Regarding the phrase, “and a spirit of jealousy had passed over him,” Rashi explains that this occurred prior to the seclusion. If he had become jealous after the seclusion, however, this law would not apply. In other words, the Torah writes about the seclusion and defilement prior to the jealousy, even though, in reality, the jealousy must precede the seclusion. We must endeavor to understand why the Torah changes the sequence of events. Why not record the events in their sequence: first kinui, jealousy and warning, followed by setirah, seclusion? Horav Yitzchok Goldwasser, Shlita, cites Chazal in the Talmud Sotah…
Back to Home -> Naso ->
Regarding the phrase, “and a spirit of jealousy had passed over him,” Rashi explains that this occurred prior to the seclusion. If he had become jealous after the seclusion, however, this law would not apply. In other words, the Torah writes about the seclusion and defilement prior to the jealousy, even though, in reality, the jealousy must precede the seclusion. We must endeavor to understand why the Torah changes the sequence of events. Why not record the events in their sequence: first kinui, jealousy and warning, followed by setirah, seclusion? Horav Yitzchok Goldwasser, Shlita, cites Chazal in the Talmud Sotah…
Regarding the phrase, “and a spirit of jealousy had passed over him,” Rashi explains that this occurred prior to the seclusion. If he had become jealous after the seclusion, however, this law would not apply. In other words, the Torah writes about the seclusion and defilement prior to the jealousy, even though, in reality, the jealousy must precede the seclusion. We must endeavor to understand why the Torah changes the sequence of events. Why not record the events in their sequence: first kinui, jealousy and warning, followed by setirah, seclusion? Horav Yitzchok Goldwasser, Shlita, cites Chazal in the Talmud Sotah…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…
Rashi explains the juxtaposition of the laws of sotah, the errant wife, to the preceding passage, which addresses the laws of Matnos Kehunah, the Priestly gifts. The connection between the two passages is that if one withholds the gifts that rightfully belong to the Kohen, he will have to confront the Kohen when he is required to bring his wife, the sotah, to him. Simply, this means that if one does not go to the Kohen out of his own free-will, he will be compelled to go out of a sense of urgency and necessity. This makes sense in regard…