katherine.  There would have been no need to found the Anglican Church.  From here we see that it is important to pay attention to the Krias HaTorah.

16. How many mitzvos are there in the Parsha of Amaleik.

According to the Rambam, three. Zachor, Timcheh, and Lo Sishkoch. Also according to the Ramban and the Smag and the Sefer HaChinuch

Zachor- To read the parsha once a year.

Timcheh- To destroy.

Lo Sishkoch- To never forgive, not to let the passage of time weaken our wrath for their atrocities. 

Rav Saadiah Gaon and the Bahag only count #1. See Rav Yerucham Fishel P for his discussion, especially the ibn Ezra that he brings. It boils down to the idea that there is one mitzva: destroy them. The others are just for emphasis, to stress how important Timcheh is.


As a public service- from a Dirshu sheet.

שאלה: האם צריך השומע להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה שבקריאת פרשת זכור?

תשובה: יש מי שכתב שצריך להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה, ויש שכתבו שמספיק להבין הענין של פרשת זכור.

מקורות: עיין מועדים וזמנים להגר"מ שטרנבוך שליט"א [ח"ב סי' קס"ה] דיש ליזהר להבין הפירוש של כל מילה ומילה שבפרשת זכור דאם אינו מבין אינו יוצא ידי חובה לדעת התוספות (ברכות מה ע"ב) וסיעתם הסוברים שהשומע ברכה מחבירו [אפילו בלשון הקודש] אינו יוצא מדין שומע כעונה אלא אם כן מבין השומע כל מילה ומילה, וכוותיהו פסק המחבר בסי' קצ"ג ס"א. ואף דנהגינן להקל כשיטת רש"י שיוצאים בשמיעה מדין שומע כעונה אף אם אינו מבין פירוש המילים [עיין משנ"ב סי' קצ"ג ס"ק ה'] מיהו לכתחילה ראוי ליזהר ולחוש לדעת התוספות וסיעתם [כדמשמע שם במשנ"ב],

ועל כן יש לעורר ולהזהיר על הדבר משום שמצוי שאין השומע מבין כל מילה ומילה כגון "ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים אחריך" שרבים אינם יודעים פירוש הדברים, וכן "אשר קרך", וכן בפסוק "ולא ירא אלוקים", שאין הכל יודעים שהכוונה על עמלק ולא על ישראל כמבואר בפרש"י על התורה עכ"ד. 

אמנם משמיה דהגרי"ש אלישיב זצ"ל מטו שהעיקר להבין את הענין ולא צריך להבין כל מילה ומילה (פסקי שמועות סי' תרפ"ה), וכ"כ בספר אגרת הפורים (להגרי"ד ספטימוס שליט"א) בשם הגר"נ קרליץ זצ"ל והגר"ח קניבסקי זצ"ל שמסתבר שמספיק להבין העניין של פרשת זכור ואין צריך להבין כל המילים עיי"ש

קרך-happened upon you

ויזנב- tailed you, cut down the people in back

הנחשלים=הנחלשים- the weak or the stragglers.

Amaleik. - ולא ירא אלוקים  

I have to point out that nobody is machmir like Rav Shternbuch. If you were, then every amoretz who got an aliyah would be making a bracha levatala. See Aruch Hashulchan OC 139:3 and Reb Moshe (OC II:72) .


17. There's a common linguistic phenomenon called 'metathesis' or 'שיכול אותיות'.  This is when the letters in a word are exchanged. In English, you have ask/aks, nuclear/nucular, jewelry/jewlery. In Lashon HaKodesh, you have keves/kesev. (Some, like the Malbim, say they are slightly different, but they are still almost synonymous.) Find two words in the parsha that illustrate this.

Simla in 22:3, וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ and 22:5, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה

and Salma; 24:13  וְשָׁכַב בְּשַׂלְמָתוֹ וּבֵרְכֶךָּ

Necheshalim, 25:18, וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ. This does not mean stumbling. Stumbling is spelled with a Chof, מכשול. 

Our word is shoresh חשל. According to Rashi, it comes from Necheloshim, weak, shoresh חלש.  See Mizrachi:

כל הנחשלים חסרי כח כו'. פי' נחשלי' כמו נחלשים כמו כבש כשב כבשה כשבה

According to Onkelos, it comes from Neshecholim, stragglers, those who fell behind, shoresh שחל. See Gur Aryeh:

הנחשלים תרגם אונקלוס דהוו מתאחרין. ונראה לי דאונקלוס תרגם לשון "נחשלים" מלשון 'כמשחל'. אף על גב דשם השי"ן קודם, מצינו הרבה כזה. והוא לשון הוצאה, כמו שתרגם אונקלוס "כי מן המים משיתהו" (שמות ב, י) 'שחלתיהו'.

Both Rashi and Onkelos are saying it is a reversal of letters. I believe that in this case, the letters were reversed davka to include this multitude of interpretations, even a remez to stumbling.

Just for showing off my wife: Here are two more exchanged letter words my wife pointed out to me:
תהלים ל'א:כ"ג
וַאֲנִי  אָמַרְתִּי בְחׇפְזִי נִגְרַזְתִּי מִנֶּגֶד עֵינֶיךָ אָכֵן שָׁמַעְתָּ קוֹל תַּחֲנוּנַי בְּשַׁוְּעִי אֵלֶיךָ
רש"י
נִגְרַזְתִּי. נִכְרַתְּתִי, לְשׁוֹן גַּרְזֶן הַכּוֹרֵת אֶת הָעֵץ. עַל שֵׁם גְּזִירָתוֹ נִקְרָא גַּרְזֶן. כָּךְ פֵּרֵשׁ דּוּנַשׁ.
מלבי"ם ביאור המלות
נגרזתי. כמו נגזרתי:

תהלים נ'ו:י"ד
כִּי הִצַּלְתָּ נַפְשִׁי מִמָּוֶת הֲלֹא רַגְלַי מִדֶּחִי
תהלים קט'ז:ח 
כִּי חִלַּצְתָּ נַפְשִׁי מִמָּוֶת אֶת־עֵינִי מִן־דִּמְעָה אֶת־רַגְלִי מִדֶּחִי׃

There is one that refers to the molar teeth, which appears as וָאֲשַׁבְּרָה מְתַלְּעוֹת עַוָּל וּמִשִּׁנָּיו אַשְׁלִיךְ טָרֶף in Iyov 29:15 and as אֱלֹהִים הֲרׇס שִׁנֵּימוֹ בְּפִימוֹ מַלְתְּעוֹת כְּפִירִים נְתֹץ יְהֹוָה in Tehillim 58:7.

כסיל in Tehillim and MIshlei, and סכל in Koheles and Yermiahu.

and I think this one too-  mostly in Yeshaya 40 and 44, and once in Melachim 8:5, יעף in place of  עיף. That's where we get הנותן ליעף כח. 

So: 
שמלה שלמה
כבש כשב
גוזר גרזן
 הצלת חלצת
מלתעות מתלעות
כסיל סכל
עיף יעף
חשל חלש שחל

This is mosif neither chochma nor yirah, but if you know of others, pass them along.

Friday, August 14, 2026

Shoftim 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 to answer so that everyone can participate.


1.  Chazal tell us that our shuls and Batei Medrash are מקדש מעט, and have many of the dinim of the actual Beis HaMikdash. The halacha of מורא מקדש that we learn from the passuk in Kedoshim את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני ה applies to every shul and Beis Medrash, according to most Rishonim, midoraysa. Similarly, there is a din of כבוד וגדולה that we learn from ושמרו הלוים את משמרת משכן העדות that we should glorify them and make them beautiful. Many offices and conference rooms use potted plants to beautify their space and encourage a spirit of focus and calmness. They also help clean the air, which is why you rarely smell kishke and herring in your lawyer's office. Shouldn't we take a cue from them and beautify our Shuls and Batei Medrash with potted plants?

2. What aveira do you transgress if you bribe a judge.

- Alternative way of phrasing the question --

- 2. Find the passuk that prohibits bribing a judge.

3. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the Torah does not give the reasons for Mitzvos because people with excessive self-confidence might say the reason does not apply to them:

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעֲמֵי תּוֹרָה? שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעְמָן, וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהֶן גְּדוֹל הָעוֹלָם. כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״. אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָסוּר״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת לְבָבוֹ״. וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים״, וְאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָשִׁיב״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ וְגוֹ׳

To illustrate this problem, the Torah gave reasons for two issurim, (the two lo yarbehs) and Shlomo HaMelech said, the Torah must have given the reasons so that people to whom the reasons do not apply have no restriction. He transgressed both and suffered the consequences.

If so, why does the Torah give the reason for prohibiting judges from taking gifts from litigants, that it will cause him to pervert justice. Isn't there a concern that a judge will say that he is immune from any such problem, so he can take shochad?

4.  When a man has been found guilty of a capital crime, the Beis Din, and all of the nation, has a mitzvah to see to it that he is executed.  If he runs aways, anyone who finds him has a mitzva to kill him.  Is there a mitzva for such a person to hand himself over to the Beis Din for execution? Does he have a mitzva to kill himself?

5.  When an ambiguous word appears, we interpret it in accordance with other appearances of the word where the meaning is clear. When it says in 17:5  that the oved avoda zara is taken el sharecha and executed there, 17:5

וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֶת הָאִישׁ אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּסְקַלְתָּם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ.

which Sha'ar is that? Where is he executed?

6. What were the three pre-requisites for establishing the first monarchy; what three conditions were necessary to trigger the mitzvah.

7.  17:16 ולֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד    A king is not allowed to marry too many women or have too great a fortune. (Chazal define these terms: The king is allowed to accumulate only what is necessary to maintain his household and run the government, and he is allowed no more than eighteen consorts.) What if he had these things before being crowned. Does he have to divest and divorce in order to become king?

8. שום תשים עליך מלך  teaches us that a king is not allowed to show deference to any man. Unlike a parent, or a Kohen, or a talmid chacham, he is not allowed to forego his honor.    מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול.  Is a king allowed to serve his parents? Is a king allowed to stand up for his parents?

9. Do you have to obey a Navi? What if he tells you to do something not because Hashem told him to convey the command, but because he has decided it is right, on the basis of his wisdom? (I am not talking about psak halacha. לא בשמים היא tells us that a navi has no special authority to pasken. That is in the purview of Sanhedrin, about whom the Torah says in 17:10

ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך)

10. What is the punishment for not doing what the Navi tells you to do? Is there a difference between when he conveys Hashem’s command and when he gives personal instruction?

11.  Our passuk says that if a person claims to be a navi, and predicts the future, and his prophecy does not come to pass, his life is forfeit, ומת הנביא ההוא. The Rambam (10 Yesodei HaTorah 4) says this only applies when he foretold good things that do not come to pass, not when he foretells calamities that do not come to pass.  Where did the Rambam find this distinction in our parsha? 

12. If you personally witnessed a person commit a crime, or a sin, and you know for a fact that you are the only person who witnessed the act, should you go to Beis Din and let them know what you saw?

13.  You are allowed to cut down a non-fruit-bearing tree.  You are not allowed to cut down a fruit tree. If you see a tree and do not know what kind of tree it is, are you allowed to cut it down?

14.  If you do the Egla Arufa and then later you catch the killer, is he put on trial, or is the case closed?

15. What passuk lists the five duties of Kohanim.

16. The word 'Shema,' 'Listen,' can have one of several meanings that are clearly distinct: obey, as in listening to a parent, to understand, as in listening to a spouse, and careful attention, as in listening to music. In Shema Yisrael, the word Shema can be interpreted in several of these ways. Find places in this parsha where the word Shema can only mean hear, where it can only mean focus or attention, and where it can only mean obey.   




1.  Chazal tell us that our shuls and Batei Medrash are מקדש מעט, and have many of the dinim of the actual Beis HaMikdash. The halacha of מורא מקדש that we learn from the passuk in Kedoshim את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני ה applies to every shul and Beis Medrash, according to most Rishonim, midoraysa. Similarly, there is a din of כבוד וגדולה that we learn from ושמרו הלוים את משמרת משכן העדות that we should glorify them and make them beautiful. Many offices and conference rooms use potted plants to beautify their space and encourage a spirit of focus and calmness. They also help clean the air, which is why you rarely smell kishke and herring in your lawyer's office. Shouldn't we take a cue from them and beautify our Shuls and Batei Medrash with potted plants?

Not a good idea.  See Reb Akiva Eiger, beginning of OC 150 who applies our passuk in 16:21  לא תטע לך אשרה כל עץ אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך אשר תעשה לך  to our shuls and prohibits planting trees even in the courtyard of the shul.  His words-

כ' הרמב"ם ספ"ו מהל' ע"ז הנוטע אילן אצל המזבח או בכל העזרה בין אילן סרק ובין אילן מאכל וכו' הרי זה לוקה וכו' וכ' הר"ד ערמאה בפירוש להרמב"ם דאפי' אצל ביהכנ"ס אסור מדרבנן:


2. What aveira do you transgress if you bribe a judge.

- Alternative way of phrasing the question --

2. Find the passuk that prohibits bribing a judge.

Lifnei Iver, and only Lifnei Iver. You gave the other person the opportunity to do an aveira. 

Judges are prohibited from accepting bribes, but there is no explicit prohibition against offering a bribe. 

לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים וְלֹא תִקַּח שֹׁחַד כִּי הַשֹּׁחַד יְעַוֵּר עֵינֵי חֲכָמִים וִיסַלֵּף דִּבְרֵי צַדִּיקִם.

This is pointed out in Shulchan Aruch: Choshen Mishpat 9:1-

וכשם שהלוקחו עובר בלא תעשה כך הנותנו עובר בלפני עור לא תתן מכשול

(One nafka mina would be that for Lifnei Iver there is no malkos, but there is for taking Shochad. Also, it would affect the language for hasra'a.)

This peculiarity was addressed by the Chavos Yair in 136-

כי לכאורה יש לתמוה למה לא הזהירה תורה גם לא תתן שוחד כמו דהזהירה גבי ריבית לא תשוך ולא תשיך ללוה ולמלוה

(The Chavos Yair answers that there is no immediate moral wrong if a falsely accused party bribes the judge to find him innocent. If Reuven the ganeff says the Shimon the tzadik owes him two hundred, and Reuven knows beyond any doubt that he only owes one hundred, but he is afraid that Reuven and the witnesses he purchased (my father zatzal said that in his town, there was a fellow everyone called "Totkeh der Eidus," because it was well known that if you had to go to court, you could pay him to say whatever you wanted,) and his lawyers are going to cause a miscarriage of justice, so he pays off the judge to protect himself and make sure that justice will be done, he did nothing wrong on a personal level. Of course society can not allow such behavior, but in this case, it would not be an inherent wrong, it would not be a "malum per se.") 

-- for alternative phrasing -- 

There is no such passuk. 


3.  The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the Torah does not give the reasons for Mitzvos because people with excessive self-confidence might say the reason does not apply to them:

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעֲמֵי תּוֹרָה? שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי מִקְרָאוֹת נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעְמָן, וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהֶן גְּדוֹל הָעוֹלָם. כְּתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ נָשִׁים״. אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָסוּר״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי לְעֵת זִקְנַת שְׁלֹמֹה נָשָׁיו הִטּוּ אֶת לְבָבוֹ״. וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ סוּסִים״, וְאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״אֲנִי אַרְבֶּה וְלֹא אָשִׁיב״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּצֵא מֶרְכָּבָה מִמִּצְרַיִם בְּשֵׁשׁ וְגוֹ׳

To illustrate this problem, the Torah gave reasons for two issurim, (the two lo yarbehs) and Shlomo HaMelech said, the Torah must have given the reasons so that people to whom the reasons do not apply have no restriction. He transgressed both and suffered the consequences.

If so, why does the Torah give the reason for prohibiting judges from taking gifts from litigants, that it will cause him to pervert justice. Isn't there a concern that a judge will say that he is immune from any such problem so he can take shochad?

16:19.

ולא תקח שחד כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים ויסלף דברי צדיקם

The Torah says explicitly that no matter how how righteous and wise you are, it will blind you to the truth. So there is no possibility that someone will say it does not apply to him because he is so righteous and wise. (Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in the Shoel Umeishiv.)

 

4.  When a man has been found guilty of a capital crime, the Beis Din, and all of the nation, has a mitzvah to see to it that he is executed.  If he runs aways, anyone who finds him has a mitzva to kill him.  Is there a mitzva for such a person to hand himself over to the Beis Din for execution? Does he have a mitzva to kill himself?

No. The passuk says that capital punishment is justified by the community's right and need to protect itself. That is meaningless for the individual.

17:7

וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ

Proof: San 43a,

מר רב הונא פשיטא לי אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה בו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן משל צבור, מאי טעמא דמדידיה לא אמרינן ליה זיל וליתיה וליקטול נפשיה

and  חמדת שלמה גיטין ב ע'ב and חידושי מהרי"ל דיסקין ב"ק מה ע"א, and the fact that doing a mitzvah only requires that you spend up to a chomesh, not everything you have.

However: The Mahari Weil (קי'ד), the Shvus Yaakov (ב:קי'א) and the  Yaavetz (חלק א מ״ג) all say that a person who has committed an aveirah that is chayav misas Beis Din or misa bidei Shamayim is allowed, even encouraged, to kill himself for the purpose of Teshuva. If so, this person would be well advised to hand himself over to Beis Din.  Perhaps this is not appropriate for a drasha b'rabbim, even during Ellul. In some cases, it would be real "tikkun olam," but there are unwell people who might act on it out of depression or despair.

(Please note: Some poskim, such as Harav Yishmael HaKohen of Modena in his Zera Emes (ח"ג סימן קנ'ז) and the Chida in Chaim Sha'al (ח"א סימן מ"ו), say that it is assur for a person who is chayav misa to commit suicide even for the purpose of doing Teshuva. Consult your local Orthodox Rabbi.)


5.  When an ambiguous word appears, we interpret it in accordance with other appearances of the word where the meaning is clear. When it says in 17:5  that the oved avoda zara is taken el sharecha and executed there, 17:5

וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֶל שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֶת הָאִישׁ אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּסְקַלְתָּם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ.

which Sha'ar is that? Where is he executed?

The place where he served the Avoda Zara.

17:2

כִּי יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ.


6. What were the three pre-requisites for establishing the first monarchy- what three conditions were necessary to trigger the mitzvah.

כִּי תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ כְּכׇל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי׃

שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ

The Mitzva only applies (1) after the conquest (2) and settling of the land. 17:15-

כִּי־תָבֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ ....שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ

More interesting, the mitzva is only triggered (3) by a referendum, when the people makes formal request that a monarchy be established. Until then, there was no mitzva to establish a monarchy. See Netziv in Haamek Davar in 17:14, 15

The Netziv says that from the fact that for the four hundred forty years of Gilgal, Shilo, Nov, and Givon, there was no king, we see that the prerequisite for the mitzva is the national decision to have a king.

ונראה דמשום דהנהגת המדינה משתנה אם מתנהג עפ״י דעת מלוכה או עפ״י דעת העם ונבחריהם. ויש מדינה שאינה יכולה לסבול דעת מלוכה. ויש מדינה שבלא מלך הרי היא כספינה בלי קברניט. ודבר זה א״א לעשות עפ״י הכרח מ״ע. שהרי בענין השייך להנהגת הכלל נוגע לסכ״נ שדוחה מ״ע מש״ה לא אפשר לצוות בהחלט למנות מלך כ״ז שלא עלה בהסכמת העם לסבול עול מלך עפ״י שרואים מדינות אשר סביבותיהם מתנהגים בסדר יותר נכון. או אז מ״ע לסנהדרין למנות מלך.

Also the Maharil Diskin al haTorah here:

והעיקר שהמצוה אינה חלה כ"א דוקא בעת שישאלו מלך

 Reb Nochum Stone sent in something akin to but different than the Netziv by the government issue (which I described as a chimera of Hobbes and Locke,) and expanded it to the Beis Olamim. He said:

very much reminds me of ramban on 16 bamidbar 21 where he suggests that the people were at fault for not demanding  a beit olamim and  thus suffered david's plague

also Malbim on l'shichno tidrishu in Devarim 12:5 - that the navi will receive the proper inspiration to reveal the makom asher yivchar only when the people demand it of him-

ולמד ממ"ש לשכנו תדרשו, שהדרישה היא מה שחוקר בעצמו למצוא את הדבר, וז"ש דרוש ומוצא, למד להם שלא יגלה ה' סודו ע"י נביאיו להודיעם מקום הנבחר רק אם ישתדלו בזה וידרשו אחריו, ואז יערה עליהם רוח ממרומים אחרי ההכנה הראויה: 


7.  17:16 ולֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה לּוֹ מְאֹד    A king is not allowed to marry too many women or have too great a fortune. (Chazal define these terms: The king is allowed to accumulate only what is necessary to maintain his household and run the government, and he is allowed no more than eighteen consorts.) What if he had these things before being crowned. Does he have to divest and divorce in order to become king?

Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos San (note 90 on page 22) in Ein Mishpat says no, just like Kohen Gadol who was married to an almanah before his appointment to be Kohen Gadol. Rav Chaim Kanievsky  is not sure.

 

8. שום תשים עליך מלך  teaches us that a king is not allowed to show deference to any man. Unlike a parent, or a Kohen, or a talmid chacham, he is not allowed to forego his honor.    מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול.  Is a king allowed to serve his parents? Is a king allowed to stand up for his parents?

R Chaim Kanievsky says that in Melachim I  2:19 we are told that Shlomo stood up for his mother, so there must be a din kibbud av by a king.

ותבא בת שבע אל המלך שלמה לדבר לו על אדניהו ויקם המלך לקראתה וישתחו לה וישב על כסאו וישם כסא לאם המלך ותשב לימינו

(Clear proof, yes, but we can only speculate as to why this is so. I think the answer is that when Shlomo stood up for Bas Sheva, or according to some it was for Rus herself, he was honoring his own malchus. Bas Sheva ensured that he become king during the Adoniyahu problem, and obviously Rus was the אם המלכות and brought qualities to the house of Dovid that made his family the eternal Malchus of Klal YIsrael. Shlomo was standing up for his own malchus.) 

( I came across this in Feb 2026, it's useful.

מתוך ה'מגדלות מרקחים':

ויקח יתרו חתן משה עולה וזבחים לאלהים ויבוא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכל לחם עם חותן משה לפני האלהים (יח יב)

פירש רש"י "ומשה היכן הלך, והלא הוא שיצא לקראתו וגרם לו את כל הכבוד, אלא שהיה עומד ומשמש לפניהם", עכ"ל. ובצדה לדרך הביא קושיית רבי אליעזר אשכנזי בעל מעשי ה', הרי בקידושין לב: אמרינן דאפילו למ"ד שהרב והנשיא שמחלו על כבודם כבודו מחול, מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול, א"כ איך היה יכול לשמש לפניהם, הרי משה רבינו מלך היה כדאיתא בזבחים (קב.).

ולכאורה יש ליישב, דהנה בסוטה מא: איתא דאגריפס המלך מחל על כבודו ועמד בקריאת ההקהל, והקשו בגמ' הרי מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול, ותירצו "מצוה שאני". והקשו בתוס' (ד"ה מצוה) מקידושין לב: דפרכינן על מ"ד דנשיא שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול, מהא דתניא "מעשה ברבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ורבי צדוק שהיו מסובין בבית המשתה בנו של רבן גמליאל והיה רבן גמליאל עומד ומשקה עליהם", ואמאי לא מתרצינן מצוה שאני, שהיה שם מצוה של כבוד חכמים וכבוד האורחין. ותירצו דעל מלך אין מצוה לחלוק כבוד לבשר ודם דאדרבה החכמים מצווים בכבודו יותר ממה שהוא מצווה בכבודם שהרי גם עליהם אמרה תורה שום תשים עליך מלך, וא"כ נמצא דמה שהמלך מכבד אותם אינו מצוה כלל.

א"כ הכא דמה שמשה רבינו היה משמש עליהם הוא משום כבודו של יתרו, ויש בזה מצוה של כבוד האורחין וגם חייב אדם בכבוד חמיו כדאיתא בילקוט שמעוני בריש הפרשה שמחמת כן השתחוה יתרו לחותנו, ואילו יתרו לא היה חייב בכבוד המלך, מפני שרק עתה העביר חרב חדה על בשרו ומל, ומסתמא עדיין לא טבל שהרי מבואר ביבמות מז: שממתינין בין המילה לטבילה עד שיתרפא, ולא היה מחוייב בכל המצוות, א"כ שפיר היה למשה רבינו בזה מצוה, ושוב יכול למחול על כבודו לצורך המצוה.

ובזה יש ליישב בדרך פלפול מה שהקשה בספר הגור (לרבי נפתלי הירץ ש"ץ זצ"ל, בעל סידור הקבלה) כאן, דבקידושין שם איתא "אמר לו רבי אליעזר, מה זה יהושע, אנו יושבין ורבן גמליאל עומד ומשקה עלינו, אמר ליה מצינו גדול ממנו ששמש, אברהם גדול הדור היה וכתוב בו והוא עומד עליהם", ומדוע לא הביא ר' יהושע ראיה ממשה ששימש. ולפי הנ"ל יש לתרץ, דר' יהושע אמר כן לרבי אליעזר, ואליבא דרבי אליעזר עצמו אי אפשר לומר שמשה היה עומד ומשמש לפניהם, דהא ס"ל ביבמות מו: דגר שמל ולא טבל הוי גר, א"כ מיד נתחייב יתרו בכבוד המלך של משה רבינו, ושוב אין מצוה למשה בדבר, ואין כבודו מחול.

 

9. Do you have to obey a Navi? What if he tells you to do something not because Hashem told him to convey the command, but because he has decided it is right, on the basis of his wisdom? (I am not talking about psak halacha. לא בשמים היא tells us that a navi has no special authority to pasken. That is in the purview of Sanhedrin, about whom the Torah says in 17:10

ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' ושמרת לעשות ככל אשר יורוך)

18:15 says that you must do what a Navi commands.

נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ יה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן

This passuk indicates that you have to obey the Navi, and it doesn’t matter whether he is telling you what to do because Hashem told him or because he decided it needs to be done.  (Based on Minchas Chinuch in 516.)

Fun Fact: this expression is brought down once and only once in the four chalakim of Shulchan Aruch, and applied to a person who was not a navi: In OC 125, the Mechaber says the tzibur should not say Nekadeish, only the Shatz, and the tzibur begins with Kadosh. Reb Akiva Eiger there says

סעיף א' אין הצבור. אבל בכתבי האר"י כ' דיש לומר כל הקדושה עם הש"ץ מלה במלה עכ"ל ואיליו תשמעון. נז"ש:

How do I know this is the only place such a thing appears? Because when I noticed it I was surprised, and years later I heard from the Satmarer Rov that it is the one and only place it appears in the Shulchan Aruch and the one and only place it is applied to a person who was not a navi.


10. What is the punishment for not doing what the Navi tells you to do? Is there a difference between when he conveys Hashem’s command and when he gives personal instruction?

18:19 tells us the punishment for not doing what the Navi commands.

וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֶל דְּבָרַי אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ׃

 אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ is not clear, but it is a serious warning.  Chazal say it means מיתה בידי שמים.

But notice that in 15, where it tells you to listen to the Navi, it just says אליו תשמעון, a mitzvas assei.  Here, by the punishment, it adds אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי.  Even if you must listen to a Navi’s personal instruction, it is clear that the punishment of אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ is only when he instructed in the name of Hashem.

(Based on the Minchas Chinuch in 516.)

 

11.  Our passuk says that if a person claims to be a navi, and predicts the future, and his prophecy does not come to pass, his life is forfeit, ומת הנביא ההוא. The Rambam (10 Yesodei HaTorah 4) says this only applies when he foretold good things that do not come to pass, not when he foretells calamities that do not come to pass.  Where did the Rambam find this distinction in our parsha? 

18:22

אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם ה' וְלֹא ִיהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבֹא הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ ה' בְּזָדוֹן דִּבְּרוֹ הַנָּבִיא לֹא תָגוּר מִמֶּנּוּ

This is only when he prophesies בְּשֵׁם ה', Rachamim; not בשם אלוקים, Din. A prophecy of good always comes true. A prophecy of doom can always be averted with teshuva, as it was in Ninveh.

 

12. If you personally witnessed a person commit a crime, or a sin, and you know for a fact that you are the only person who witnessed the act, should you go to Beis Din and let them know what you saw?

If you do so, you transgress an issur deoraysa in 19:15,
לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת בכל חטא אשר יחטא
as explained in Pesachim 113. See Chafetz Chaim in the Pesicha/Lavin #10,
ואם קם והעיד עליו לפני בית דין בדבר אסור ביחידי, כיון שאין יכול לבוא מזה שום תועלת לענין ממון ושבועה ולא לענין לפסל את האיש הזה מחזקת כשרותו, כיון שהוא עד אחד בדבר, אם כן שם ביש בעלמא הוא דקא מפיק עליו, ועובר על ידי זה גם כן על לאו (דברים י"ט ט"ו) ד"לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת", וצריכין בית דין להלקותו עבור זה הדבר.
The Smag (213) and the Yereim (244) say that לא יקום is an issur deoraysa beyond regular lashon hara.
The only exception is: it might be muttar to tell this to his Rebbi. First, there is a toeles, that he will try to straighten him out. Second, see Chafetz Chaim Rechilus 6:6 and Lashon Hara 4:5 from Pesachim 113b about ne'eman k'bei trei.  I do not know why only "le'Rabbei." The Netziv in Devarim 5:17 is mashma that a person who is ne'eman k'bei trei can tell it to everyone who trusts him. 


13.  You are allowed to cut down a non-fruit-bearing tree.  You are not allowed to cut down a fruit tree. If you see a tree and do not know what kind of tree it is, are you allowed to cut it down?

No. You are only allowed to cut down a tree when you know that it is a non-fruit-bearing tree.  20:20

רַק עֵץ אֲשֶׁר תֵּדַע כִּי לֹא עֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא אֹתוֹ תַשְׁחִית וְכָרָתָּ

The Malbim says that this is source for how most rishonim learn ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Taama d’Kra) says it has zero shaichus to that question. 


14.  If you do the Egla Arufa and then later you catch the killer, is he put on trial, or is the case closed?

He is subject to capital punishment.  After the parsha of Egla Arufa, it says in 21:9

וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי־תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה'

The passuk is saying that the Egla Arufa process is only a temporary measure, like an Asham Taluy, until the killer is caught. Once he is caught, regular dinei nefashos apply

 

15. What passuk lists the five duties of Kohanim.

21:5

וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי כִּי בָם בָּחַר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם ה' וְעַל פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כׇּל רִיב וְכׇל נָגַע׃

1. V'Nigshu haKohanim means they have to participate in the Egla Arufa ceremony.

2. L’sharso is to do the avodah.

3. Levareich is duchening.

4. Kol riv is that is is a mitzva that Sanhedrin should include Kohanim. (See Rambam 2 San : 2

וּמִצְוָה לִהְיוֹת בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז ט) "וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם". וְאִם לֹא מָצְאוּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ כֻּלָּם יִשְׂרְאֵלִים הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:)

5. Kol nega is the examination of Tzaraas. 


16. The word 'Shema,' 'Listen,' can have one of several meanings that are clearly distinct: obey, as in listening to a parent, to understand, as in listening to a spouse, and careful attention, as in listening to music. In Shema Yisrael, the word Shema can be interpreted in several of these ways. Find places in this parsha where the word Shema can only mean hear, where it can only mean focus or attention, and where it can only mean obey. 

Hear

18:16

כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר שָׁאַלְתָּ מֵעִם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּחֹרֵב בְּיוֹם הַקָּהָל לֵאמֹר לֹא אֹסֵף לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי וְאֶת הָאֵשׁ הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת לֹא אֶרְאֶה עוֹד וְלֹא אָמוּת.

Focus or Attention

17:4

וְהֻגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמָעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר נֶעֶשְׂתָה הַתּוֹעֵבָה הַזֹּאת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

17:13

וְכָל הָעָם יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יְזִידוּן עוֹד.

19:20

וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִים יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יֹסִפוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת עוֹד כַּדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה בְּקִרְבֶּךָ.

20:3

וְאָמַר אֲלֵהֶם שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם קְרֵבִים הַיּוֹם לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אֹיְבֵיכֶם אַל יֵרַךְ לְבַבְכֶם אַל תִּירְאוּ וְאַל תַּחְפְּזוּ וְאַל תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם.

Obey

17:12

וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

18:14

כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן נָתַן לְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

18:15

נָבִיא מִקִּרְבְּךָ מֵאַחֶיךָ כָּמֹנִי יָקִים לְךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלָיו תִּשְׁמָעוּן

18:19

וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֶל דְּבָרַי אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ.


Ki Savo 2026

  1.  How do you know that borei pri haadama is an acceptable bracha on tree fruit? 2.  Where do we find in the parsha a Haggada that is the...