meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Torah Temimah/Torah/Torah Temimah on Torah/English/merged.txt"}
text: Torah Temimah on Torah
  תורה תמימה על התורה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Torah Temimah on Torah
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  
  
  Paragraph 8
  
  
  
  Paragraph 9
  
  
  
  Paragraph 10
  
  
  
  Paragraph 11
  
  I am unworthy, etc. - (Shabbat 32a): [Rabbi Yannai] said, "A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they [on High] will perform a miracle for him, lest they do not perform a miracle for him. And [even] if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits." Rabbi Ḥanin said, "What is the verse [that alludes to this]? When Jacob said, '<i>Katonti</i> (I am not worthy) of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which You have shown unto Your servant'" (Genesis 32:11). 4<i class="footnote"> He explains "<i>katonti</i>," as my merits have become small. But ostensibly, this requires [further] study - as note that Ya'akov [only] used this expression out of modesty. So there is no hint here to the diminution of merits. And see Ramban and Maharsha, who have [already] pointed this out. But it appears to me that [its understanding] is according to that which is written in Bava Kamma 50b, "Anyone who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is a Relinquisher will have his life relinquished." And if so, once Ya'akov said that he was not worthy of all the goodnesses; if so, they could not be done for him for free, but rather his merits [must have been] diminished.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  
  
  Paragraph 8
  
  
  
  Paragraph 9
  
  
  
  Paragraph 10
  
  
  
  Paragraph 11
  
  
  
  Paragraph 12
  
  
  
  Paragraph 13
  
  
  
  Paragraph 14
  
  
  
  Paragraph 15
  
  
  
  Paragraph 16
  
  
  
  Paragraph 17
  
  
  
  Paragraph 18
  
  
  
  Paragraph 19
  
  
  
  Paragraph 20
  
  
  
  Paragraph 21
  
  
  
  Paragraph 22
  
  To rescue him. See Rashi; the Rashba derives from here that good deeds should be publicized.
  
  Paragraph 23
  
  
  
  Paragraph 24
  
  There was no water in it. The pit was twenty cubits deep, so they could not see that it was filled with snakes. That is why his miraculous survival did not cause them to repent.
  
  Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  From where do we derive that we drink four cups of wine at the Pesach [seder]? Rabbi Yohanan said: It  corresponds to the four redemptions: 'I will  take you out;'  'I will save you;' 'I will redeem you;' 'I will take you to me.' Three of these are found in this  verse, and one in the verse immediately following. In all of the decisors and commentators and books of legends that bring this saying, it is brought using the language, "It corresponds to the four languages of redemption." But if we look in the Palestinian Talmud from which the phrase is quoted, the word "languages" is missing. Rather it says, "four redemptions." In my view, this is a very significant distinction. For if we understand it according to its plain meaning, the notion of four languages of redemption is not a reason to establish four cups of thanksgiving, since there is but one redemption, whether we speak of it using one word or four.  But if there are four redemptions, then that explains the matter much better, for when we examine it well we find that there are four different ideas expressed in these four terms, and each one  is its own complete idea unto itself and deserving of its own thanksgiving. In the first statement ("I will take you out"), we see that the Holy Blessed One took them out from under the labors of the Egyptians, which is to say that God lightened their labors--but they were not freed completely. Then God added to this, "And I will save you from their servitude," which means that they did not serve them at all. But even after these two promises, they were still servants to Pharaoh and had not achieved full redemption.  Thus God added, "And I will redeem you," but even so they were not yet made a special acquisition of the Holy Blessed One, and so God added, "And I will take you to me to be a people, and I will be God to  you." We see that within these sayings are included  separate notions of redemption. The verses continue in a "not only this, but also this" fashion--that is to say, not only will I do this, but I will also do this, and not only that, but also this, etc. As such, the simple meaning is revealed: We are obligated to give thanks for each individual act that increased the redemption. And that is why [the Sages] established the four cups of thanksgiving. And why did they not establish a cup for the phrase "and I will bring you to the land?" We cannot say that it is because that language is unrelated to the redemption, since they  established a cup for "and I will take you to me to be a people," which is likewise not specifically an aspect of redemption. Rather, the simple answer is that since we are still in exile, and the land is in the hands of foreigners, it is impossible to raise a glass of wine for this. And perhaps, in recognition of this, they established a special cup in the name of Elijah, as a remembrance and hint that we hope for his coming and for the resurrection of the nation and the land speedily in our days.
  
  Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  But the offerings themselves, the women do indeed bring them. The explanation is not that women may not, but rather that they are not obligated, as is explained in Chagiga 15b that women would indeed lay their hands on [Rambam 3:8 Laws of Offerings does not make this point explicit]. But as emissaries of their husbands they indeed would be prohibited, as will be explained in verse 4, on the phrase "he lays his hand", and see Tosafot on Mas. Rosh Hashana 33a. Similarly, the gemara exempts women from all of the various actions of the offering - the waving, approaching, kamitza, incense offering, slitting, blood-receing, and springkling - since for all of these the verse states "the sons of Israel/Aaron" and the sages extrapolate this to mean, "and not the daughters of Israel/Aaron." Tosafot question this, and ask why the sages needed to exclude women from all of these [based on these verses]; they should already be excluded based on the broad principle of "positive time-bound commandments", as these actions only take place during the day, as we learn in the verse at the end of Parshat Tzav. But I do not understand this; what did Tosafot see to ask such a question?! The essential act of bringing an offering itself only happens during the day, and yet once we have seen that the Torah empowers women to bring offerings like men, then clearly the Torah has obligated them in the mitzvah of offerings even though it is a time-bound mitzvah! And therefore, one in fact would've assumed that they are similarly obligated in all of the constituitive elements of the offering, and there would not have been a logical reason to exempt them from the details when they are obligated in the general action....     And as for the general principle that women are obligated in offerings like men: the source is in Torat Cohanim, Parshat Emor (22:18) -  איש איש מבית ישראל ומן הגר בישראל אשר יקריב קרבנו לכל נדריהם וגו', בישראל לרבות נשים ועבדים - And similarly explains the Rambam in Hil. Korbanot, 3:2. "Men, women, and slaves all bring offerings." The Kessef Mishna writes by way of finding a source for the Rambam, "It is obvious that the Torah equates men and women for every rule of the Torah, and we've already said that women do not lay their hands, nor perform the wave-offerings, etc - only men do these things - this implies that women do, however, bring offerings, and every mitzvah that a women is obligated in, so too are slaves." Behold, according to the source in Torah Cohanim that we cited - it is shocking to see the lenghty description [of the Kessef Mishna], who is trying to find a source for the words of the Rambam based on talmudic inferences. But the source is plain, obvious, and well understood! He should have simply noted the citation in the Torat Cohanim, and nothing further.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  
  
  Paragraph 8
  
  
  
  Paragraph 9
  
  
  
  Paragraph 10
  
  
  
  Paragraph 11
  
  
  
  Paragraph 12
  
  
  
  Paragraph 13
  
  
  
  Paragraph 14
  
  
  
  Paragraph 15
  
  
  
  Paragraph 16
  
  
  
  Paragraph 17
  
  
  
  Paragraph 18
  
  Sifrei Agaddah and Musar have long been perplexed as to how a Talmid Chacham can be associated with as ugly a characteristic as this... It seems to me that this characteristic is rightly described as being that of a snake, whose poison is weakened by its strike. That is also the intended message in our context.  Even though it is appropriate for a Talmid Chacham to begrudge and take vengeance on those who molest him, for the sake of the honor and standing of the Torah, such acts need to be in the style of the snake, whose effect weakens over time.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  
  The sons of Aharon. And not the daughters of Aharon. Rambam wrote in Hilchos Aveil that this is the reason why women are not obligated to become impure for the dead. [Only] the males are commanded to become impure for them. Since they are not included in the prohibition of “let him not defile himself with the dead,” therefore they are not subject to the commandment of becoming impure …
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  
  
  Paragraph 8
  
  
  
  Paragraph 9
  
  
  
  Paragraph 10
  
  ... 37... And it appears to require more explanation: The word, substitution (chalifin), is different than the word, exchange (temurah), in that substitution is a change in the body of the thing, such that another comes in its place, as in "and change your clothes" (Genesis 35:1); whereas exchange is only an emotional change, as in "And they exchanged their glory with the edifice of a bull" (Isaiah 40:31). And the matter is understood.
  
  Paragraph 11
  
  
  
  Paragraph 12
  
  
  
  Paragraph 13
  
  
  
  Paragraph 14
  
  
  
  Paragraph 15
  
  
  
  Paragraph 16
  
  
  
  Paragraph 17
  
  
  
  Paragraph 18
  
  
  
  Paragraph 19
  
  
  
  Paragraph 20
  
  
  
  Paragraph 21
  
  
  
  Paragraph 22
  
  
  
  Paragraph 23
  
  
  
  Paragraph 24
  
  
  
  Paragraph 25
  
  
  
  Paragraph 26
  
  
  
  Paragraph 27
  
  
  
  Paragraph 28
  
  
  
  Paragraph 29
  
  
  
  Paragraph 30
  
  
  
  Paragraph 31
  
  
  
  Paragraph 32
  
  
  
  Paragraph 33
  
  
  
  Paragraph 34
  
  These are the commandments. “No prophet is permitted to add anything new” (Shabbos 104a). However, he is able to bring back a law that was forgotten using the rules of derivation. Similarly, when we say that Eliyahu will clarify it is also by means of the way of the Torah and its foundations. We rely on a prophet for clarifying the reality, just not for the ruling in halachah.
  
  Numbers
  
  
  
  Deuteronomy
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  Regarding that which we have previously written that the essence of the Mitzvah not to take the mother bird with its offspring is not to be cruel, do not challenge me using the Mishnah from Berachot 33b on which the Gemara says [the prayer leader is to be silenced] because he implied God's commandments come from mercy while they are Ordinances, from which one it would seem that the reason for [the Mitzvah] has nothing to do with "mercy".  This conclusion does not present a difficulty because the intent for which are obligated to observe God's Mitzvoth is only as they are "Royal Ordinances" and not because of the reason deduced [from them].  Were that the case, it would be [too] possible to stray from the true path by relying on the reasoning and inclination of each individual, as it is written in Tractate Sanhedrin (21b), "Why are the reason for Mitzvoth of the Torah not revealed? Because the two instances in which the reasons were revealed led the Gadol Haolam (King Solomon) to stumble". 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Paragraph 1
  
  
  
  Paragraph 2
  
  
  
  Paragraph 3
  
  
  
  Paragraph 4
  
  
  
  Paragraph 5
  
  
  
  Paragraph 6
  
  
  
  Paragraph 7
  
  
  
  Paragraph 8
  
  
  
  Paragraph 9
  
  
  
  Paragraph 10
  
  
  
  Paragraph 11
  
  
  
  Paragraph 12
  
  
  
  Paragraph 13
  
  
  
  Paragraph 14
  
  
  
  Paragraph 15
  
  
  
  Paragraph 16
  
  
  
  Paragraph 17
  
  
  ... <i>And it means to say that the "evils" are many and also troubling for one another. And it appears that it is good for [Rav in the Talmud] to expound like this and not to leave it, such that "troubles" is a noun, like "evils." For if so, it should have been written, "raot vetsarot rabot." But that it interrupted in the middle with the word, rabot, implied to him that just like the word, "many," describes the word, "evils," so too does the word, "troubling."</i>