Conversation started Jun 13, 2012 at 16:37.
Jun 13, 2012 16:37
Why did the ten wicked spies have to die, why couldn't Hashem have punished them to reside outside the land, and that would have been a sufficient punishment?
Jun 13, 2012 16:49
@AdamMosheh Why do boale nidos get kares instead of growing scales?
@AdamMosheh In other words, I think your question is a good one, but is very much not unique to this case.
Jun 13, 2012 17:20
IMO a bunch of the answers at
8
Q: Jewish Life & Learning Glossary

msh210A glossary! This is for Judaism-related terms that come up on the main site whose meanings people may well not know. To search this glossary for (e.g.) משנה, type inquestion:this משנה in the search box at the top-right corner of this page and hit Enter. Note, though, that that effort may be sty...

are unnecessary.
Heter, asur, g'mara, rav -- these are words that come up over and over and over.
T'cheles, hagbaha, tz'nius, batel barov -- these aren't.
Linking to Wikipedia or elsewhere the few times they do come up might be better than having a glossary that attempts to explain so very many terms.
Just a thought.
Jun 13, 2012 17:35
Begin Parashat Hashavua' Chat #25 - Shelach 5772 ??
@msh210 What's up with the "??"?
@jake When I posted it, you and I were the only ones here. (Hi, @MonicaCellio.)
@msh210 Hi. Adam was early with his question; maybe he'll come back.
@MonicaCellio @AdamMosheh, come back! :-)
Okay, so...
1 hour ago, by Adam Mosheh
Why did the ten wicked spies have to die, why couldn't Hashem have punished them to reside outside the land, and that would have been a sufficient punishment?
@msh210 They did damage, though, by convincing the rest of the people, so just saying "you 10 out, everyone else proceed" wouldn't work. But it gets me wondering why they weren't punished on the spot like Korach et al, since both threatened the whole klal.
Jun 13, 2012 17:40
I'm wondering... What do you think the literal tranlation of "tzitzis" is? "Fringes"? And then "tzitzis hakanaf" is the "fringes of the corner"?
Does that imply that there are tzitzis not on the corner as well?
@jake I've only ever heard "fringes" but I've never seen any sort of linguistic analysis. And really they're more like tassles. Maybe wherever chazal derive this implementation (4 threads folded, 5 knots, etc) says?
Another topic: The mekoshesh etzim. Why did they put him in prison? Was that a punishment? If so, how could they punish him if God had not specified a punishment? Was it just to make sure he didn't get away? Maybe. But where exactly is he going to go? He's in the middle of the desert with no food if he leaves the camp.
Since when do we have a concept of prison in halacha, though?
@jake yeah, prison doesn't seem to be a form of punishment we use, so it must just be "hang onto him while we get an answer".
@jake Is it plural?
@jake He couldn't really go anywhere else, but he could have spread his ideas throughout the camp, maybe. "Lookie, I gathered wood on Shabbat and nothing happened to me! Follow me!"
Jun 13, 2012 17:49
@jake Bate din would jail people in contempt of court.
@msh210 Doesn't sound like it. What would be the plural, though? Tzitziot?
@msh210 As a punishment?
@jake To encourage compliance.
@msh210 Hmmm, doesn't sound like that's the case here.
@jake I agree.
@msh210 Like when trying to get a man to give a get, right?
@msh210 So do I.
Jun 13, 2012 17:51
@MonicaCellio That's one example, yeah. I think if he's refusing to do any mitzvas ase or comply with any court order, though. Or something like that.
@jake In this case it sounds like they were guarding him while they got an answer -- not the contempt case and also not punishment.
I wonder how they didn't know what the punishment was, though. Did they really not know, or did they know but need confirmation? Or looking for a reason not to carry it out?
@MonicaCellio They had already been told not to work on Shabbos, so he definitely was in the wrong. I don't think that it had been specified what exactly the method of execution was.
(I wrote a d'var once postulating this as an act of kiruv. Can't link from work, but maybe later.)
@jake Oh, the question was about method! That could be.
@MonicaCellio That's what Rashi says. "They didn't know with which death he should die, but they knew someone who violates Shabas gets death."
@msh210 Probably dumb question, but where in torah are the non-stoning death penalties given? I can only recall stoning being explicit.
Jun 13, 2012 17:55
@MonicaCellio Probably right. I guess even though he didn't really have anywhere to go, it probably was more efficient that chasing him around the camp when the time came.
@MonicaCellio Lev 21:9 is one off the top of my head.
@msh210 close, :9. You're good!
@MonicaCellio Thanks. Doubtless Alex could think of more.
@jake Courts did this later too, didn't they? If someone was on trial for a capital offense they held onto him until the verdict and then escorted him out. None of this "go home, we'll get you later".
With regard to the "tzitzis", I see Rashbam compares to Ezekiel 8:3. Interesting.
Jun 13, 2012 17:58
@jake Also a fringe/tassel-like thing.
@msh210 Yes.
@jake Interesting. (Ezekiel's imagry is always something of a cypher to me.)
Hmm, also from Rashbam: "הציצית הזה יהיה לכם לראיה שתראו אותו. כמו: מציץ מן החרכים
וכן מצאתי בספרי"
@jake Ibn Ezra does, too.
@msh210 Oh yeah. Didn't notice that. Thanks.
Jun 13, 2012 18:01
Welcome @HodofHod, didn't see you come in.
@jake Oh, actually he rejects it. ("There's good evidence for the second explanation so the first is void")
@MonicaCellio Hi!
backreading...
So the, what is "עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף"? Why not just "עַל-הַצִיצִת" ?
We know they're on the corners, after all.
@msh210 He has to, if he's going to head the Sanhedrin....
@jake And then what's "v'haya lachem l'tzitzis" -- the t'cheles string shall be tzitzis also? Three tzitzises?
Jun 13, 2012 18:06
By the way, since it relates to the parsha, I would be grateful for any comments/criticism to my answer here.
@msh210 Good point.
I was wondering... when the spies come back at first only Caleb speaks in favor, and it's only after the people carry on and rebel that Yehoshua also says it's a good land and we should go. What was going on there? Did Yehoshua need more convincing? I would have expected him to be prominent from the beginning.
@MonicaCellio I've seen/heard an answer to this. Wish I could remember what it was.
@msh210 Good questions are always more memorable than the answers.
@msh210 I can ask on main later, but figured I'd try here first.
@jake Do we actually know that tzitzit go on the corners if the torah doesn't tell us? Could somebody read it as fringe all around? I guess we're back to your original question about the derivation of the word.
@MonicaCellio I think I'd expect Kalev to be more prominent, especially here where he's trying to get everyone to listen to him, or to quiet down to listen to Moshe. Being from Shevet Yehuda is usually more prominent than Shevet Efraim, but it all depends on the personalities.
Jun 13, 2012 18:19
@jake Yehoshua is already Moshe's second, though, so on the one hand I would expect him to shush the people. On the other hand it's more powerful if somebody not on the "inside" speaks up. On the third hand he could have spoken to support.
My grandfather invited me to break bread with him for lunch, so that is why I was not here.
@MonicaCellio All valid possibilities.
@AdamMosheh Welcome!
Regarding the separation of the Challah for the kohanim... Why do they deserve to be given these extra calories? Why for all priestly gifts, and why challah in particular?
New topic: Only two times I know of in the Torah we find "מאד מאד". In this parsha (טוֹבָה הָאָרֶץ מְאֹד מְאֹד) and also in Noach (והמים גברו מאד מאד על-הארץ). Any significance?
I don't mean a a Shlach-Noach connection. I mean as to what a double me'od means.
(Although Shlach-Noach connections are welcome too.)
Jun 13, 2012 18:24
@jake Why me'od twice? Maybe for emphasis. Does there have to be a special reason?
@jake Where in Noach is that? (Sorry, not memorized yet. :-) )
@AdamMosheh Since there are only two it's worth looking for one.
@MonicaCellio Gen. 7:19
@MonicaCellio - Two, and not three or four or more.
@AdamMosheh Not necessarily. But usually when people emphasize something, they'll say "me'od" once. That's pretty common, I think. This double me'od is unusual.
@jake thx, just found it. (I had been looking in the "waters welling up" part, not the rain part...)
Jun 13, 2012 18:27
Isn't that one of the midot she-hatorah nidreshet bahen?
Welcome @DoubleAA
@jake Thanks. I'll be in and out today unfortunately
@AdamMosheh What is?
@DoubleAA Doesn't mention the word tzitzis over there, which I think is what Ibn Ezra here is trying to get at in his first explanation.
Jun 13, 2012 18:30
@jake The only thing I can think of (no sources) is that in both cases there is a sense of totality beyond "very". The waters completely overwhelmed the earth (let's not quibble over Eretz Yisrael), and the goodness of the land is so overwhelming that we should go in and not worry about the residents. Maybe?
@jake I was just pointing out that it says they go on the corners
I suppose I'm already assuming that they are referencing the same mitzva
Actually, if we believe the midrash that the flood didn't occur in Eretz Yisrael, then we have every spot on earth being "covered" by exactly one "me'od me'od". Probably doesn't mean anything, though.
@DoubleAA My point exactly.
@MonicaCellio Maybe. We'd have to go and check every time we find me'od once to see if it shouldn't really be doubled.
@DoubleAA I tend to assume that anything in D'varim that looks like the same thing as an earlier mitzvah is, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Jun 13, 2012 18:32
@jake true, and I sure haven't done that work. (Chat means a higher dose of thinking out loud. :-) )
@DoubleAA Oh, so there are more than two!
@DoubleAA Nice catch!
@MonicaCellio We discussed this somewhat, I think, in the Parshat Devarim chat.
@jake I see two more in Melachim and one in Yechezkel but you had only been talking about Torah.
@jake We've been having parsha chat that long? Wow, how time flies.
@MonicaCellio No wait, that can't be. What am I thinking of, then?
@jake Any of a zillion opportunities to compare something in the parsha to the repetition, probably. :-)
Jun 13, 2012 18:38
That's Kings I 7:47, II 10:4 and Ezekiel 37:10 in case you're wondering.
@MonicaCellio Ah, I'm remembering the Parshat Vayeishev chat. We talked about yibum.
Or at least I did. :)
@jake Good memory!
Gotta drop off now. Thanks for the good chat all.
I think @msh210 left, so...
End Parashat Hashavua' Chat - Shelach 5772
@MonicaCellio Thanks to you.
Jun 13, 2012 19:28
@jake, you bring a lot of comments from Abarbanel that make me want to learn more. Can you recommend an English translation for his torah commentary?
Jun 13, 2012 19:59
@MonicaCellio I do so because he is my "favorite commentator" and really the only one that I've read extensively. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any English translations of his commentaries. (There is this. I've never seen it before, so not sure how good it is.)
@MonicaCellio His commentaries are generally not as popular, probably because he is extremely verbose to the point of prolixity. It is, however, probably worthwhile to read the original Hebrew if possible, since Abarbanel's Hebrew is, IMO, of the most beautiful and enrapturing to have been written in the Middle Ages.
Jun 13, 2012 20:10
@MonicaCellio Oh, and Menachem Kellner translated his "Rosh Amanah" into English, which I have not read (the English version). It's not a Biblical commentary though (although it does include a discussion of the introductory verses to the Decalogue from Maimonides' perspective), but rather a discourse regarding Mamonides' thirteen principles of faith.
Jun 13, 2012 20:21
@jake Thanks for the help! I hope to one day be able to read his commentaries in Hebrew, but alas I am not there yet. (I still often need vowels and my vocabulary isn't that great yet.)
@MonicaCellio No problem. Good luck.
I'll ask if my rabbi has anything to say about that English book of selections. That sounds like a reasonable starting place. (As does the other.)
Jun 13, 2012 20:44
Yippie I can downvote!!
Jun 13, 2012 21:39
@msh210 I thought it was relevant to this case because they were already outside the land. Why did they have to die? Why not just have them not enter and live? Does that make sense now?
@MonicaCellio Doesn't it say that they were in fact punished?
@jake - Learning something out from it happening not only once, or multiple times, but only twice.
I never got a response to this one - chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/4950062#4950062 (see message immediately below)
3 hours ago, by Adam Mosheh
Regarding the separation of the Challah for the kohanim... Why do they deserve to be given these extra calories? Why for all priestly gifts, and why challah in particular?
 
Conversation ended Jun 13, 2012 at 21:43.