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.

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.