1)

?Vayomer Hashem el Aharon be?Artzam Lo Sinchal?. Why here does the Torah use the Lashon ?Vayedaber ?, and in Pasuk 8, ?Vayedaber??

1.

R. Bachye: Because, whereas in Pasuk 8, Hashem was teaching Aharon about Kohanim - whose Midah is Torah she?bi?Kesav, here, He is teaching him about the Levi?im, whose is Midah is Torah she?be?Al-Peh?. 1 2


1

See Chavel?s footnotes DH ?be?she?Kevar Yada?ata?.

2

Refer also to 18:8:1.1:1 and See R. Bachye foot of p. 128 and R. Chavel?s footnotes DH ?ve?Hu Midas Rachamim be?Makom ha?Zeh?.

2)

What are the ramifications of "ve'Cheilek Lo Yih'yeh l'cha be'Socham"?

1.

Rashi: It disqualifies the Kohanim from receiving a portion in the spoil that Yisrael capture from the enemy. 1

2.

Ramban, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It implies that, not only will the Kohanim not receive a full portion in the land, like any of the other tribes, but that they will not receive even a small one.


1

Refer to 18:20:151:1 and note.

3)

Why are the forty-eight towns of refuge not counted in the Matnos Kehunah?

1.

Ramban: Because they were predominantly intended for the benefit of Yisrael. 1


1

As their name suggests.

4)

What are the implications of "Ani Chelk'cha ... "?

1.

Rashi (on Devarim, 18:2): It explains why the the Kohanim do not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael - because Hashem is their portion, and they receive all their needs directly from Him.

2.

Ramban and R. Bachye (both citing the Sifri): It implies that the Kohanim will eat at Hashem's Table. 1


1

With reference to the Korbanos (Kodshei Kodshim), which are brought in Hashem's House and eaten there, and which are not heir personal property - with which to be Mekadesh a woman.

QUESTIONS ON RASHI

5)

Rashi writes that the Kohanim have no portion in the spoils. But Elazar (and the Kohanim and Levi'im) received a Terumah of the spoils from Midyan?

1.

Riva: "be'Artzam" earlier in the Pasuk extends to "ve'Cheilek Lo Yih'yeh l'cha," 1 implying that it is only in Eretz Yisrael that they have no portion.

2.

Oznayim la'Torah: That was a Hora'as Sha'ah 2 - a momentary ruling issued by Hashem for that occasion only. Moreover, the spoils were given to them indirectly in the form of a tax.


1

Moshav Zekenim leaves this question difficult. He must therefore hold that "be'Artzam" does not apply to "ve'Cheilek?" (PF).

2

Which was issued before the current prohibition was taught.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars