Tanach Thoughts

Something interesting I noticed today while reading Rashi on Vayishlach. While discussing the wives of Esav, Rashi noted  that the wife called Ohalivamah (אהליבמה) bat Anah ( Beresheet 36:2 ) is the same as Yehudit (יהודית) bat Be'rei ( Beresheet 26:34 ). And that led me to wonder: In the Tanach (e.g. Yechezkel 23:4 ), and in later sources, especially piyyutim lamenting the destruction and exile ( some examples ), Judah is often called "Ohalivah", which is very similar to Ohalivamah, who is supposedly Yehudit (Judith, same root as Judah). It begs the questions: Why would Ohalivah/Judah be called after one of the wives of Esav, and is Ohalah (Israel in the same sources) also named after someone? (image taken from here )

Time for something a little different. Last Shabbat's parasha was Beshalach, which included the introduction of the manna (מן - man). According to Shemot 16:33-34 , Moshe told Aharon to take a jar of sorts (the modern Hebrew צנצנת (tzintzenet) refers to a glass jar, but Rashi interprets  it to mean the more likely pottery vessel of sorts), fill it with manna and place it somewhere for safekeeping. This was eventually put into the Ark of the Covenant for all time. Fast-forward thousands of years later: Ramban (Nachmanides), having narrowly escaped from the clutches of the Church of Aragon after having utterly crushed the Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani in the infamous Disputation of Barcelona , disembarks from a ship at the port of Akko (Acre) in the Land of Israel and settles down there, before passing away some three years later. While there, he sends letters to friends, family and acquaintances in Europe. One of the letters was particularly famous as it was mentioned by a number...

So, life got in the way (more on that in a future post) and I was not able to create the second post until now. Apologies to anyone who may have been waiting. To recap, the destruction of Shiloh and the apparent subsequent removal of the Tabernacle from there are never explicitly mentioned in the Book of Shmuel. We only have some later hints to this in Yirmiyahu and Tehillim. That question is: This seems to have been a moment of great tragedy to Am Yisrael, according to the two instances in which the event is hinted at. Why then was this not recounted explicitly? Last time I offered my own idea. This time I'll offer up an idea by Rabbi Eitan Shandorfi in his book "הדר הנביאים" - "Hadar Ha'Nevi'im" (the Splendor of the Prophets). Rabbi Shandorfi dedicated an entire chapter of his book to discussing the matter. He finally concluded that the primary purpose of the Tabernacle was to serve as a dwelling for the Holy Ark of the Covenant. No Ark in the Tabernac...

Yes, the title is a misnomer. The question was originally asked by the Mechilta on the verse . And that question is as follows: ""And he took six hundred choice chariots" ( 14:7 ): Whence came the horses required for the chariots? If you would say, from Egypt, is it not written (Ibid. 9:6) "and all the cattle of Egypt died"? And if you would say, from Pharaoh, is it not written (Ibid. 3) "Behold, the hand of the Lord is in your cattle in the field, in the horses, etc."? And if you say, from Israel, is it not written (Ibid. 10:26) "And our cattle, too, will go with us; not a hoof will remain"? Whence, then, did they come?" Now, the Mechilta goes on to explain that the horses belonged to those Egyptians who feared Hashem and listened to Moshe's warnings during the plagues that killed the domesticated animals. But earlier this evening I thought of two other possibilities: 1. The midrash in Shemot Rabbah 10:2 says (loose translation): ...

This past Shabbat is called "Shabbat Chevron" because in this week's parsha portion, Avraham buys the Machpela Cave and buries Sarah (and at the end, he himself is buried there as well). Tens of thousands of Jews come to Chevron and Kiryat Arba on this Shabbat. My yeshiva goes there every year as well (except for last year, because of Corona, of course). I didn't go with them; decided to rest with at home. I wanted to share a thought I had shortly before Shabbat. Rashi on Beresheet 37:14 writes : "FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said ( Numbers 13:22 ) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron ( Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22 ) — in order that th...